source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What does "there ain't no one for to give you no pain" mean? This morning on the radio, I heard America's hit "A Horse with No Name". As usual when I hear it, I wonder what the following sentence mean. 'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain Wikipedia says that it is "oddly" written and also written under influence (while this explanation seems disputed afterwards). So because it is so odd for me as a non-native English speaker, I just never understand the meaning of that one sentence in the song. What bugs me most is the seemingly triple negation as well as the "for to". What would a correct version of the sentence be? <Q> "There ain't no one" means "There is no one. <S> " The double negative is colloquial and is used incorrectly. <S> As in "I ain't got no money" which means "I have no money" instead of the logical <S> "I don't have no money = <S> I do have some money". <S> Likewise I think the last "no" is also redundant, so "no pain" really just means "pain". <S> "For to" is a poetic and colloquial double usage. <S> The meaning of "for" and "to" is similar; only one or other of them needs to be used, not both. <S> The correct use of "for" and "to" is often confused. <S> In some cultures, where the distinction is not understood, someone will use both. <S> Poetically both words are used instead of one to provide an extra syllable so that the line has the correct beat or rhythm. <S> What is left is : "In the desert... <S> there is no one to hurt or disappoint you. <S> It is a place where you can escape life's troubles." <A> The lyrics of the chorus I've been through the desert on a horse with no name <S> It felt good to be out of the rain <S> In the desert you can remember your name <S> 'Cause <S> there ain't no one for to give you no pain <S> No one is causing you pain <S> While there seem to be not just double but triple negatives here <S> (ain't, no one, no pain) <S> I think the rest of the chorus gives us that there's a positive meaning here ... <S> we are pain free. <S> Quite how that stacks up with the verses is beyond me. <A> I ain't Got nobody. <S> -Santana. <S> A linguistically incorrect is a deliberate jab at the linguistic establishment in general.
| I interpret this to mean that there are positives to being in the desert, it feels good and you can remember your name because you are alone:
|
"stretch something to its limit" meaning I have encountered this sentence: Science can explain how gravity works between two objects, but why should it be based on the exact equations we find rather than others? In fact, why should gravity exist at all? Answering the “why” questions sometimes stretches necessity to its limits. What is the meaning of the phrase : stretches necessity to its limits. what is the meaning of stretch something to its limit? <Q> At least a couple of paragraphs before and after your cited excerpt are primarily preoccupied with defining "necessity" in this context. <S> What's being metaphorically "stretched" is the philosophical concept of "necessity". <S> Some theorists believe God is a necessary component of reality, for example, and others think there are multiple universes, not all of which even have gravity. <S> In order to cover extremes like that, the concept of "necessity" has to be metaphorically stretched so far it breaks <S> (its usefulness as a way of thinking about reality is broken, no longer functions adequately) <S> He's talking about the fact that we live in a fine-tuned Universe. <S> As Hawking says, The remarkable fact is that the values of [the universal constants] seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life <S> so people may say it's a "necessity" that the strong nuclear force, for example, is within a percentage or so of the actual value we observe (if not, we couldn't exist in order to observe the value at all). <S> But the concept of "necessity" becomes very imprecise (we're metaphorically stretching the definition) if we invoke the multiverse. <A> Or, very simply put, stretching something to the limit is a slang expression referring to stretching something—a rubber band, for example—until it breaks; or stretching something until it can be stretched no more. <A> A painting bears something more than the sum of its part. <S> Like every question might lead to a new one if we ask "Why?" <S> Necessity by definition on how it's being used in that Narrative - implies a state of things or circumstances enforcing a certain course. <S> The principle according to which something must be so, by virtue either of logic or of natural law. <S> "They're talking about how can Science explain the Law of Gravity, but the argument is WHY Gravity exists in the first place?" <S> "Well, that's for me or based on how I digest the idea from the choice of words in that Narrative. <S> You might consider this explanation as an option, but I'm no expert. <S> Cheers!"-Mike
| The phrase "stretch necessity to its limit" is best described as pushing something beyond its limit or need to re-escalate the current state of Understanding.
|
Can the word 'crowd' be used in plural I've found this sentence in a Straightforward intermediate student's book (p7): "I never miss." Mitty is holding a heavy automatic and the crowd believe him Shouldn't it be like 'the crowd believes him' ? <Q> "Crowd" is being used as a plural in your example. <S> Collective Nouns <S> (group, jury, crowd, team, etc.) may be singular or plural, depending on meaning. <S> In your example it is being used as a plural . <S> (Source) <S> Here is an illustration for your understanding. <S> Hope it helps: <S> From Oxford learners' dictionaries : <S> crowd: <S> [countable + singular or plural verb] <S> a large number of people gathered together in a public place, for example in the streets or at a sports game <A> Crowd is singular. <S> You can't use crowd plurally, you have to use crowds if you mean more than one crowd. <S> Verbs work the opposite of nouns, verbs that end in s or es are singular third person and verbs that don't are plural third person. <S> (Anything not third person uses the form without the s or es ). <S> So it's always <S> crowd believes and crowds believe . <S> Nouns that describe a group of X as a whole are singluar, if they refer to one of that group. <S> If there are multiple groups of X, then plural is used. <S> I don't know where the pile of papers is ( <S> pile is singular because it refers to one group of paper) <S> I don't know where the piles of papers are <S> (there are two or more stacks of paper) <S> I think it's technically wrong, but you might hear something like this where a plural pronoun is used. <S> I'm not sure whether referring to a virtual "all of the papers" which can be argued to be implied is totally wrong here. <S> I took that pile of papers and threw them in the trash. <A> Interesting that the English (the individuals who live in England) in common usage always consider a "crowd", "team" or "mob" to be plural. <S> "Manchester United have finally signed what they have been missing"
| Crowds is plural.
|
What do you call the bunch of hair you grow long on the back of your head? You see, it was quite fashionable for men to grow long hair on the back of their head back then in 1980s, 1990s, especially among singers and actors. I was watching an old show of David Copperfield conjuring up a trick and his hairstyle drew my attention. I've searched to find what it's called in English, but I couldn't find a clue. I tried semi-finish hair , back hair , but it was useless. Please see this link which helps you to find out exactly what I'm looking for. How do you describe it in English? Something like This man has a long back hair . Or something! <Q> I think you're describing a mullet : <S> The mullet is a hairstyle that is short at the front and sides and long in the back. <S> ( Wikipedia ) <A> You would say that the person has a mullet, and you might say that his mullet was long or he chopped off his mullet, but you probably wouldn't say "the short hair in front was bleached blond but the mullet was black" to mean only the long hair was black. <S> There are some related terms: If it is tied up in back it may be a ponytail . <S> If only some hair in the back is long, it may be a rat-tail (though I have not seen one in years). <S> Long hair may also be worn in a braid - again, the images are not necessarily perfectly representative. <S> Long hair worn loose is sometimes somewhat artistically described as being a "mane" -- the same term we use for the hair around a lion's head, or the long hair on the head or neck of another animal, such as a horse. <A> Here are some ways to describe that kind of hair: <S> This man's hair is long in the back. <S> This man has long hair on the back of his head. <S> The hair on the back of this man's head is long. <S> Do not say "back hair", because "back hair" means "the hair on a person's back". <A> Mullet. <S> Dual Exhaust. <S> The Kentucky Waterfall. <S> The Lettuce. <S> Salad (sometimes) <S> For hockey fans, it is classified as "hockey hair" in many cultures. <S> In Sweden the term for Mullet directly translates to "Hockey Frills". <S> In German Vokuhila is an abbreviation for Short Front Long <S> Back (Vorn kurz hinten lang). <S> The french call it a Mulet, though some claim it is classified as "coiffure de footballeur allemand" "German Soccer Hair" https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/03/09/hockey-hair-mn-glossary http://modesektionen.dk/hockeyhaar-er-kulthaar.5357.html <A> If it is platted or braided and and long it is called a pigtail basically a pigtail is a braided pony tail and a rat tail is a small pigtail
| I do think that you probably mean a mullet, though that generally refers to the whole hair style, and not just the hair in the back that is long. In Norwegian, "Hockey Style".
|
What would you call this type of song? I always liked a certain type of songs, and I can't find anything about the name for these kinds of songs; here's a link of the kind of song I mean. I mean, there is country music, rock music, and barbershop quartets; what category does this this song belong in? Thanks(I'm not English, so if the question isn't clear feel free to ask for clarifications) <Q> The song is called Can't Stop the Feeling! <S> by Justin Timberlake. <S> The link seems to be a cover. <S> Broadly speaking, this genre is pop . <S> However, the article says Musically, it is an uptempo disco-pop, soul-pop number with funk influences. <S> It's hard to say exactly what genre the these songs fit into, since they are a blend on genres. <S> But the linked video does seem to have a barbershop music style at the beginning, possibly doo-wop as Mark points out. <S> Towards the end it seems to be closer in genre to the original. <S> These are the key words you want to search when looking for similar songs. <A> This is a word that describes what classification or subcategory of music a song belongs to. <S> Unfortunately, song genre boundaries tend to be a little fuzzy or unclear, since as music evolves over time many 'new' genres copy from older song genres. <S> Do-wop can also include normal (non-voice) instruments in the song as well, while the 'barbershop quartet' genre requires four singers with no other instruments in the song (only human voice is allowed, otherwise known as 'a cappella' music). <S> Note also that the word 'genre' is used to discuss other forms of media subcategories as well <S> , so in movies you might talk about the 'cowboy movie genre' and in books you might talk about the 'horror book genre'. <A> I would call that a capella , or "without instrumental accompaniment" ( Merriam-Webster ), and specifically Pentatonix -style: <S> tight vocal harmonies, extensive vocal riffing, deep and steady vocal basslines, and a diverse range of vocal percussion and beatboxing. <S> ( Wikipedia ) <S> I believe that, as is common with Pentatonix and this style, the linked example in the original post gives the illusion of instruments through the use of layered vocals . <S> It is possible that it is in fact accompanied, and giving the illusion of Pentatonix-style a capella, but I'd call it Pentatonix-style in either case. <S> Note that Pentatonix didn't invent this; Bobby McFerrin, for one, preceded them . <S> However, the smooth pop-style and particular sound of Pentatonix appear to be what the example is trying to approximate.
| The word you might be looking for is 'genre'. In the case of the song you linked, I would classify it as being of the genre of 'Do-Wop', which usually has 'main' singer with several backup singers which act as most of the song's 'instrumentals'.
|
This is (a) team work This is team work. This is a team work. Which is correct? You work or collaborate together with someone is the intended meaning. <Q> - one word. <S> But you have to be talking about people and not an activity. <S> Work as a noun means "a productive activity" or "a result of a productive activity." <S> A person, however, is typically not considered a work (though his/her parents may disagree). <S> So you can qualify the noun work with the word team to mean something like "a productive activity for the team" or "the result of a productive activity by the team", but this does not really translate to "a quality of people working together as a team." <S> Idiomatically, no one says "This is a team work" because of possibility of confusion with teamwork. <S> You can say the more common string of words "This is a team effort " to mean that an effort should not be done by one person. <A> This is team work. <S> (For nouns) <S> Without including "a" it's similar to say <S> "This is stackexchange.com" or <S> "This is E entertainment television" <S> It's correct if we're trying to say that this what we do represents the truly team work (noun) <S> This is a team work. <S> (for the action of do things together) <S> Including "a" it's correct if we mean that We do this together, this(action) is a team work <S> , you know why? <S> because we're a team, teams do team work (noun). <S> I hope it helps! <A> 1, This is team work, is most correct, but would only be used in very specific cases. <S> Great job guys in setting up the reception hall, this is team work! <S> (While pointing to the work just done.) <S> The noun form of this expression is most often "Team Effort". <S> We've got an hour to set up the reception hall, let's make this a team effort.
| If you are referring to the quality of people working together as a team, then say teamwork
|
"He is good looking" vs "He is looking good" He is good looking. He is looking good. How to understand "looking" in the first sentence? Is it exactly the same meaning as in #2? <Q> In the first sentence, the word looking is called a gerund . <S> A gerund acts like a noun. <S> The word good is an adjective in this sentence, and it is modifying the noun. <S> The sentence means that he is a handsome man. <S> The second sentence use looking as a main verb in the verb phrase "is looking" and good <S> is now an adverb modifying the verb phrase "is looking." <S> The sentence means, informally, that he looks well or is doing well . <S> You often hear it like this: <S> Hey! <S> You're looking good ! <S> I have won 500 dollars so far, and I'm looking good . <A> As in, "He is looking good" implies that he's looking better than he usually does. <A> "Good-looking" is normally hyphenated, as it is an idiomatic expression. <S> It is used to describe someone's natural looks, ie their facial features and perhaps their physique too. <S> When someone is described as "good-looking" you would not expect that to change on a day-to-day basis (although good looks can eventually fade!) <S> It is normally used to express physical attraction to another person. <S> To say someone is "looking good" is a comment on their current appearance . <S> It usually takes in more than just their facial features or figure and includes their dress and grooming, and even their state of health. <S> This is less permanent, and a person could look good one day and not the next. <S> Also, this is less about expressing physical attraction and more about complimenting somebody - you might say that someone "looks good" after a period of illness, after some beneficial weight loss, or if they have made a special effort to groom for an occasion.
| In addition to the other answers given, I'd say "He is good looking" implies that he's attractive in general, while "He is looking good" gives a more contrastive impression.
|
The exact meaning of "must+have+past participle" Are these sentences interchangeable? I think I have left my keys at home. I must have left my keys at home. For example: If somebody asks us "where have you left your keys?" which answer would be correct to this question, 1 or 2? and why? <Q> We can consider the usage naively, in terms of the speaker's intent, and as perceived by the hearer. <S> Naively, the first is deduction (due to think ) or speculation (due to the lack of explicit facts), while the second expresses certainty (due to must ). <S> In terms of intent, the first expresses uncertainty and the second expresses a form of certainty. <S> The following definitions support this. <S> I think <S> so <S> 1 a. used for saying that you are not completely certain about something: ‘Is James coming tonight?’ <S> ‘I think so, but I’m not sure.’ <S> - Macmillan Dictionary <S> Must 1 used for saying that you think something is probably true because nothing else seems possible <S> : They must have got lost or they’d be here by now. <S> - Macmillan Dictionary <S> However, the reasoning assumed for <S> must is often weak or absent in conversational use of the term. <S> When absent, this use borders on false bravado . <S> To the hearer, then, both can be perceived to be uncertain, but in different ways. <S> Nevertheless, the terms are not interchangeable because the intent and connotations they convey are different. <A> I think I left my keys at home. <S> I must have left my keys at home. <S> The first talks about what you think may be true. <S> A thought can just pop into our heads. <S> The second talks about what you have concluded to be true. <S> Conclusions take at least a little bit of reasoning. <S> We use "must" after we have eliminated some possibilities, for example, they're not in your other pocket either, and not in your brief case, and you don't remember locking the front door on your way out of the house. <S> You'd probably remember locking the door if you had done so, and so the keys must still be inside the house. <S> Either one of those statements would be a grammatical response to the question "Where have you left your keys?" <S> So would "It's none of your business, dude, where I left my keys." <A> X must Y means for some reason, X believes that Y is true or had been true and X is unaware of any reason to the contrary. <S> Valid reasons include: logical inevitability: * <S> John turned left so he must be at Mike's house <S> (Mike lives down that street.) <S> you did something or saw something previously and have received no evidence to the contrary since then: "My keys must be in my top drawer (You put them there earlier)" something bad will happen and <S> the speaker/writer is sure you want to avoid it: "You must pay your rent." <S> a really strong version of should : "You must come over and play this game sometime." <S> sometimes used to issue commands. <S> "You must put my keys away next time!" <S> X think(s) <S> Y just means that X believes Y is true or had been true, but is leaving open the possibility he/she may be wrong. <S> My keys must be in the car. <S> (For example, I am remembering that I left them there) <S> I think my keys are in the car. <S> (I'm not really sure where they are <S> but I'm saying this is likely.) <S> The right answer depends on how confident you are that Y is true. <S> Must means you are very confident, think means you are not completely confident.
| Neither of those phrases has an "exact" meaning.
|
Does "at the same time" refer only to chronological time and never to logical sequence? Can one say, for example, "The publisher did not restrict himself to classics. He did publish Shakespeare, but, at the same time, a few years later he published Christie too" <Q> Nevertheless [c. 1700] <S> Under the context of the given sentence, the word 'nevertheless' would best fit its meaning. <A> The publisher did not restrict himself to classics. <S> He did publish Shakespeare, but at the same time 20 years later he published Christie too <S> This is saying that, for example, if he published Shakespeare on June 10th, 1980, he then published Christie on June 10th, 2000. <S> "At the same time" is saying that the times of the publication are the same, except for the year being 20 years later. <A> "The publisher did not restrict himself to classics. <S> He did publish Shakespeare, but, at the same time, a few years later he published Christie too" Here "at the same time" is an idiom means "conversely". <S> So: <S> "The publisher did not restrict himself to classics. <S> He did publish Shakespeare, but conversely he published Christie a few years later too." <S> So in the sentence the writer is using Shakespeare and Christie as opposites in some sense.
| The idiom refers to two meanings at the same time (idiom) Simultaneously [first in 1526]
|
Do I use set or sets in this sentence? Luxurious detailing, such as chrome-accented hardware and rich suede fabric, set a new style standard in travelware. <Q> Set as you've used it is making reference to something that happened and marked a change that resulted in a new, recognized, and adhered to result. <A> You should say sets because its saying that it is doing that now, but if you say set it would be saying that it would set in the future. <A> It depends on the context, are you referring to something that happened in the past, or the present? <S> On the Titanic , luxurious detailing, such as chrome-accented hardware and rich suede fabric, set a new style standard in travel ware. <S> ( In an infomercial ) <S> Luxurious detailing, such as chrome-accented hardware and rich suede fabric, sets a new style standard in travelware.
| Sets is present tense and is referring to something that is happening and/or ongoing
|
An appropriate antonym for "evolution" As we can see there are many antonyms for the word evolution . Please help me choose an appropriate antonym that would modify the word leadership. I need it as I want to translate into English the following title of the article: Cozmin Gușă about Brexit: European leadership ( the requested word ) will generate a chain reaction From the link I provided I'd pick up either decline or devaluation but I'm not sure. The word regression might do the job but I'm not sure either. Is it a good fit? In my language would be easier as the perfect antonym of the word evolution is involution but its use in English (according to the on-line dictionaries) is limited to fewer fields such as: physiology, biology, medicine, etc. I may have an additional question about the same evolution's antonym in case we can think of a language degeneration, or the so called degeneration would actually be an evolution too? So what would be the antonym for the language evolution? <Q> Examples: <S> From : Genoa and the Sea : ... <S> in terms of amounts of money and in terms of numbers of people involved). <S> This period was also one of marked political involution, during which... <S> From South Africa's role in conflict : The past characteristics of the Congolese state - corruption, personalisation of power, and ethnicity - continue to prevail during this transition. <S> The result is a process of political involution centred on a handful of rent- seeking cronies, leading to ... <A> It's hard without knowing the context of the article, which I don't know how to read. <S> Rather than point to a word you don't want, it might be worth circumlocution to describe what you do want to express. <S> Devolution comes to mind from sound alone, but that refers to power becoming more distributed after being centralized. <S> Strictly speaking, evolution doesn't have a direction <S> and so it won't have a direction-implying antonym as you are seeking. <A> I would go for weakening in this context. <S> The leadership of the EU is weakened by Brexit. <S> I would also amend the word order to "The weakening of European leadership will generate a chain reaction…"
| Political involution is an expression that you can use: If you are looking for a word that means something like "going backwards to an earlier state", I would favor regress .
|
What's the proper name to call a bunch of coins? Is it "amount", "bunch", "pack", "wallet" or something else? The thing here is that I'm a programmer and I'd like to create a new variable to store the number of coins in it, but I'm not sure how to name it in English. <Q> In the context you describe, you don't really want a word for "a bunch of coins", you want a word that means "quantity". <S> "Number", "quantity", "amount", "count", any such word would do. <S> If you have other variables describing the number of other things -- paper bills, credit cards, whatever, I'd use the same word for consistency. <S> Depending just what you're trying to say, "amount" would likely imply the value of the coins while "count" or "number" <S> would be the number of individual coins. <S> Like if I had 10 nickels, I'd say "count" is 10 but "amount" is probably 50 cents. <S> I think you do not at all want a word specific to "a bunch of coins". <S> Think of comparable words. <S> If you ran a farm and you had a variable where you stored the number of cows on your farm, a good name would be "number" or "count", just like here. <S> You wouldn't want to call it "herd", because a group of cows is called a herd. <S> set cows.count=47 makes sense and anyone reading the code could easily guess what it meant. <S> set cows.herd=47 ... <S> what does that mean? <S> You have multiple herds and this is number 47? <S> You have 47 herds? <S> It wouldn't help at all. <A> According to the comments, you have a class named Coin . <S> In many classes, the Count property is used for such purposes. <S> Then you don't need to repeat Coin <S> which is the name of class and Count is enough. <S> Quantity is another option. <A> However, for naming a variable I would ignore them all and simply name the variable NumberOfCoins.
| There are many words that could be used to describe a group of coins, depending on how they are arranged or what they are contained within.
|
Is "thirty past seven" acceptable? If it is seven thirty, we can also say "half past seven". I am wondering whether "thirty past seven" is acceptable. <Q> " Half past seven" is the common expression. <S> The following picture may help you and please see here : <A> A native speaker would probably recognize what you mean, by analogy to what native speakers actually say (1 minute past seven, twenty-nine past seven, fifty-five past seven, and possibly fifty-nine past seven), but native speakers do not actually use thirty past , except if they wanted to be "cute" or call attention to themselves by using a non-typical expression. <S> And, in my experience native speakers will not say fifty-nine past seven, since it's kind of "idiotic" not to say, instead, one minute till eight. <S> However, forty past and even fifty past are not uncommon. <A> Other answers have shown that there is a lot of variation in what is "normal". <S> The answer to the original question, though, depends on what you mean by "acceptable". <S> If you mean "will I be understood?" <S> - the answer is yes. <S> If you mean "will I sound natural" - the answer is no. <S> "thirty past" is not in the set of "normal" variations of how we say time. <S> If you want to say the word "thirty" then you add it after the time like "ten thirty". <S> This is very normal and actually applies to any number of minutes. <S> I'd go as far as to say that this is the "safest" way to construct a time: say the number of minutes after the hour. <S> "ten ten" "ten twenty five" "ten fifty nine" are all natural sounding. <S> Only the less-than-ten numbers need a slight adjustment. <S> "ten eight" would not even be recognised as a time, and "ten two" sounds like "ten to", which is means "ten minutes to the hour" the same as "fifty minutes past the hour"! <S> Instead, for minutes less than ten "ten oh two" is the way we say it, presumably because that makes it "look like" a time: 10:02 <S> ten <S> oh two <S> (where "oh" is the alternative pronunciation of the number zero) <A> "Thirty past seven" would be readily understood, but "sound funny" -- it would take an extra few seconds to process. <S> Times are generally expressed as laconically as possible: <S> "What time is it?" <S> "Quarter after"/"Quarter past", "Ten to"/"Ten of" if the relevant hour is probably known, e.g., the questioner and questionee have been waiting together, and the question has been asked recently enough. <S> If the hour is needed, the questioner can then ask "quarter after what?"/"ten of what?" <S> Some people answer generally: "Quarter after" for any time in the range 13-17 after, if there's no reason to suppose exactness is desired. <S> And of course some try to answer precisely: <S> "my watch shows 13 after 7" / "according to my watch, 9 minutes before 7". <S> One can say "15 after/past 7", but for some reason not 30 or 45. <S> The same is true of times before an hour: "15 before 7" sounds slightly stilted but okay, but "30 before 7" sounds odd and "45 before 7" very odd. <A> Half past seven would be the most natural way to express this, however seven thirty is far more common. <S> The past/to expressions are not extremely common. <S> I more frequently here quarter till (short for quarter until ) or quarter after , with the hour unspoken and implied when relative to an event happening now. <S> I very, very rarely hear anyone say ten to eight <S> , I almost always hear ten till eight or ten till here in the northwest US. <S> The past and to expressions are more commonly used in literature, having a distinct pacing and warmth that the common form of time does not.
| Half past is used more than half after but seven thirty is by far the most common way to express it.
|
Worship someone as a sign of love, respect, etc In my mother language when someone tends to imply that they respect or love someone else too much, they can figuratively say e.g: I worship my mother / my husband, etc. Does it sound natural in English to say the same thing or does it sound idiomatically unnatural? I would be really thankful if you let me know the most natural equivalent in English if it doesn't work. <Q> Worship would be felt odd here, because it implies not only love but deep reverence. <S> However, adore (which originally meant the same thing as worship ) has mostly lost its religious sense and may be used to express extravagant affection. <A> The following expression is idiomatic, and would not sound out of place. <S> I really love my mother. <S> In fact you could say, I worship the ground she walks on <S> worship the ground <S> sb walks on to love and admire someone very much: <S> I worship the ground you walk on - you must know that by now. <S> Cambridge Dictionary <A> Admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively. <S> ‘he idolized his mother’ The word "idol" itself of course does have some original religious connotations an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship. <S> But it is mostly used in a secular sense these days (e.g. Pop idol) <A> When spoken aloud, there is usually an almost ironic emphasis on the word worship , as if to proclaim that you know it's a very strong thing to say and indeed mean it that way.
| You could also consider idolize Yes, this is idiomatic and commonplace (BrE).
|
"She said she would collect the book on Monday when she _____ home from school"-"came" or "would come"? What would be the "official" way to complete the following sentence? She said she would collect the book on Monday when she _____ home from school 1. Came 2. Would come EDIT: A few of you guessed correctly. I'm currently in France and this is a test my English teacher gave me. It was just 20 sentences to complete, similar to these ones. She gave an answer that I'm 98% sure is the wrong one, but I need to know why one of them is right/wrong before complaining about my grade. <Q> Of the two choices, the simple past is best (although not "official!") <S> She said she would collect the book on Monday when she came home from school. <S> Irrealis conditionals like would call for this kind of tense simplification in subordinate clauses. <S> We use the preterite came here because at the time in the future when the subject will collect the book, the action of coming home is already completed. <S> In Swan's Practical English Usage, the author says: If the main verb of a sentence makes it clear what kind of time the speaker is talking about, it is not always necessary for the same time to be indicated again in subordinate clauses. <S> And also: Would, like will, is avoided in subordinate clauses; instead, we generally use past verbs. <S> This happens in if-clauses, and also after most other conjunctions. <S> Contrast your example with the same sentence using the simple future instead of the conditional: <S> She said she will collect the book on Monday when she comes home from school. <S> Here the verb in the WH-clause is simplified to the simple present. <A> It's typically a bad idea to use the same word, 'would', twice in the same sentence, and in this example 'would' is implied by the word 'came' so is redundant and unnecessary. <A> The usual answer is <S> She said she would collect the book on Monday when she came home from school. <S> By using "came" and not "would come home" we know that "she" will definitely be coming home <S> (we do not know whether she will collect the book, only that collection is the intent). <S> However She said she would collect the book on Monday when she would come home from school. <S> is not incorrect, but not often used since it is bulky and awkward. <S> Using "would come home" can be understood to mean she may or may not come home. <S> In this case, it might be phrased as <S> She said she would collect the book on Monday if she came home from school. <S> I think your teacher might prefer the second sentence since: 1) there is parallelism in the two <S> "she would something " clauses <S> 2) it maintains the hypothetical " <S> would" in both clauses <S> However, neither #1 nor #2 is necessary. <S> Just a thought.
| 'Came' is what I'm most accustomed to hearing and using in this context.
|
What are some other ways to say 'lots of time'? 'Lots of time' might be too casual to use in essays, I have used 'long hours' instead, what are some other ways to say 'lots of'? For example, in this sentence: University students have to spend lots of time to do researches and write reports. <Q> The expression "lots of" is seen by some English language teachers and examiners to be rather informal. <S> A simple solution is to replace a lot of with many . <S> The noun research , in English, is usually uncountable. <S> @bongbang is right in saying the verb, do and write , are preferable in the gerund form. <S> University students have to spend many hours doing research and writing reports <S> Use: amount of + time <S> OR number of + hours <A> "A long time" is nice and neutral. <S> "Long hours" is slightly more formal. <S> "Countless hours" is more dramatic. <S> All would work in your context. <S> PS Participles "doing" and "writing" would sound better in this sentence than the to-infinitives. <A> You can use the word shedloads of or a shedload of. <S> university students have to spend shedloads of time to do research and write reports. <S> We can also say a shedload of time. <A> For very long periods of time, you could say a task will take "ages" or "an eternity." <S> For shorter periods of time, you could say a task will take "a while" or "some time."
| Alternatively, one could use any of the following: numerous hours; a great / good deal of time; considerable ; a significant amount of time / number of hours.
|
Is there any expressions related to eyes which means extremely tired in English? In Chinese, we use an expression which literally "I'm so tired and my eyes could only focus on one point (or my eyeballs can not move anymore)" after a long workday to express that we are extremely tired. I want to know whether there are similar expressions related to eyes to express tired? EDIT: I also want to know if I can say 'I've got two glazed eyes after finishing all my work' to express my tiredness? And can a native speaker understand what I want to express after hearing this？ <Q> There's also the phrase <S> I could barely keep my eyes open , implying that you are having to work hard just to keep your eyelids from closing and going to sleep. <S> For example, ... <S> after the two previous sleepless nights I can barely keep my eyes open. <S> So tired she could barely keep her eyes open, let alone walk a straight line <S> , Maddy numbly followed wherever Ace led... <S> Okay <S> , okay <S> , here's one more goodnight story – the last one. <S> I'm knackered and can hardly keep my eyes open! <A> Weary-eyed is an expression that means "with eyes that look tired". <S> From: Family finances for the flabbergasted : <S> I know I'd find weary-eyed fathers waiting for lost sons and weary-eyed sons waiting for lost fathers. <S> We live lives of remarkable similarity From: Sealskin and shoddy: working women in American labor press fiction <S> The weary-eyed mother watched her stealthily. <S> How pretty — and how like the girl he had married! <S> She sighed. <S> Weary : physically or mentally exhausted by hard work, exertion, strain, etc.; fatigued; tired: weary eyes; a weary brain . <S> Dictionary.com <A> One expression is bleary-eyed . <S> Definition from Merriam Webster : having the eyes dimmed and watery (as from fatigue, drink, or emotion) <S> Example usage from the New York Times : <S> By the end of Alabama's 48-43 victory over Ole Miss in a Southeastern Conference showdown on Saturday, a weary, bleary-eyed Saban looked exhausted when the clock finally hit all zeroes. <A> When someone is looking tired <S> they are said to have "bags under their eyes" or be "baggy-eyed". <S> From idiomeanings.com : <S> After partying all night, Thomas had bags under his eyes the next day. <S> Another one is to have "heavy eyelids," "heavy eyes," or "heavy lids." <S> From the Oxford Dictionary : ‘an elderly man with a deep-lined, heavy-eyed face’ <A> To answer the edited question: Can I say "I've got two glazed eyes" <S> Yes, it's comprehensible. <S> This is associated with tiredness or eye-strain. <S> Be aware when using it that it's also (perhaps more strongly) associated with being bored, in general with not concentrating and with not looking at any particular thing. <S> So depending on context there may be some ambiguity whether your work was exhausting or just boring. <S> If you've finished the work and moved on to something else, and your eyes are still glazed, then I'd tend to interpret it as tiredness. <S> I think it's more natural to say "my eyes are glazed" rather than "I have two glazed eyes". <S> I can't give you a rule for when English-speakers put redundant numbers in, and when we don't. <S> In this case I think it can go without saying that you have two eyes, and that over-work causes both to be equally glazed. <S> Some people have fewer eyes, but using the plural rules that out, it must be at least two. <S> So there's no need to tell the listener exactly how many eyes you have (although if you had three or more eyes then it might be of interest to mention it). <A> My mom often said Prop your eyes open with toothpicks. <S> For example I was so tired today that I had to prop my eyes open with toothpicks. <A> You can use the expression 'Glossy Eyed' .... <S> "I'm so tired <S> I'm all glossy eyed. <S> " <S> "Look how glossy eyed those guys are over there after all that gaming." <S> "We smoked too many joints and are all glossy eyed" (also can be used in the context of cannabis)
| Saying eyes are "glazed" or "glazed over" means that they're not focussing as expected.
|
What does it mean to give somebody "a less than favorable review"? It feels awkward to give a famous author a less than favorable review. <Q> The writer of the sentence is not giving the author a less . <S> Less is not a noun. <S> The complete noun phrase is a less than favorable review . <S> This is the direct object of give . <S> Less than favorable means not favorable . <S> Another way to write this is <S> The writer is giving the author a review that is less than favorable. <S> So a less than favorable review equals a review that is less than favorable <S> This is a nice way of saying a bad/negative review <A> Edit: <S> This follows the general pattern in English (as in other languages) of using "not very" to imply the opposite of what a modifier usually means: <S> That building is not very tall (the building is not tall) <S> His moral character is less than pristine (his moral character is not good) <S> She doesn't think very highly of that movie (she has a low opinion of the movie) <S> The nuance varies between each of these. <S> The "not very" construction can imply somewhat the opposite or completely opposite depending on context. <S> In this example, a "less than favourable" review is a bad review. <S> The "less than" is a euphemism , a word or phrase that sounds better than it actually means. <S> As with many things in English, it's important to listen to how native speakers use this construction, and practice it yourself where appropriate. <S> Side note: <S> Favourable is the BrE spelling. <S> In AmE it's spelled favorable . <A> This expression is a great example of a common rhetorical device formally called litotes , but more commonly known as "understatement". <S> In this case "less than favorable" is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying "unfavorable" with the understanding that anything less than favorable is in a category of being not favorable. " <S> Less than favorable" understates the fact that it is indeed the opposite of favorable. <S> Another example would be "I could(n't) care less", for which there is roaring and raging debate that only saying "couldn't" communicates the correct meaning of "I do not care". <S> A less controversial example would be " <S> He was not a little surprised by her return", meaning "He was very surprised by her return". <A> A "less than favorable review" could mean a bad review. <S> In the case of a famous author, it is likely to mean a "lukewarm" review. <S> Something like "okay, but not great." <S> That is not a bad review, but not as good as one would expect, given that the author is famous. <S> This is known as "damning with faint praise."
| "A less than favourable" review is an euphemistic way to say: "a bad/negative" review.
|
Does "unbuild" in "Unbuild your Legos before putting them back into the box" sound natural? How could I change this sentence in order for it to sound more natural and easier to be understood by a toddler? I've been using 'unassailable ' or 'take them apart' but both sound strange. <Q> There's nothing wrong with saying " Take apart your legos*† before putting them back into the box." <S> (Or, equivalently, " Take your legos apart before putting them back into the box.") <S> "Take apart" is a fairly common phrasal verb, and it's about as simple and straightforward a phrase as you can get to express this to a toddler — or anyone, really: <S> it's not baby talk or otherwise condescending, it's just a simple phrase for a simple concept. <S> * American English usage considers the "lego" to primarily be the block itself, and only by normal pluralization (etc) to be the collection of such blocks. <S> British English is the reverse. <S> Since you put "Legos" in the title of your question, I assume you're using American English, which conveniently is my native dialect. <S> † <S> As a generic term for a type of block toy, there's no need to capitalize it. <S> The trademark is in all-caps anyway: LEGO®. <A> Another option is to dismantle your Legos. <S> to disassemble or pull down; take apart: <S> They dismantled the machine and shipped it in pieces. <A> <A> Put them together and take them apart <S> Construct them and <S> then de-constuct <S> them Assemble and disassemble Make and break Connect and disconnect Build and destroy Create and start again <A> No one has thought of explaining why the expression unbuild is inappropriate. <S> After all, if we do a belt up , (fasten) <S> we can also undo it. <S> Likewise, you can fix your hair into a bun or ponytail, and later unfix it. <S> We lock the car door when we leave, and unlock it when we come back. <S> Yet, to build and unbuild lego (or legos ) will sound weird to many native speakers. <S> If we can assemble an Ikea wardrobe, i.e. we fix the pieces together; we ought to say: unassemble , when its time to move to a new home. <S> But unassembled refers to the flat pack that we have bought at Ikea, the wardrobe that is in pieces and lies patiently in its box waiting to be assembled. <S> Instead, the correct verb to use is disassemble . <S> English is never 100% logical, <S> why shouldn't a child's construction be unconstructed ? <S> The word exists, but unconstructed does not mean unbuild , it means "not (yet) constructed". <S> Well blow me down... <S> I suppose to unbuild something would be like asking a partner to uncook dinner because it was unappetizing, once a meal has been cooked , it cannot be uncooked. <S> In fact, uncooked food means food which is raw, or has not been cooked. <S> So, I think the same theory applies to building. <S> For example, when a sandcastle is built, the action is completed. <S> A sandcastle will not last for days, but it might survive for a few hours, until the heat from the sun dries the wet sand and the castle crumbles, or until it is washed away by the tide. <S> A different action must intervene, in order to reverse the process of building. <S> And, by necessity, it must be destructive. <S> Destruction , not uncreation , is the opposite of creation . <S> The sandcastle must decay; crumble; disintegrate; be knocked down; collapse; or fall apart , in order for it to return to its original state. <S> A child's lego construction must therefore be destroyed, in some measure, i.e. taken apart if the lego bricks are to return to their original state. <A> Put away your Lego You put away toys, and Lego is a toy like any other. <S> Put away your bike, put away your paints, put away your screaming ninja turkey... <A> In a similar vein to "take apart," "break up" works well (and, to me, feels more natural) in this context as you are breaking up the whole into its smaller parts. <A> I've no idea if this is a Br Eng - only expression, or more regional than that - but I might say 'Take it to bits' for this kind of situation. <A> I agree take apart sounds the best for a toddler, but what I would say is "put your legos back in the tub/box". <S> The toddler legos come in a big plastic tub. <S> If you bought several tubs then you likely store them all in a bit bin or box. <S> Telling them, then showing them putting the legos back in the tub requires taking them apart, is probably better then trying to explain vocabulary to someone that is barely speaking. <S> That said, I would personally use disassemble in place of take apart. <S> No reason not to start the vocabulary building with simple house hold tasks. <A> I think the word "dismantle" might do, <S> as you are not actually 'breaking' the Lego pieces. <S> The Lego assembly may not involve assemblies that we perceive as being "built", e.g., would placing a brick under a Lego's man count as building? <S> What about placing an screens obj its helmet?
| " Disassemble your Legos" sounds appropriate, but talking to a toddler probably " undo your Legos" sounds easier.
|
What tense should I use in “caught a cold and stay at home”? I caught a cold and started to write email about that. I wrote it this way: I've caught a cold and I'm staying at home for a couple of days. Yet I doubt about tense choice. Should I use Present Perfect or Past Simple in the first part of the sentence? I'm pretty sure Present Perfect fits well here: it happened in the past yet there's apparent result in the present. Should I use Present Continuous or Present Simple in the second part? I chose Present Continuous to refer both to the present moment and to the nearest future. <Q> Grammatically, your sentence <S> I've caught a cold <S> and I'm staying at home for a couple of days. <S> is perfect. <S> In American English, you could just as well use the simple past in the first clause. <S> I think in British English the present perfect is expected here. <S> The simple present <S> I stay at home talks about regular or habitual activities. <S> In your case, you are talking about a single instance of staying at home (even if it lasts a couple of days). <S> You are not saying you stay at home habitually or regularly, but about one instance. <S> So, yes, your use of the present progressive is perfect here. <S> Functionally, your sentence also gets the message across, by the choice of tenses. <S> And it is helpful, for several reasons, to be able to choose the best way of expressing something. <S> However, what if you had written I've caught a cold and I stay at home. <S> Yes, you would sound like a non-native speaker, but you would still be attempting to communicate in a foreign language, and your reader would probably be able to understand what you mean. <S> So, don't be afraid to make mistakes. <S> Get out there and try to communicate in English. <S> Three fourths of the people who ask questions here just need to go attempt to communicate in English, and learn how to best express themselves by imitating native speakers. <S> They will learn the answers by trying to communicate. <S> And I think that's what you have done, because your instinct was correct. <S> Even though I've said that, don't hesitate to ask good questions on this site. <S> (But, still, learning by actually using the language in meaningful contexts is the best way of learning.) <A> Should I use Present Perfect or Past Simple in the first part of the sentence? <S> Your intuition that Present Perfect fits here is good; we typically use Present Perfect when a past action has continued relevance to the present, so since you are talking about how catching a cold results in staying home, it would make sense to use Present Perfect. <S> That said, if you did you the simple past, it would still be understood, but the connection between the two events would be weaker. <S> Should I use Present Continuous or Present Simple in the second part? <S> Out of those two options, you can only use Present Continuous. <S> The simple present typically indicates habitual actions (e.g. "I stay home on Tuesdays"); it has some other uses but they wouldn't occur in this case. <S> Present Continuous is used for actions in progress, which fits this case. <S> Alternatively, you could also use the simple Future: <S> I've caught a cold and I will be staying at home for a couple of days. <S> This could be interpreted slightly different from your original because the "staying" is now in the future rather than current, but in practice the difference is very slight. <S> Minor notes: At least in American English, in many cases, you don't need "at" with home. <S> For example, you can stay home, go home, come home, leave home etc. <S> Similarly, at least in American English, you will see couple used without "of". <A> It depends on which English you follow, AmE or BrE. <S> However, in BrE, you don't use the simple past for the actions happened recently with a result in the present; the correct tense in BrE is, therefore, the present perfect. <S> As for the part 2 of your question, this should be in the future. <S> As you can use the present continuous to express future events, your sentence is correct grammatically. <A> Regardless of tense, I would suggest using "so" instead of "and", as in: I caught a cold, so I will be staying home a couple days. <S> (AmE, informal) <S> This makes it sound like a consequence of the cold, instead of two separate statements.
| You can use either the present perfect or the simple past for recent actions in AmE, but the use of the present perfect is more common and fits well in the sentence.
|
When I write emails, how do I say my name? I am a non-native English speaker. While making a phone call, I should say,"This is Julie Park." That is what my English text book says. But when I am sending an email, what should I say? 1) This is Julie Park or 2) I am Julie Park.... <Q> Emails are not like phone calls; they are more like letters. <S> With email, the recipient can see your email address or, in some cases, your name before reading the email. <S> (For a letter, you would add a return address on the envelope.) <S> If you enable the option to automatically add a signature (which most email apps have), it will be added at the bottom. <S> The exact way you sign will depend on context. <S> If you're writing an informal email, you might write only your first name, first initial, or not include a signature at all. <S> Chances are, your friends recognize your email. <S> With informal email, you have a lot of freedom all around, but most people will expect a signature to be at the end (if you include one). <S> I also don't bother writing my name (or anything much) if I'm sending emails during a conversation with the person. <S> Usually this comes up when working on separate computers, and a file needs to be transferred. <S> There are two different levels of formal email, at least in my mind. <S> If it's more casual, such as an email from me to my professor, I will sign it with just my name at the bottom (and I also exclude the "Dear" at the beginning). <S> I may or may not sign my last name, depending on how well they know me (since my name is unique). <S> In a really formal email, such as one to a company with a job application, I sign with some variant of: <S> Sincerely, <S> Name LastName <S> You can read more about formal email writing here . <A> I write for my student paper at my university, and so I often have to email professors to ask them to speak with me. <S> Since professors are busy people, I like to introduce myself first <S> so they know what the context of the email is. <S> I already have to say "I'm a writer for [our student paper]," so I introduce my name at the same time. <S> The most colloquial way, I feel (as an AmE) speaker, is to start off <S> Hello, <S> My name is Azor-Ahai, and I'm a writer for [our student paper] ... <S> It gives a little bit of context and personalizes the email, but your situation will depend on who you're writing to, and at what level of formality. <S> Do they know who you are? <S> For a "cold call," an up-front introduction might be best, but emailing a person you regularly work with wouldn't require it. <A> I think people usually don't say their name first. <S> They tend to write their name in the end (Personal understanding). <S> The people that around me do that. <S> Like normally. <S> People would write regards, and nameBut the name is at next row. <S> You could search online to find an image of Email format
| Just like with letter writing, it is typical to sign your name at the very bottom of an email.
|
"On the test" or "in the test"? I know we should say "on the test" meaning performance wise, but does using "in the test" go as well or has another meaning? Do we say: So the kids are able to do their best on the test. or So the kids are able to do their best in the test. <Q> In the US it's always on the test. <S> "I hope you do well on the test" is correct. <S> "Try to stay relaxed in the test" is not anything that I've heard. <A> It's always "in the test", at least in the UK. <S> Something may be "on-test", but when a person is doing a test, he (or she) is definitely "in" it (and sometimes feels it). <A> In AmE: Try to stay relaxed and focused in the test. <S> (during it) <S> How well did you do on the test? <A> Using Google Ngram as quick and dirty reference, in the test is the normal, standard usage in global English. <S> Whether it is an AmE v BrE thing is less clear. <S> Switching to American English shows that in the test is slightly more popular in the USA, though in 1960 it was a lot more standard. <S> In British English in the test is definitely standard usage. <A> In the expression: 'the kids did well in the test,' sounds more as a natural collocation to me. <S> Here in Nigeria we tend to speak more of British English. <S> But I also know that the Americans usually say ' on test.' <S> And would say 'in test' if someone is on a test(writing a test).
| The more common preposition is " during the test" -- although if someone said "in the test" I'd know what they meant.
|
Do you have any thoughts/thought? Which one is the correct one? Do you have any thought on this? Do you have any thoughts on this? I've seen this post https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/134134/just-another-random-thoughts-thought that said 'thoughts' is plural. So, isn't the correct one should be the first one? But then when I search it on Google Ngram , it seems that 'thoughts' is the correct one. Can someone enlight me, please? <Q> Seems like you are using this in everyday speech or in a casual email. <S> So if you are just asking for feedback or ideas, you can use simpler phrases like: Thoughts? <S> Any thoughts? <S> What do you think? <A> The use of 'any' seems to imply that there could ber several of the follwong word. <S> So the second example is correct. <S> Just as you could say 'Do you have any brothers?' <S> But there are exceptions, such as 'Do you have any idea'. <S> You could say 'Do you have a thought on this' for the singular case. <A> "Just Another Random Thought" is the proper title if the writer is only presenting one main thought (whether or not it has other auxiliary thoughts included). <S> I'd say the use of "another" is what is confusing you here here. <S> An other (or one <S> other can only be used for singular things. <S> Another thought. <S> Another giraffe. <S> Another telephone call. <S> If the writer is presenting several unrelated lines of thought in their post, their title should be simply "Just Random Thoughts." <A> If you have a look at the dictionary there some uses of thought in singular. <S> Of course, in that case you have to refer to a single thought. <S> But you are not asking: <S> Don't you have a single thought? <S> You are asking more general for anything the addressee is thinking about the matter in question. <S> Thus, you are not asking for a single thought. <S> Do you have any thoughts on this? <S> So from context you are asking you want the plural. <S> Any takes both plural and singular nouns when being a determiner. <S> As you have already found out, the variant with the plural thoughts is much more common. <S> I am not going into detail about any and the nouns that can follow, as there is already a question regarding that .
| Grammatically you can actually use both, there is nothing in the sentence that suggests that thought has to be singular or plural.
|
The correct form of the negative of 'to have' My cat has no food. My cat has not food. My cat has not got food. My cat does not have food. What are the differences between these two sentences? Which one is the correct? Why? <Q> The second one is obviously wrong here. <S> Other are all correct and convey the same meaning. <S> Why the second sentence is incorrect is, the sentence says " my cat has not food". <S> Not mostly is followed by either an adjective or an adverb. <S> Example: her dress is not beautiful, his walk was not fast. <S> I hope I made little sense. <S> I am assuming that last sentence is a typo and it ought to be ,my cat does not have food. <S> Thanks. <A> My cat has no food. <S> - Normal spoken English <S> My cat does not have food. <S> - Reasonable English but would more likely to have the word 'any' in it giving <S> My cat does not have any food. <S> However it is perfectly normal with 'any' in it giving <S> My cat has not got any food. <S> My cat has not food - Grammatically correct, and would have been used in the past. <S> However it now sounds archaic and odd. <S> This may be partly because 'has not' is used to form the 'present perfect simple' tense an example of which would be My cat has not been given any food <A> I am no linguist, however, all of these sound correct and natural to me, but perhaps more so abbreviated as in: hasn't got, or if it's :" <S> My cat has not food" <S> then it would perhaps sound better with "any" added in as in "My cat hasn't any food" though it still has a rather archaic feel about it. <S> To clear up misunderstanding as to my explanation number 2. <S> sounds correct only if changed. <A> My cat has no food. <S> Correct but uncommon in American spoken English. <S> My cat has not food. <S> Just wrong. <S> My cat has not got food. <S> "Got" here is the past participle of get (chiefly British <S> : most Americans would say gotten ). <S> Your kitty has failed to obtain food. <S> My cat does not have food. <S> The most common (and to a native speaker, "natural") way of expressing the idea.
| My cat has not got food - Grammatically correct but is very rarely, if ever, used like this.
|
"go back" vs "come back" - why use one rather than the other? I think these two sentences are the same. I looked up "go back" and "come back" in the dictionary, and both mean "back to". So is there a difference between them? I don't understand why the writer would choose to express the sentence one way, rather than the other. Is there a reason I am not aware of? He wants to go back to his wife and children, but he doesn't dare. He wants to come back to his wife and children, but he doesn't dare. <Q> Both are grammatical and idiomatic, but have slightly different meaning. <S> In the second one, the speaker is in some way identifying with the wife and children, or where they are: probably implying that they and the speaker are in the same community which "he" is currently outside. <S> This is a systematic difference betwen "go" and "come" in English: <S> "come" almost always means to somewhere associated with the speaker. <S> Canonically it means to where the speaker is now, but it might be to where the speaker is going to be when the subject arrives, or it might be to the speaker's home, or the speaker's town, even if the speaker is not there or not going to be there. <A> English is so wishy-washy about directions, at least, compared with other languages. <S> In general consider the perspective from the person speaking, or the person being spoken about. <S> For example, if I say: "He wants to come back to Miami <S> " implies that I'm in Miami, or I'm talking from the perspective of someone in Miami. <S> "'I'll come back to you someday, John!' <S> she cried, waving from the window of the departing train." <S> The woman is thinking of this from John's perspective, some future time when he sees her coming. <S> In your example, the first sentence seems pretty straightforward. <S> In the second sentence, the person talking is thinking from the perspective of the wife and children, and so it implies some degree of familiarity with the family. <S> But as I said, this is general use. <S> Sometimes people will use one or the other interchangeably, whichever feels more comfortable. <A> He wants to go back to his wife and children, but he doesn't dare. <S> He wants to come back to his wife and children, but he doesn't dare. <S> In these sentences, neither he nor his mother is the speaker or the listener. <S> So to choose between the first and second sentences you have to decide from whose viewpoint you are looking at the situation: If you are looking at it from his point of view, it will be <S> He wants to go back to his wife and children, but he doesn't dare. <S> If you take his wife's viewpoint, it will be <S> He wants to come back to his wife and children, but he doesn't dare. <S> and I fully agree with @Andrew that it's utterly up to the one who's expressing the idea to make the choice.
| Anyway, both the sentences mean the same thing
|
When people brag about their abilities and belittle their opponents before a battle, competition, etc I'm writing an article about a myth in which two epic heroes facing each other before a single combat. The part I'm at now is when the two heroes start bragging about their abilities and things they've accomplished while at the same time they try to belittle their opponent by saying things like, "now tell me boy, you think you can handle a man?" or "before you were born I had been the champion of the champions." I think this part of the battle was mainly to diminish the opponent's self-confidence. The modern version of this can be seen when let's say you want to have street car racing and start saying things like, "let's see how fast you can be on that wreck." My questions are simply about describing this activity that people do before a competition, but since I provided two contexts, (one out of need, and the other out of curiosity), probably two words with a formal and informal register would be excellent. However, a neutral word is good enough. My sentences are: The heroes started [verb]ing. The racers were [verb]ing for a few minutes before going down the street at full throttle. Thanks. <Q> See synonyms for "taunt": mock, belittle, deride, insult, derogate, disparage, deprecate, ridicule, jeer, put down, make fun of , as well as slang terms like disrespect, trash, or hate on . <S> "Taunt" is the verb closest to your meaning, but not necessarily the one you want to use since it doesn't automatically mean "insult". <S> "Trash" is a good slang term in a contemporary context, but not necessarily when talking about mythical or historical figures since it would be a modern anachronism. <A> In the U.S., a good term for this is trash talking . <S> The term trash talk can be used as a noun or a verb, and it can refer to good natured jabs between friends, or ugly taunts at the professional level. <S> The term is usually used in sports, but is occasionally used in realms such as politics as well. <S> It's definitely more on the informal register. <S> (For a more formal word, see the synonyms listed by Andrew in his answer.) <A> Somewhat more formal: <S> hector <S> (hĕkˈtər)► <S> v. <S> To intimidate or dominate in a blustering way. <S> - wordnik <A> One option I haven't seen yet is Boasting. <S> Unlike the other terms I've seen mentioned, Boasting is speaking very highly of yourself and implying that you're superior to your opponents, instead of simply saying your opponents are inferior. <S> As such, it's considered slightly more positive & polite than trying to belittle your opposition. <S> Since your first example was about Heroes, I believe Boasting is a better fit. <A> I find that "chest-beating" (or "chest-thumping") works well here. <S> Of course the phrase is lent from the behavior of great apes. <S> Now that's generally only a behavior you see with male apes (and they have the better-suited anatomy for it) <S> but, uhm, the behavior you describe is really observable a whole lot more often with male humans as well. <A> One you probably don't want to use because I don't think it's widespread outside cricket, but I mention it out of interest, is Sledging. <S> Sledging is a term used in cricket to describe the practice whereby some players seek to gain an advantage by insulting or verbally intimidating the opposing player. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledging_(cricket) <A> US presidential debates are excellent examples. <S> They belittle each other but there are rules. <S> It's almost like a show. <S> Obviously they won't physically fight, but the concept is the same. <S> The word you are looking for is very environment based. <S> I would recommend 'taunt', 'berate', 'degrade' or 'belittle' versus slang terms. <S> You could say Hector was 'dissing' Patroclus, but it doesnt have the same effect. <S> Maybe in something like Romeo + Juliet it would <A> In the context of heroes, the phrase verbal jousting might be appropriate. <S> It means to have a battle of words, a verbal back and forth between individuals to see who can come out on top, and generally suggests an egotistic and sporting motive. <S> Verbal jousting is evocative of medieval combat and its inherent sense of pride and honor. <S> "As soon as the banners fell and their eyes met, the heroes began their traditional bout of verbal jousting." <S> "The smack talk went on all night, a verbal joust of epic proportions." <S> "In general, English comedians are fond of quick wit and verbal jousting." <S> Hope <S> this helps! <S> It's a fun phrase! <A> Try "posturing" It's a little more generic, includes ideas like boasting, posing, etc. <A> I do have to admit though that the word has lost popularity over time. <S> But it is still sufficiently current to be known, and does not seem out of place when talking of historical events. <S> verb: to address (a person or crowd) in an angry, vehement, or forcefully persuasive way <S> The word can also be used as a noun. <S> Examples: <S> The heroes began their haranguing . <S> (from story about Kit Carson ) ... <S> the exhausted mail party was pursued by 150 hostile Indians. <S> Carson guided his companions into a copse of stunted trees, where they tied their mules, then he arranged them in a skirmishers’ line. <S> He next stepped forward, fully exposed, and began to harangue the enemy in their own language. <S> Brewerton wrote, “Carson’s whole demeanor was now so entirely changed that he looked like a different man. <S> His eyes fairly flashed, and his rifle was grasped with all the energy of an iron will.” <S> And the lieutenant added that Carson knew “boldness alone could save us.” <A> In the context of opponents, you could try the phrase "Provocation" which stems from the verb "Provocate" meaning to provoke something. <S> This would be a bad-natured way of trying to get your enemy to fight. <S> It has an angry connotation to it. <S> An example of a good phrase would be "exaggerated". <S> The opponents want to show off to each other who has the better skills to fight. <S> Sources: www.thesaurus.com for ideas of other synonym relations. <S> Hope <S> this helped with some ideas.
| My first thought was taunt, but I think a better word is harangue since it can include both boasting and taunting. Depending on the context, it might also be "ritual chest-beating".
|
What's the difference between 'lead', 'cable' and 'wire'? What's the difference between 'lead', 'cable' and 'wire'? And which of these words is more commonly used for, say, household appliances or office equipment? <Q> Also, in American English, for household appliances or office equipment we use "cord" for some things and "cable for others", and occasionally "line" or "wire": power cord, ethernet cable, printer cable, telephone wire (or in a different context, "telephone line"). <S> "Lead" is not common American English. <S> I'm not sure if it's used more in Britain, or it may be used commonly in certain professions. <S> More often in the U.S. you'll hear "wire", as in, " <S> No wonder it doesn't work; the wire's detached." <S> As a related note: A recent movie "Man on a Wire" documents the amazing feat of French daredevil Philippe Petit who is (and will always be) <S> the only man to walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. <S> If you watch the film, obviously he uses a cable to walk on, because it's very thick and sturdy -- but he's called a " wire -walker" because that makes it sound like he's walking on something very thin and easily broken. <A> Cable is either A) thick and often reinforced or otherwise protected from harsh elements - <S> e.g. designed for outside or in-wall use, and/or B) consists of multiple thinner wires. <S> So we say phone cable , network cable , coax cable as opposed to wire. <S> Wire is thin and not reinforced or protected in the same way as cable. <S> Thin cables with 2 wires only are often called wires, such as phone wire or speaker wire. <A> Wire - a single strand of ductile metal, extruded from a die. <S> Cable - multiple wires or strands bound together for better mechanical / electrical properties than a single wire of similar thickness. <S> Line or Lead (elect.) <S> - a wire or cable used for electrical transmission. Cord (elect.) <S> - insulated conductor used power to an electrical appliance <S> these can be interchangeable.
| "Cable" is thicker than "wire", however that doesn't really explain when to use each of these. The first thing that comes to my mind with lead is that it's a different term for a leash , like that you'd use to walk a dog.
|
In general, do you use "must" or "have to" in Time clause? In general, do you use " must " or " have to " in Time clause? For Example: can I say, " After you must clean the floor, you can go out ". I knew that we are not allowed to use future tense (will, be going to) in time clause, but what about " must " or " have to " One of my students said that? I am an English assistant for a native English teacher! <Q> You don't use must/have to in time clauses that start with a conjunction like before, after, when, until, as soon as, etc. <S> You use them in the main clause. <S> For examples: You must go out after you have cleaned the floor. <S> You have to/must do your homework before you go to bed. <A> I think the student wanted to use the present perfect form of the verb clean <S> After you have cleaned the floor, you can go out <S> Otherwise You must / have to clean the floor before going out. <S> After is a preposition, it precedes a noun or "that" which substitutes the noun <S> After dinner OR After that , you must / have to clean the floor. <A> First, you have to clean the floor, then you may go out. <S> Both sentences have the same meaning.
| Since must have to usually define an existing and necessary condition, you could phrase your sentence as First, you must clean the floor, then you may go out.
|
The usage of would in "when a skeptic would deride their work" I'd like to know what "would" exactly means here? Please help me I couldn't figure it out no matter how much I tried. Thanks a lot. The Wright brothers didn't become distraught when a skeptic would deride their work. <Q> This sentence can be reworded as the following: <S> The Wright brothers didn't become distraught when a skeptic derided their work. <S> From this, we can see that "would" here means that the following verb is in past tense. <S> It can sound more natural and/or elegant at times, which accounts for its prevalence. <A> Would in your sentence is used to suggest a intention in a context that refers to the past: (also 'd) used to refer to an intention from the point of view of the past: <S> He said he would always love her . <S> They promised that they would help. <S> There was nobody left who would (= was willing to) do it. <S> * <S> I asked him to move his car <S> but he said he wouldn't (= <S> he refused). <S> Cambridge Dictionary <A> Would, the past tense of will, in part of its rôle as a modal verb, is used sometimes to describe repeated or habitual past actions. <S> That is its use here. <S> Compare Gray's An elegy, wrote in a country church-yard, from 1751: <S> There at the foot of yonder nodding beech His listless length at noontide wou'd <S> he stretch <S> That is the epistemic use; but would still retains some of its original sense as the past tense of will, and partakes of will's original meaning of want or desire. <S> As John Lawler puts it here , this is would used in its function as "as the past tense of a deontic habitual use of will. <S> " It is the " deontic sense of would; it involves desire and *will *ingness." <S> Thus, the sentence means: <S> The Wright brothers didn't become distraught when a skeptic habitually and repeatedly desired to deride their work.
| Would is most often used to indicate future obligation, intention, or prediction ( I would do that ).
|
words that describe an advertisement (works effectively to attract/lure people to buy the product) What words can be used to describe an advertisement which works very effectively to attract people to buy the product? I don't think I can say attractive advertisement or luring advertisement as there isn't any google results for those phrases. <Q> There are few words which are synonyms to attractive and also can be used efficiently with the word advertising. <S> Consider the following options: <S> catchy : <S> ‘They've come up with all manner of catchy slogans designed to tip the scales in their favour.’ . <S> alluring : ‘ Such entertainments offered alluring images of appealing stars surrounded by an abundance of consumer goods.’ <S> tempting : <S> ‘Staff can now offer a tempting range of products from well-known names.’ <S> creative (though not synonymous with attractive , it can be used with advertisements): <A> Characteristics of an Effective or Persuasive Advertisement : Effectiveness and persuasiveness of ads are closely linked. <S> While you often have different goals with ads, the general intent of each is to persuade customers to think, feel or act in a certain way toward your brand. <S> With this in mind, effective, persuasive ads have several common traits. <S> Ngram <S> effective, persuasive advertisement <A> perhaps try 'how to create advertising that sells '? <S> https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+create+advertising+that+sells
| Effective and persuasive appear to be commonly used in the ads industry:
|
Is it correct to say my domestic name is? A dear friend of mine is from Vietnam. In one of our conversations, I asked her whether I can call her "ABC", but she replied that is my domestic name. Maybe what she meant by domestic name is the name that her family calls her by. I am wondering whether she is correct in her English when she used the words "my domestic name". <Q> Because English is so universally spoken, one challenge is that it has to accommodate many different nationalities and cultures. <S> So while there are certain "standard" parts of a name (first/given name, middle name, surname/family name, suffix), it's possible that some cultures will have special naming distinctions that may or may not relate to other cultures. <S> However, Wikipedia says that Vietnamese expect to be called by their given name, even in formal occasions. <S> Since the order of their names follows the Chinese pattern of family-name first, you may have mistaken her family name for her first name. <S> So by "domestic name", she probably meant "family name". <S> To finish a roundabout answer to your question: "domestic name" doesn't sound right, possibly because it sounds like "domesticated", as in "domesticated animals" (cows, dogs, cats, chickens, etc.) <S> The usual way to say this in English is "family name", or "surname". <A> That's impossible to say without knowing something about Vietnamese culture. <S> She may be referring to her given name or you may have used a diminutive form that only family and close friends may use, or you may have used her family name when you should have used her given name. <S> You really need to ask her for clarification. <S> In English (Christian) culture we have: Given names (or first names - these always come first) <S> Middle names (sometimes called Christian names <S> - there may be none or many) <S> Surnames (or last names, family names - these always come last) <S> Diminutives (or pet names, nicknames - these can be used instead of given names) <S> Christian names are the names that you are baptised with. <S> They can be first names and/or middle names. <S> Diminutives are used by lovers, family, friends or even colleagues. <S> You may have the same diminutive for everyone's use (I do - see my username) or special diminutives for certain people. <A> Without knowing all the specifics I would say that "Domestic Name" is incorrect. <S> There are two probable situations that I can think of. <S> The first being that she (like most Vietnamese) has her Family name, then her given name. <S> What she was trying to say is that you used her family name, when her given name was more appropriate. <S> Or, you called her by a name that only her close family or husband may use. <S> A nickname, or familiar name, that is rude for anyone else to use besides her husband or close family. <S> The general rules are that a Family name is passed on to children. <S> All members of the same family share the family name (ignoring marriage) A given name, is the individual name. <S> This name is specific to each person. <S> A nickname is a name given to someone by someone else. <S> Usually a joke, jest, affectionate, or personal name. <S> Common ones that would not be acceptable to strangers and friends would be things like "baby", "cupcake", "honey", "love", "darling" etc. <S> etc. <S> Some times though these can be odd. <S> They may even be part of a real name. <S> I have a friend named Richard, his wife calls him Dick. <S> Though a normal shortening of the name, he doesn't like it when others call him by that name. <S> Short version, Domestic name doesn't sound right. <S> Unless she is trying to say that the name you used may only be used by her husband and children. <S> Even then, it's an odd way to say it. <S> She probably meant "Family name" or "private nickname". <A> I am wondering whether she is correct in her English when she used the words "my domestic name". <S> No. <S> That is not common English and <S> most native speakers would be as confused as you are by what she meant. <S> Google's NGrams shows basically no hits for "domestic name"
| Ordinarily you wouldn't call a person "domesticated" unless you meant to imply something fairly negative.
|
What is a plural of "To-Do"? "To-Dos" or "To-Does"? Say I have a list of "To-Do" things. I want to mention them to someone, so I doubt on how to call it: 1. I have many " To-Dos " for today 2. I have many " To-Does " for today 3. I have many " To-Do's " for today None of them looks fine to me, but I don't know how to check it out. <Q> In special cases, such as when forming a plural of a word that is not normally a noun, some writers add an apostrophe for clarity. <S> Example: Here are some do's and don'ts. <S> In that sentence, the verb do is used as a plural noun, and the apostrophe was added because the writer felt that dos was confusing. <S> Not all writers agree; some see no problem with dos and don'ts. <S> ( Source. ) <S> So I can imagine that many would say to-do's is ok. <S> to-does doesn't seem right, though I can't explicitly exclude it. <S> However, according to the Free Dictionary [1] and Merriam-Webster [2] , the plural form is to–dos <S> The original question asks for the plural of to-do , but OP's given examples might sound funny or odd. <S> Instead, you could say "I have a long to-do list" or "I have many things on my to-do list", for starters. <S> Speaking of lists, you could also say "I have a laundry list of things to do", though this is an aside :) <A> I wouldn't use the second one, since the second part looks like "many female deer (does)", or simply the English word "does" as in "he does the dishes". <S> And I dislike seeing apostrophes to indicate plurals - but they are accepted in rare circumstances. <S> That only leaves the first one: "To-Dos". <A> I would skip all of that and just say "I have a lot to do today" or "I have a lot on my to-do list". <S> Google NGram shows "to-do list" beating the other options by a wide margin. <S> If you really want to go with one of them, to-dos is <S> the most common, then to-do's, with to-does being dead last. <A> A distinction should be made between many items on a single to-do list or many to-do lists. <S> Additionally, to-do is the adjective describing the type of list. <S> The noun "list" is often understood and omitted. <S> If you want to pluralise or emphasize the number of tasks <S> then I would suggest something like: <S> I have many tasks (or items) on my to-do list today . <S> (more formal), or I have a long to-do list today . <S> (more informal and the noun "list" is still typically used) <S> but for numerous lists, I would say: I have a several to-do lists to complete today . <S> ... <S> and for a maximized workload of many tasks on many lists: I have a lot of tasks on my to-do lists today . <A> So the correct usage would be <S> I have many To-Dos for today
| The plural of To-Do is To-Dos .
|
What is the meaning of the phrase "in the hands of big money"? The following excerpt is from The Guardian : She needs to prove that she isn’t still in the hands of big money . She has only been proving the opposite again and again. I want to vote for Hillary. I just need a reason to do so. Please explain the meaning of the phrase in bold. I can only guess it may mean that somehow she was involved in some fraudulent financial activities in the past and now she needs to prove that she's no longer, but I'm not sure. The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms defines: in the hands of: In the possession of; in the custody or under the authority of. If we consider that collective mentality usually assumes that big money can only be made unorthodoxly then my guess could probably be true. On the other hand, being in the hands of big money might mean that she's controlled by big money, that is, wealthy people, but these are just my thoughts, so please don't get me wrong. <Q> On the other hand, being in the hands of big money might mean that she's controlled by big money, that is, wealthy people, <S> Pretty much this is what it means. <S> Although it might not mean wealthy people specifically but entities that have a lot of money to contribute to campaign funds or lobby. <S> These could include political action committees of both individuals, corporations (in the US corporations are legally equivalent to people in a lot of situations), sets of individuals, and industry alliances (e.g. RIAA, MPAA, etc.) <S> Similar terms are "Big Business", "Big Oil", and a new one "Big Data" to mean the extreme power - political, financial or otherwise - wielded by the powerful members of a certain class. <A> Big money is an idiomatic expression which is often used both in financial and more common contexts: a large amount of money: <S> Tournament organizers need to offer big money to attract the top players. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> Here big money is a metaphor for those who are supposed to be financing her political campaign (big corporations etc.), from which, she (Hillary) needs to prove to be independent (that is she is no longer in their hands). <A> It is not an official term. <S> In the hands of means controlled by.
| Big money here means any person or entity with a large amount of money who is looking for political favors in exchange for making donations to the campaign.
|
Does "should have behaved" means different from "behaved" in this sentence? In this sentence I can't imagine any reason why he should have behaved in such an extraordinary way Did he behave or did he not behave in an extraordinary way? If he did, why the author didn't simply say, "...why he behaved..." instead of "...why he should have behaved..." ? It is not clear to me why the author has used this tense rather than past simple. <Q> Your example "should have behaved" is a kind of "affected" speech that sounds formal and a bit posh or old-fashioned, like the kind of conversation you might hear spoken by wealthy characters in a period drama (either British or American, depending on location and era). <S> It's not common in contemporary American English conversation, and I don't think I've heard it used much on British television ( <S> other than, say, programs like Downton Abbey ). <S> So just from this small piece of dialogue <S> I imagine the characters to be people from a particular era and social class, or at least having a certain upbringing. <S> To answer your question: the meaning of "should have behaved" is slightly different from "behaved". <S> "Why [someone] should have done [something]" includes a sense of proper behavior, as in what society or your peers expect of the person. <S> For example, "I would think he should have proposed to her by now," is a formal and posh way to say, " <S> He should propose (marriage) to her, otherwise I think it's a breach of social obligation and etiquette. <S> " <S> Your sentence already refers to behavior, so the only additional element is the implication of social pressure on how someone is supposed to behave. <S> "I can't imagine any reason why he should have behaved in such an extraordinary way," is roughly equivalent to, "I can't understand why he thought it was socially acceptable to behave in that highly unusual way." <S> Of course we can say the same thing in contemporary (American) English, but I would use "thought it was ok" instead, "I don't know why he thought it was ok to act like that." <S> On a related note, Ngram says "should have behaved" was much more common around 1820 with another spike around 1880, but otherwise is appearance is pretty consistent over the past 200 years. <S> However it's possible that many contemporary uses are from period novels in which the authors want their characters to sound more upper-class and/or British. <A> Most of the time "should have" is used to talk about something we did not do, but it was a good idea to do it. <S> Now, when we are talking about the past, we realize our mistake: <S> I had an accident today. <S> I should have been more careful. <S> But there are other uses of "should have", for example: To talk about past events that did not happen: I should have let her know what was happening, but I forgot. <S> He should have sent everybody a reminder by email. <S> They should have remembered that their guests don't eat pork. <S> Or to speculate about events that may or may not have happened: She should have got the letter this morning. <S> I expect she'll give us a call about it later. <S> He should have arrived at his office by now. <S> Let's try ringing him. <S> They should have all read that first email by this stage. <S> It's time to send the next one. <S> Here, the use of "should have" indicates that speaker even can't think of whatever possible reason that might make the person behave like that. <S> So, within the context, there's <S> no answer to the question if he did behave like that or did not. <S> The sentence only suggests that such an extraordinary behavior of this particular person is hardly believable at any circumstance. <A> "I can't imagine any reason why he should have behaved in such an extraordinary way." <S> Did he behave or did he not behave in an extraordinary way? <S> Without more context, we can't be sure. <S> But we can infer, reading between the lines, that someone apparently claimed that he did, or at least suggested that he might have. <S> However, the speaker apparently finds the accusation/suggestion implausible. <S> The Answer written up by @Rompey is excellent as a step by step development of this construction ("he should have behaved") and is a great way to think about it. <S> I am writing this answer to make it clear to the OP how the sentence would be taken by a listener (in the absence of additional context).
| In the sentence " I can't imagine any reason why he should have behaved in such an extraordinary way" the speaker seems to not believe that such a behavior is characteristic of the person they are talking about.
|
"no registration needed" or "no registration required"? Which of the following, should I write? no registration needed no registration required I am trying to promote some web game to the people who see my ad (that they don't need to register before trying it out). <Q> Both are grammatically correct. <S> But "no registration required" is more commonly used. <S> The following sentences can be used interchangeably: <S> No login required No sign up required <S> No registration required <S> No registration needed <A> Either is OK. <S> When you are faced with this kind of decision and you want to get it right, it is often the case that the oldest and shortest words are the best. <S> Also, it is a good idea to avoid words with Latin and Greek roots and favour words with Germanic or Old English roots, since they tend to be simpler and easier to understand. <S> In your case, you have need , which has a Germanic root, and require , which has a Latin root. <S> I'd choose needed , but it's up to you. <A> You have to try to understand what their expectation is. <S> no registration needed <S> This is rather informal and could be used in most situations. <S> Some functions, such a downloading software or reading a blog, often do not require any registration. <S> In these kinds of situations, this phrase is enough. <S> no registration required <S> This should apply to situations where registration would normally be required, for example to get an email account. <S> Your condition (not needed) would be considered exceptional and important for the customer to understand.
| There is not so much difference, but the reader's perception may vary.
|
Difference between laughing (gerund) and laughter(noun) May I know if the sentences below are correct. If not, why? Is there a difference between laughter and laughing? Thank you. Make laughing a habit. Make laughter a habit. Make exercise a habit. Make exercising a habit. <Q> laughing and laughter are both nouns. <S> For the statement <S> Make X a habit <S> , X can either be an activity or a product: <S> Make walking a habit <S> <- activity <S> Make compassion a habit <S> <- product <S> Some words can be used as both the product-noun, the activity-noun and the verb: examples are exercise , work, play, sleep. <S> For these words, there is no need to use the gerund to refer to the activity: it is possible but not idiomatic. <S> For sentences 1 and 2, there is no particular reason to prefer either, <S> though I think the majority would prefer 2: this may be because of the proverb <S> "Laughter is the best medicine". <S> 3 is definitely preferable to 4, as we do not use the gerund where the verb-as-noun describes the activity. <S> Make laughing a habit. <S> <- refers to activity <S> Make laughter a habit. <S> <- refers <S> to product Make exercise a habit. <S> <- could refer to activity or product Make exercising a habit. <S> <- refers to activity <A> Since it comes from the verb, laughing describes the action. <S> When one laughs, the outcome is laughter or a laugh. <S> Consider this: "I hear laughter" and "I hear laughing." <S> The first describes you hearing the sound, the second that your hear someone who laughs. <S> Hence, the focus of the gerund is a little bit more on the action than the result. <S> Although I guess it's fuzzy with laugher, since the noun also entails the act of laughing. <S> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/laughter <S> The same is with the excercise. <S> Excercising focuses more on the actual doing than the inclusion of excercises in your habits. <A> They are all correct. <S> 2 and 3 are better. <S> I think it will be clearer to you with the following examples: <S> Laughter is good for you. <S> Laughter is the best medicine. <S> Exercise is good for you. <S> Regular exercise can help prevent fractures as you age.
| laughing is the activity: laughter is the product of that activity. Looking at your examples, all are grammatically correct.
|
Looking for "turn to dust" alternative as a single word I'm looking for the verb meaning "turn to dust" in the sense that the card can be broken into pieces and dust. The best candidates for me right now are "dismantle", "fission", "shatter", "break". To give more context: I'm making a game where there are cards with souls embroidered into said cards. Later, the player can destroy the card which will give him the dust and the blank card in return. I'm looking for the verb describing the process of breaking the card in such specific way. <Q> Pulverise means literally: to reduce to dust or powder, as by pounding or grinding. <S> Dictionary.com <A> Since you are talking about breaking down a card into other materials, it makes sense to use disintegrate to refer to separating a card into its components. <S> Source: <S> Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary break into parts or components or lose cohesion or unity <S> Source: Vocabulary.com <A> Disenchant to rid of or free from enchantment, illusion, credulity, etc. <S> source: dictionary.com <S> Or, more generally: to remove magic <S> This term is often used in fantasy games with similar crafting mechanics. <S> While it refers less explicitly to physical "dust-ification", it does imply the removal of the magical component without necessarily damaging the underlying object. <S> Such a process may yield a blank card and magical dust <A> I'm making a game where there are cards with souls embroidered into said cards. <S> Later, the player can destroy the card which will give him the dust and the blank card in return <S> comminute <S> KOM-uh-noot <S> , -nyoot reduce to small pieces or particles by pounding or abrading <S> It's not as common as pulverise (pulverize), but it expresses the concept of fracturing something into small pieces or grinding it down. <S> Comminuted Radius Fracture <S> Ngram <S> pulverised <S> / pulverized vs comminuted <A> desiccate verb des·ic·cate \ˈde-si-ˌkāt\ Definition of desiccate desiccatedn, desiccating transitive verb 1: to dry up 2: to preserve (a food) by drying : <S> dehydrate 3: to drain of emotional or intellectual vitality <S> intransitive verb : to become dried up desiccation play \ˌde-si-ˈkā-shən\ noun <S> desiccative play <S> \ˈde-si-ˌkā-tiv\ adjective desiccator play \ˈde-si-ˌkā-tər\ noun
| Disintegrate to break apart into many small parts or pieces
|
'the Egypt's Desert' or 'the Egyptian Desert'? "A series of caves are found at a site named Wadi Gawasis in the [Egypt's/ Egyptian] desert" I don't find any technical difference in both options but still my book says Egyptian is correct answer. Is there any rule or should questions like this be solved by knowledge conventional terms? It is also interesting to note that we don't say Nepalian mountains or Chinian hill stations. I guess that there are specific regions where tian should be used. If so, then please share a list where this usage is observed. EDIT: Original Phrase "In 2004, a team of archaeologists discovered the remains of shipyard in a series of caves at a site named Wadi Gawasis in the [Egypt's/ Egyptian] desert" <Q> "In 2004, a team of archaeologists discovered the remains of shipyard in a series of caves at a site named Wadi Gawasis in the [Egypt's/ Egyptian] desert" If the above is the correct sentence, including the correct placement of the brackets [ and ], then only Egyptian is correct, because we don't use the definite article before Egypt except in such statements as the Egypt that I knew or the Egypt of the future . <S> And, the possessive '*the Egypt's desert' is always wrong. <S> You can say 'Egypt's desert' (without the article). <S> PS- <S> It's true that we don't say "Nepalian mountains or Chinian hill stations," but we do use the correct adjectival form and say "Nepalese mountains" and "Chinese hill stations." <A> Egypt's desert is unambiguous and refer's to a desert under Egypt's ownership. <S> Egyptian desert needs further context since it could mean the same as "Egypt's desert" but could also mean a "desert of the Egyptian" type, for example if there were different types of deserts. <S> Just as Parisian cafe does not necessarily mean a cafe in Paris, but a certain style of cafe. <S> A series of caves are found at a site named Wadi Gawasis in the Egyptian desert. <S> since the determiner "the" is being used, if "the was left out, then the answer would be Egypt's desert A series of caves are found at a site named Wadi Gawasis in Egypt's desert. <A> A good question because it is difficult to explain. <S> There is only one desert in Egypt, the Sahara. <S> If you say Egypt's desert you are then referring to the Sahara desert. <S> Whether you mean to refer to the entire Sahara desert by calling it Egypt's desert or the particular area of the Sahara encompassed by Egypt is not clear without accompanying context. <S> Referring the Sahara as a whole ... <S> Egypt's desert[, the Sahara,] is vast, stretching beyond Egypt's borders and covering the whole of North Africa. <S> Or the Egyptian portion of the Sahara ... <S> Egypt's desert, unlike the rest of the Sahara, is rocky and relatively moist. <S> However, the following is unclear. <S> Do we mean all of the Sahara or just the Egyptian Sahara? <S> Egypt's desert is rocky and relatively moist. <S> " <S> The Egyptian desert," on the other hand, refers specifically to desert areas under the control of Egypt or, if it were the case, the whole of a smaller desert contained entirely within Egypt. <S> The Egyptian desert ends at the border with Sudan and the Sudanese desert begins. <S> The following is not ambiguous... <S> The Egyptian desert is rocky and relatively moist. <S> You could also say... <S> Egyptian desert is rocky and relatively moist. <S> You should not say... <S> The Egyptian desert is vast, stretching beyond Egypt's borders..." <S> The Egyptian desert cannot stretch beyond Egypt's borders. <S> At that point it ceases to be Egyptian desert.
| In your example, the only possible answer is Egyptian desert
|
A tricky case of subject-verb agreement Here are two future events to be announced in writing: A well-known poet, who is also a talented painter, is coming to the party. A well-known poet and a talented painter (different persons) are coming to the party. At first, it seemed to me easy to announce both the events— just using the verb form accordingly to the one subject in the first announcement and the two subjects in the second: A well-known poet and (also) a talented painter is coming to the party. A well-known poet and a talented painter are coming to the party. But something seems to be wrong with the first one since the grammar checker keeps marking "is" before "coming" as an error, suggesting to use "are" instead. Is there really some sort of grammar flaw in the first announcement? If there is, what will be the right way to announce the first event sticking, if possible, to the model of the second announcement? <Q> In this case, your grammar checker was wrong. <S> With all due respect, what are these "checkers" for? <S> Think about this from the point of view of the people programming the spelling and grammar checker. <S> They come up with a list of rules. <S> The machine applies them blindly -- and makes mistakes. <S> I ALWAYS use a spell checker. <S> I rarely use a grammar checker. <S> If I were less experienced with writing in English, I would use a grammar checker. <S> These checkers can be somewhat useful as mechanical proofreaders. <S> I do not use them slavishly, however, because they make plenty of mistakes. <S> And I still have to proofread my work, because sometimes I make a mistake that the checker missed <S> (for example, I used the wrong homonym, such as reed vs. read). <S> You can enjoy a proud, holier-than-thou feeling each time you reject a grammar checker's correction. <A> Grammar checkers are very limited in what they do. <S> An older version of Microsoft Word used to drive me mad with its constant admonitions to replace <S> which with that <S> , so much so that I disabled the grammar checker. <S> The latest version doesn't bother and is quite happy with "The house which Jack built", even with all options turned on. <S> Why is this? <S> It's because users complained about false negatives so much that Microsoft disabled the relevant rules. <S> The only grammatical errors that Word picks me up on are repeated words, which is is very nice, thank you you very much. <S> I fed your four sentences to Word and it swallowed them without a murmur, which made me a little suspicious, <S> so I started deleting words to see what would happen. <S> It is perfectly happy with: <S> A well-known poet talented painter coming to party. <S> That should keep any tyro happy and may explain why we are getting so many requests to correct people's grammar. <S> Microsoft Word just isn't up to the job. <S> I shall write a test document to check the handling of each available grammar rule and see what I find. <S> As for your question, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with any of them except that I would change A well-known poet and a talented painter is coming to the party. <S> to <S> A well-known poet and talented painter is coming to the party. <S> Unsurprisingly, Microsoft Word is happy with that. <S> The real problem with grammar checkers is that the more rules they check, the more mistakes they make. <A> I highly appreciate all the feedback I was given on this question, but this is one of the rare cases I have not got the answer to a question I've asked on this site. <S> After a lot of searching, I had it answered <S> and I feel like sharing with others what I could find, and here it goes: <S> This is also true when the subject is a combination of two or more nouns joined by "and". <S> However, there is an exception to this rule: When the two singular nouns refer to the same person or thing, the verb must be singular. <S> In "A well-known poet and a talented painter are coming to the party" the subject is combined of two single units— "a well-known poet" and "a talented painter" , so it agrees with a verb in the plural form, which is "are" here. <S> In " A well-known poet and a talented painter is* coming to the party" the use of the singular form of the verb "to be" seems to indicate that the subject, consisting of group nouns, should be considered as a single unit but… <S> The fine grammar point, which <S> I was so persistent in the search for and have found in the long run, is this: The articles (a/an/the) or any possessive adjective used only once before two singular nouns joined by ‘and’ indicates that the two singular nouns represent only one person or thing which is singular, and the verb of that singular subject must be singular. <S> The orator and statesman is dead. <S> My friend and partner has come. <S> BUT: The orator and a statesman are dead. <S> My friend and my partner have come. <S> The source is here . <S> Is it important to know this? <S> Judging by the feedback I got, it hardly is, critically. <S> Is it worthwhile to be known at all? <S> I think it may be.
| The cardinal rule of subject-verb agreement says: "A Verb must agree with its Subject in Number and Person."
|
synonym for the phrase "runs slow" The Egyptian calendar was like a watch that runs slow . Please suggest to me a phrase that is suitable to replace the words runs slow in this sentence.Would it be suitable if I use operates slowly ? <Q> For example, if you set it today at noon, and it agrees with your computer clock perfectly, by tomorrow at noon, it will be behind, e.g. reading 11:58 when your computer clock reads 12 noon. <S> It lost two minutes, and we say that it runs slow. <S> It gets more any more behind with each day that passes, unless you reset it. <S> Apparently, the Egyptian calendar had one or more design flaws, resulting in their year lasting fewer days than the amount of time it takes to make one full orbit around the sun. <A> A possible synonym for your phrase a watch that runs slow <S> might be a watch that's always late <S> it gives the sense of why theme is not correct on both phrases and by definition <S> A watch that runs slowly is always late. <A> The Egyptian calendar was like a watch that trudged <S> The Egyptian calendar was like a watch running through Treacle <S> The Egyptian calendar was like a broken watch <S> The Egyptian calendar was like a watch with a broken spring <S> The Egyptian calendar was like a watch with a failing battery <S> The Egyptian calendar was like a watch that lost time
| A watch that runs slow is a watch whose mechanism is not working quite right, such that it marks time out of sync with Greenwich.
|
How does a "parent" generate a "sister"? Forgive my ignorance, but I am still a newbie on these matters. A parent site is a website, and it is synonymous with a main site , correct? Whereas a sister site is a site closely related to a parent site , a type of “spin off” that successful TV series sometimes generate. Correct? For example, if I've understood correctly, EL&U (English Language & Usage) would be the parent site while ELL would be its sister site. But why isn't a sister site called a daughter site , or a child site instead? A ‘parent’ generates children, not siblings. EDIT Amazingly, it seems the expressions parent site and sister site are not listed in any online dictionary. <Q> It doesn't. <S> You've made an error in your classification. <S> ELU is not a parent site to ELL. <S> ELU and ELL are each other's sister sites. <S> They are on even levels of the SE architecture. <S> The main parent site of both ELU and ELL is Stack Exchange , though we rarely refer to SE as the parent site. <S> The most common usage of parent/child on SE is to refer to sites and their metas. <S> ELL is the main site and each site has a meta site. <S> SE also has a meta site . <S> To help differentiate from the main SE meta, the site metas are called "child metas". <S> So, ELL is the parent site of ELL Meta , which is the child site. <A> What I say below is my opinion based on some experience and some reading <S> and I have no citation to back me up. <S> First of all, I would like to point out that in biology, the chromosome which is going to divide (in mitosis) is called 'mother chromosome'. <S> The two branches of the mother chromosome which are going to be pulled apart are 'sister chromatids' and after division the sister chromatids become 'daughter chromosomes'. <S> This mother , daughter , sister terminology derives from the fact that when biology started, reproduction was considered a feminine subject and therefore anything that divides was named( mostly ) in female terms. <S> The 'parent', 'sister' websites must also have come from the same analogy. <S> Also, here the parent website is the main website and sister websites are not exactly children of the main site but rather a branch of the main site, just like chromosomes which divide into branches although the branches remain attached rigidly at the centromere . <S> Here are two links which are not very reliable websites but support my claim <S> nonetheless - link #1 and <S> link # 2 . <A> There are two terms − one, "subordinate" and, the other, "coordinate". <S> In the instant question, the second website stands in a coordinate relationship (and not in a subordinate relationship) with the first one. <S> In coordinate relationship, both relatives stand on the same level. <S> As such, none is a "parent" of the other and none a "child" of the other; both are "sisters" of each other. <S> Actually, the instant question proceeds from a mistaken premise which is as follows: <S> Two websites stand on two different levels of height, where the second emanates from the first and thus stands on a lower height. <S> Then why is the second website called "sister", and not called "child", of the first one? <S> As both the websites are in a coordinate relationship with each other, none is called a "parent" and so the instant question − asking why the other website is called "sister", and not called "child", of the first one − is a non-question. <A> Stack Exchange is the parent site for both ELL and ELU. <S> ELL is a sister site (or brother, it doesn't matter) to ELU, and vice versa. <S> This makes sense; they're both part of the Stack Exchange network. <S> ELU and ELL are both daughter sites (much more common than "son site", especially in biology) to Stack Exchange. <S> Offspring are suboordinate to parents, not siblings.
| There are parent sites, child sites, and sibling sites (each can have their familial gender-themed version, like sister or father site).
|
Which is correct? "I have been here so long." vs. "I have been here *for* so long." Hope you guys help me with this question! I have been here so long. I have been here for so long. Which is correct? I looked up Google books, and I saw both sentences were used in many books. Another question. When I just moved to other city, can I say "I haven't been here for a long time." ? This sounds natural to native speakers? <Q> Part 1) - "I have been here so long. <S> I have been here for so long"In the context where you have been waiting to meet someone somewhere, and they're very late, then either one of these works. <S> The "so" implies some impatience. <S> Part 2) <S> - "I haven't been here for a long time." <S> As a native speaker, that sounds a bit clunky. <S> I think "I haven't been here long", or "I haven't been here very long", is more natural. <A> They are both correct. <S> I don't think there is a real difference in meaning. <S> When you found both a lot in many books that seems to support that. <S> The last question I cannot answer since I am no native speaker. <S> To me it sounds ok though. <A> I think other answers have adequately addressed your first question; however, "I haven't been here for a long time" actually means something else. <S> For example, the last time I was in France was in 1991. <S> If I ever get to go to France again, I might think to myself "I haven't been here for a long time." <S> In other words, it means you were here before, and then you were not here for a long time , <S> and now you are here again. <S> To express that you are newly arrived somewhere, you would not say "a long time. <S> " If you just moved to a city, you could say either of these: I haven't been here long. <S> I haven't been here for long. <S> I don't know any rules to help you understand this. <S> It's just idiomatic.
| In the context where you are saying you have been in a job for a many years, it's more natural to say "I have been here a long time".
|
The usage of "ever" I'm not actually a language learner myself, I'm actually an English language teacher, but I want to put together some information for my students regarding some of the difficulties they often face. I've been looking into the usage of "ever" and have noticed something: It seems "ever" can be used quite naturally in close-ended questions (Have you ever...; do you ever...; did you ever...) and yet not in open-ended ones (What cities have you ever lived in? What kind of food have you ever eaten?). Admittedly I have been living abroad for over a decade so maybe my radar has gone off, but would you agree that it doesn't sound as natural to use "ever" in open-ended questions? If so, is there any way to account for this? Any and all replies are appreciated, thank you! <Q> It might useful to tell your students to think about the pair of words 'ever' and 'never' together, and in terms of their meaning/semantics: ever means 'at least once' never means 'no times' 'Never' can be the answer (even a one word answer: ' <S> Never', meaning: not ever) to your close-ended questions above which use 'ever'. <S> Maybe instead of focusing on close- vs open-ended, you could give them a trick and say 'ever' shouldn't be used in any question where you wouldn't be able to somehow reword the question to say something like ' <S> Have you at least once...?'. <A> I do accept that 'ever' seems logical to be used In close - ended questions. <S> But there could be very few rare exceptions. <S> Dictionary.com defines 'ever' in many ways, but the ones that fits our subject of question is as follows: <S> 1.at any time: <S> Have you ever seen anything like it? <S> 2.in any possible case; by any chance; at all(often used to intensify or emphasize a phrase or an emotional reaction as surprise or impatience): <S> How did you ever manage to do it? <S> If the band ever plays again, we will dance. <S> The first example is obviously a close ended question. <S> Now consider the first example given for the second definition. <S> It is a question. <S> how did you ever manage to do that? <S> It is a kind of open ended question, to which, the person answers can answer so many things or even step by step. <S> This seems to be a rare case where in 'ever' is used in a question other than close ended. <S> Thanks. <A> Since ever means at any time , it cannot pair semantically with a question whose time covers "all times" or a span of time. <S> For example: What countries have you visited in your life? <S> wants a list of countries that you have visited over the course of your life . <S> That question cannot be asked <S> so <S> What countries have you ever visited? <S> because that would be equivalent to asking What countries have you visited at any time ? <S> and at any given time, you can be visiting only one country, since at <S> refers to a point in time, not to a duration or span. <S> P.S. <S> Your alleged exception, <S> How did you ever manage to do it? <S> , is not an exception at all. <S> It refers to an accomplishment, that which has been accomplished, and accomplishment takes place at a point in time. <S> It is not yet accomplished, and then it is accomplished. <A> Ever means "at least once." <S> It doesn't mean "at any time" in the sense that you can substitute any valid time expression and have a true statement. <S> What cities have you ever lived in? = <S> What cities have you at least once lived in? <S> Since it's possible there could be multiple cities that you've lived in at least once <S> , I'm unclear why the listener couldn't respond with a list of such cities. <S> However, if there are many cities the listener can't really answer you efficiently, so this is best used if you know the listener has only lived in a couple cities. <S> If you have no knowledge about the number of possible cities whatsoever, best to avoid saying this unless an answer like "Oh, a whole lot. <S> I couldn't name them all off. <S> " will work for you. <S> Now, if you want to limit the time range, since will help you: <S> What cities have you ever lived in since 2014 = <S> What cities have you at least once lived in since 2014. <S> Since is crucial, you can't just throw the time expression in there or use another preposition without it sounding weird. <S> In 2014 what cities have you ever lived in (bad).
| So I agree with your assessment above and that 'ever' doesn't work in a sentence where the answer is a list of things.
|
Hear "an explosion noise" or "an explosion sound"? Which word fits more sound or noise in this sentence? Suddenly, I heard an explosion sound/noise. <Q> My suggestion: <S> Neither. <S> The phrase ' <S> Suddenly, I heard an explosion' is enough, there is no need to identify the actual sound separately, it's already indicated by 'explosion'. <A> Without the context of knowing that it actually is an explosion, I would suggest Suddenly <S> , I heard what sounded like an explosion. <S> although other answers may be more appropriate if you can identify the explosion from more than the sound alone. <A> Explosion sound and explosion noise both sound wrong to my native-speaker ear. <S> I would only ever say "I heard an explosion" or "I heard the [sound/noise] of an explosion". <S> I can't quite figure out why this sounds wrong, though. <S> You certainly can use "sound" as part of a compound noun, for instance <S> "flute sound" would be perfectly fine ("flute music" would be more usual, but only because musical instruments are very strongly associated with, er, music). <S> It might be because explosion is an event rather than an object ("crash sound" also sounds wrong). <A> As an alternative as @MeanGreen's answer, I'd say: <S> Suddenly, I heard the sound of an explosion. <S> This <S> ^ is the best alt in my opinion. <A> I'd agree with the above suggestion of, "suddenly, I heard an explosion". <S> As I have a degree in sound, I thought it would be worth mentioning that, in acoustics, there is a difference between sound and noise. <S> Noise is an undesired sound or signal, for example electronic interference. <S> In the context of the environment that this explosion occurred, it might be considered a noise, as it probably wasn't a desired sound in that setting. <S> https://www.britannica.com/science/noise-acoustics <A> If you're set on including "sound" or "noise" in the sentence, the adjective form of "explosion" can be used to describe the sound as "explosive". <S> Heard an explosive sound <S> Heard an explosive noise <S> The phrase "heard an explosion" is likely better, though, as noted in other answers. <S> N.b. <S> "explosive sound" may be slight agrammatical for what you're trying to convey. <S> An "explosive sound" would be a a loud and violent sound, but the source of the sound is left unstated.
| An "explosion sound" or "explosion's sound" would be the sound resulting from an explosion , even if that sound is quiet or otherwise non-explosive.
|
When to use "enjoy" and "enjoy myself" As a new learner of this language I am not able to differentiate between these two sentences: a) I enjoyed the party. b) I enjoyed myself at the party. I can only say that first sentence is used when someone has enjoyed the party with all others present.And the second means that he tried to enjoy party by all means available but alone. <Q> I would like to clarify this by giving definitions. <S> Google defines 'enjoy' as: <S> enjoy /ɪnˈdʒɔɪ, <S> ɛn-/ verb <S> 1. take delight or pleasure in (an activity or occasion). <S> I enjoy watching good films <S> Collins dictionary defines 'enjoy oneself' as: <S> Synonyms of 'enjoy oneself' have a good time, be happy, have fun, have a field day (informal), have a ball (informal),live life to the full, make merry, let your hair down <S> Thesaurus.com <S> defines 'amuse oneself' as: <S> amuse oneself <S> Main Entry: delight in Part of Speech: verb Definition: take pleasure from Synonyms: admire, adore, amuse oneself, appreciate, be content, be pleased, cherish, dig*, eat up, enjoy, feast on, get a kick out of, get high on, get off on, glory in, groove on, indulge in, like, live a little, live it up, love, luxuriate in, relish, revel in, <S> savor <S> All these imply that whether you say "I enjoyed..." or "I enjoyed myself somewhere " it simply means that you took pleasure from there. <A> I enjoyed the party. <S> The party brought you enjoyment. <S> I enjoyed myself at the party. <S> You brought yourself enjoyment at the party. <S> This may seem redundant as you typically go to a party for your own self-enjoyment, but this can have one or more of the following implications: <S> the party was not capable of bringing you enjoyment for some reason - e.g. if it was a bad party or someone else at the party was not having fun, you made the best of it. <S> the party was not meant to bring you enjoyment for some reason but did anyway - e.g. you went to a party you didn't want to because a friend went, but you ended up having fun anyway. <S> you attended the party with others, and they may not have had fun at the party, but you did. <S> you proactively did something entertaining at the party without caring too much what others thought. <S> E.g., perhaps you danced while everyone else was too scared to dance. <S> an emphasized or polite form of "I enjoyed the party." <A> They are both have the same meaning but slightly different, since the second option is idiomatic phrase <S> and it's supposed to be said as an expression of a little bit higher level of enjoying. <S> In addition, the second one is in informal use. <S> This is the explanation: a) <S> I enjoyed the party. <S> Literally it means that you enjoyed in the party. <S> No more details. <S> it says that it could be that you enjoy a lot or a little bit. <S> it is a 'dry' sentence (obviously, depending on the tone that it's said while speaking, but not in writing). <S> It is in formal use and temperate style. <S> But when you say or write: b) I enjoyed myself at the party. <S> It is idiomatic and in informal use. <S> reference: <S> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enjoy+oneself
| Both the statements actually imply that you were happy and took pleasure from the party you attended .
|
I have made all the changes VS I made all the changes I have to write one of the following phrases into a formal correspondence (but not too formal), I was asked to review a document, and then get back to him when the document is finished 1) I have made all the changes and filled out the document log in the last page 2) I made all the changes and filled out the document log in the last page Which one should I use? This was the mail that I received : .., so now you are ok to go ahead and make those corrections, accept changes and delete all comments. Let me know when you are finished. Can you also please make sure that the document log at the end of the document is complete <Q> Both convey the same information and meaning and in many situations could be substituted for one another quite comfortably. <S> However they do both stress slightly different things and a fluent English speaker would likely use one or the other for a specific reason: <S> I have made all the changes and filled out the document log in the last page <S> The sentence is in the present perfect tense and the action of completing the form is in the past, and so is complete or has been finished. <S> I would use this if I was returning the completed form to indicate that it has been completed. <S> I made all the changes and filled out the document log in the last page <S> Because this second sentence is past tense it better emphasises the action of completing it, rather than the fact it is now complete. <S> I would use this if I wanted to indicate that it was "I" who made the changes, rather than anybody else. <S> Maybe this will help. <S> In this example the person asking the question is interested in it's completion: <S> "Has the form been completed?" <S> "Yes, I have completed the form" <S> Whereas in this example the person asking the question is primarily interested in who completed it: <S> "Who completed the form?" <S> "I completed the form" <A> The first sentence is preferred, as it relates what you did (past) to what the recipient can do (present). <S> In terms of the grammar, the first sentence fits the form of <S> present perfect simple and is a perfect match for what you're wanting to say: We use the present perfect simple when a single past action has a connection with the present: e.g. <S> "She’s broken her arm in two places." <S> (Her arm is still broken now.) <S> That is, your first sentence relates what you did in the past (completed the work) with the present (the email recipient can now do whatever they had planned): <S> I have completed the work. <S> (And it's now ready for you to use) <S> The second sentence would still be understood, but may focus the attention to you completing the work, and not the fact the work is completed. <S> It can make it feel a little like you are trying to claim credit for it, and emphasise that you did all of the work. <S> This is because the second sentence takes the form of past simple . <S> It states that you completed all the work - as a fact. <S> Generally, you might use this kind of phrasing if you were doing a personal evaluation at the end of the year. <S> Stating all the key points of work you completed, and emphasising your involvement in the work. <S> Of course, either phrase will be understood and the second phrase is unlikely to cause trouble or get you a bad reputation by itself. <S> But it's worth being aware of the implication it has, and how people may read into it. <A> Of the two sentences, first sentence is 'present perfect ' and second is 'past tense' <S> Here the first sentence correctly fits the context. <S> You made the updates very recently. <S> Hence present perfect is good to go. <S> The second sentence would imply something happened in the past. <S> But the updates were made very recently, prompted by the mail received. <S> To clear all this, I have taken the definitions and examples of 'present perfect ' from studyandexam.com: Present Perfect <S> Tense <S> It is used to expressed an action which happened or completed in past but usually the action which happened or completed at a short time before now (near past) not a very long time before now. <S> Specific time such as two years ago, last week or that day is usually not used in the sentences of in this tense. <S> It means that this tense expresses the action whose time when it happened, is not exactly specified but it sounds to refer to some action that happened or completed in near past. <S> Rules: <S> Auxiliary verb “has or have” is used in sentence. <S> 3rd form of verb (past participle) is used as main verb in sentence. <S> Structure of Sentence Positive Sentence • <S> Subject + Auxiliary verb + main verb (past participle) <S> + Subject • Subject + has/have + 3rd form of verb or past participle + subject If the subject is “He, She, It, singular or proper name” then auxiliary verb “has” is used after subject in sentence. <S> If subject is “You, They or plural” then auxiliary verb “have” is used after subject in sentence. <S> Examples <S> I have eaten meal <S> She has learnt a lesson Negative Sentence <S> • <S> Subject + Auxiliary verb + <S> NOT + main verb (past participle) <S> + Subject • Subject + <S> has/have <S> + NOT <S> + 3rd form of verb or past participle + subject Rules for using auxiliary verb “has or have” in negative sentence <S> are same as mentioned above. <S> Examples <S> I have not eaten meal. <S> She has not learnt a lesson. <S> Hope <S> It helps. <S> Thank you.
| The inclusion of "have" in the first sentence emphasises that the changes are complete.
|
A term for a spot, placement or location in the sky? When I say location , it's intuitively implied that I refer to a place on the Earth's surface. What would be a good term for the position in the sky? When I'm at this location I see the sun at/on/in that xxx . It's not angle because there are two angles. And it's not angles because I'm looking for a term for such spot. It's not direction because I'm referring to a point in the spherical shell . I hope for something technical, scientific and really hairy. I'm thinking in terms of azimuth not direction and elevation instead of slope . You get the style. <Q> It seems the word position itself is a good choice of word that can fit in your sentence. <S> When I'm at this location I see the sun in that position. <S> Solar position also might work for you <S> although considering using sun in your sentence, it might be redundancy since it basically means the sun's position . <S> However you might want to look up locus <S> that I found in one of the answers given here . <S> ( I'm not an astronomer obviously and I post it as an English learner. <S> I hope you find it useful. ) <A> Because there is no physical "sky" in which to occupy a position, astronomers use the terms apparent place and apparent position to describe a "position in the sky." <S> Note that the word apparent is very important in conveying the meaning of the term: it does not describe a true physical position (which cannot exist) but the position as it appears to the observer. <S> OED defines apparent as: 6. <S> Appearing to the senses or mind, as distinct from (though not necessarily opposed to) <S> what really is ; seeming. <S> Contrasted with real. <S> Thus, an astronomer would say: When I'm at this location I see the sun in that apparent place/position. <S> The International Astronomical Center's glossary defines apparent place as: <S> Apparent place: the position on a celestial sphere, centered at the Earth, determined by removing from the directly observed position of a celestial body the effects that depend on the topocentric location of the observer: i.e., refraction, diurnal aberration (see aberration, diurnal) and geocentric (diurnal) parallax. <S> Thus the position at which the object would actually be seen from the center of the Earth, displaced by planetary aberration (except the diurnal part - see aberration, planetary; aberration, diurnal) and referred to the true equator and equinox. <S> For a demonstration of the term "in the wild", see astronomy.stackexchange.com. <A> Also known as astronomical station. <S> A point on the earth defined in terms of astronomical latitude and longitude. <S> (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms)
| You may use the expression: astronomical position : A point on the earth whose coordinates have been determined as a result of observation of celestial bodies.
|
usage of the word "have" in "I have her" I can't do with anything unless I have her all to myself. In this sentence, what does have mean?Does it mean control ? <Q> The operative definition of have here <S> is: To cause to be in a specified place or state: <S> had the guests in the dining room; had everyone fascinated Definition from TFD Online <A> The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) "has" for this usage of the verb to have: <S> c.to have (something or someone) to oneself: to be able to enjoy, use, or occupy (a thing) without having to share it with anyone else; to have (a person's) undivided attention. <S> The Random House Learner's Dictionary and Dictionary.com include this discursion on the verb have, which concisely describes its broad utility: Have, hold, occupy, own, possess mean to be, in varying degrees, in possession of something. <S> Have, being the most general word, admits of the widest range of application: to have money, rights, discretion, a disease, a glimpse, an idea; to have a friend's umbrella. <S> A student of English who masters the diverse uses and meanings of the verb to have will benefit greatly in any subsequent study of the language. <A> For that specific sentence it means to either have her whole attention or to be the only one with that specific type of relationship with her <S> I have a computer all to myself <S> would mean I am not sharing the computer with anyone else
| To have someone or something entirely to oneself means that the person or thing in question will be occupied solely with or for one's own concerns.
|
What are these holes in sinks and tubs called? What are the holes in the pictures called? They are usually found in sinks and tubs and their function is to prevent water from overflowing. <Q> Although I see nothing wrong with overflows <S> proposed by the answers and people casually call it that way, <S> since I see in the comments that it technically refers to the whole system, I'd like to suggest the compound noun overflow holes . <S> I did a search and found out it's actually quite common . <S> I found some posts in Home Improvement Stack concerning these holes, too. <S> There is even a cover which blocks the hole called overflow hole cover for cosmetic purposes (as JimmyJames mentioned in his comment). <S> Besides, you might want to consider overflow drain that I already mentioned under Colin Fine's answer. <S> ( Whole credit, though, should go to Colin Fine because he was the first to post the word overflow and made me go for it ) <A> These items are called sink overflows and are a common feature on baths and sinks. <S> For more information, see this article on overflows on a website that sells sinks and faucets. <A> I would simply call those the overflow . <A> A previous invention that was basically a standpipe that fit into the main drain called it an overflow drain opening as well. <S> An overflow for a molded plastic sink is formed of a molded plastic body having a smooth, hollow interior forming a watertight passageway. <S> The lower region of the body has a through opening surrounding the main drain over an opening in the drain and is sealed to the sink and the drain, the upper region of the body is sealed to the sink around an overflow opening extending through the sink and into the body. <S> The mid region of the body is spaced from the underside of the sink. <A> It has a name, it’s called a porcelator. <S> TFD says: 1. <S> A pipe used to remove excess water and/or to prevent flooding in certain sanitary fixtures, storage tanks, and plumbing fittings
| They are present to prevent the sink from overflowing with water should the plughole be blocked (by a plug for example). If you look a the original patent , the inventor refers to them as overflow drain openings.
|
Word meaning start (beginning) of military service Is there a special word or proverb meaning the beginning of military service? Maybe something like "to put on the uniform"? <Q> In the UK, we have join up and sign up . <S> There is no difference in meaning and both terms are in current use. <S> Do not use sign on , however. <S> This means to apply for social security payments when you are unemployed. <S> There is also the phrase to take the king's shilling (or queen's shilling ). <S> This was used when British soldiers and sailors were given a payment when they enlisted. <S> The practice stopped in 1879 and the term is now rarely used. <S> However, the phrase may be useful if you are writing about colonial times. <S> Wikipedia: <S> King's shilling <A> The best single word for "to enter military service" is probably to enlist . <S> Enlistment is the process of joining. <S> For example, What Does Enlistment Mean? <S> (from "Enlisting in the Army" ) <A> You may consider the following idiomatic expressions: to muster in : To enlist or be enlisted in military service: <S> She mustered in at the age of 18. <S> to muster out : To discharge or be discharged from military service: He was mustered out when the war ended. <S> AHD <A> Good question. <S> A "recruit" is a new serviceman, who would have been voluntarily "recruited" -- but this doesn't indicate the actual start of service, just the process of joining the service. <S> If you are involuntarily forced into military service, you are "drafted" or "conscripted" into service, and can be called a "draftee" or "conscript". <S> Otherwise I don't know of any words that relate to the actual start of service, other than "enter". <S> Edit: <S> See "enlist", "muster in", "join up", and "sign up" above.
| Enlistment is the process of taking an oath of U.S. Army service and becoming a Soldier.
|
"... you have ever made" or "... you ever made"? These sentences have made me confused. What is the correct answer to say, as an example: What is the biggest mistake... ... you ever made? ... you have ever made? Some examples taken from the web 1. What is the biggest mistake you ever made in gaming? source What is the biggest mistake you ever made? source What is the biggest mistake you ever made as an entrepreneur? source 2. What is the biggest mistake you have ever made in your life? source What's the biggest mistake you have ever made? source What's The Biggest Mistake You Have Ever Made? source Which one is correct? Because I often hear that people say both of them, what is the difference? Also can we say you ever make as present indication? Can you please provide the basic rule of these issues? <Q> I am an English native speaker. <S> Both sentences have exactly the same meaning. <S> In that sense both are correct. <S> What are the differences? <S> Subtle. <S> The first is more colloquial or "natural". <S> The "have" doesn't add any extra meaning for an English speaker and so would normally be dropped. <S> At most you'd hear "...you've ever made". <S> At the risk of stereotyping, I'd say that American English tends more to these shorter, clearer constructions. <S> British English generally favours the "correct" versions. <S> English is grammatically ambivalent enough that in most contexts (especially the one implied here) you could use the version that gives the best impact (the first one) and not get pedantic over grammar rules. <S> It probably also adds to the confusion that "made" is the shorter past tense and it doesn't change in the longer past tense ("to have made"). <S> "I made the changes" versus "I've made the changes": the change in tense does not add a whole lot for most pragmatic circumstances. <S> With some other verbs (I sang vs. I have sung) <S> you can see the difference immediately but with "to make" it's not obvious. <S> About "ever": this implies some sort of limits to the time scope (c.f. the opposite, "never"!) <S> so by definition you can use it only in the past or future tenses e.g. " <S> The biggest mistake I [will] ever make". <S> As noted above, English tends to emphasise the pragmatics (conveying meaning) over grammar (finding constructions that always convey the same menaing), so the "will" in the above sentence is optional; this might confuse anyone who thinks that future tense always has to be signified explicitly. <A> To me, option 1 means that the time frame under consideration has ended; option 2 means that it has not yet ended. <A> The second is correct. <S> The contraction "You've ever made" expands to "You have ever made". <S> The verb have is useful there. <S> If, in both cases, you took out the adverb "ever" then first the first option you get "... <S> mistake you made" which doesn't sound quite right, compared "... <S> mistake you have made"
| The second sentence is "more correct" and should be used in a formal context.
|
"what their journey is all about" meaning? Today I read famous quote by Regina Brett. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about. From here I can' make out meaning of the phrase "what their journey is all about". would you explain to me in other easy sentence ? <Q> So "Don't compare your life to others'. <S> You have no idea what their life has been like and what has happened to them during their life." <A> The idiom is all about is used to introduce what is considered the focus, or most important part, of something. <S> In your example, the word journey is a metaphor for life; i.e., the journey of life. <S> You could reword the sentence as “ You have no idea what are the main things that happened in their life ”. <A> It's related to the following definition: Journey noun 1.1 A long and often difficult process of personal change and development. <S> ‘her spiritual journey towards Roman Catholicism’ , <S> ‘Now, though, she would begin a new journey, a new life, if one as old as she could ask for such a thing.’ <S> - ODO <S> I read your quote as advising against saying things like "Oh, he's got such an easy life compared to mine. <S> " <S> The second sentence in the quote asserts that comparing your life to another's in this way isn't advisable because you don't know the things that they have gone through.
| Writers sometimes use the word "journey" as a poetic way of saying "life, and all the things that happened".
|
Is it acceptable to use the title "master" to a doctor that I've learnt from him? Is it acceptable to use the title "master" to a doctor that I've learnt from him? He is a doctor that teach me and answer on my questions on-line, and I would like to tell him "thank you master" (because he is a specialist in his field that he teaches). Is that respectable as I want to respect him by it? <Q> It's not really standard in English to use terms of address like this. <S> Really, outside of very specific situations (courtrooms, as an example), it's pretty rare to use a term of address <S> and when we do, it's always related to their job. <S> Examples include: "your honor" for judges "officer" for police "professor" for professors "captain" for ship captains and people of that rank in the military (all military members can be addressed by their rank) "doctor" for doctors <S> "sir"/"ma'am" - often used by children when addressing adults or by adults to refer to anyone above them socially. <S> You run into the issue of the slave/master connection which either hearkens back to the US Deep South's past... or the more modern usage within the dom <S> /sub community. <S> Neither of these inferences are something you want to risk. <S> If you want to thank someone on the web for something, there's really no need to add a term of address... <S> if you absolutely need to, say "doctor", if that's what he is, or "sir" or "ma'am", if you know their gender for certain... <S> but I (personally) find it annoying when people add terms of address on the web. <S> We're in an informal world here... <S> I often have people call me "sir" and it's a pet peeve... <S> firstly because I'm female, so it's presumptuous to assume everyone on the internet is male and secondly... <S> it's just not necessary and doesn't mean anything to me. <A> Master sounds archaic. <S> You might use mentor . <S> "someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often younger person" The correct way to thank this person would be:"I would like to thank Dr. X, who has been my mentor for several years." <A> Master in BrE is used as a title in correspondence for young men, usually under the age of 13, the use is considered very traditional and by formal "public" (AmE "private") schools. <S> There is no formal title for having a Maters degree as there in with a PhD which is sometimes referred to as Doctor however, in medical situations, often only MD's are referred to as "doctor" for obvious reasons. <S> For example, in a crowded theater if someone screams out <S> "Is there a doctor in the house? <S> " They usually don't want someone that studied 18th century Venetian paintings. <S> A possible contradiction of this is that surgeons in BrE are addressed as Mister .
| "Master", specifically, is problematic.
|
What do you call tourists who visit "extreme" holiday destinations? I'm speaking about tourists who choose to spend their vacations (holidays) in places that push their limits to the extreme; such as the Antarctic, Mount Everest, pluvial forests, jungles, etc. They're not your average tourist who looks forward to a relaxing week sitting on the beach, and soaking up the sun. These people are seeking ‘danger’ and thrills. I've come up with excursionist . Although Oxford Dictionary didn't provide any definition, it lists several sentence examples, sadly, none of them seem to fit. ‘A good many of the excursionists were conveyed to the head of the lake by the steam-yacht ‘Swift,’ which made its initial journey for the season on that day.’ What are these tourists normally called? Idioms, and slang are also welcomed, but please say which region the latter is from. <Q> The people would be "adventure tourists" or "adventure travelers". <S> The kind of tourism they engage in is called Adventure Travel "a type of tourism, involving exploration or travel with perceived (and possibly actual) risk, and potentially requiring specialized skills and physical exertion." <A> Since the meaning of excursion is short journey or trip, especially one engaged in as a leisure activity , and one of the meanings of extreme is denoting or relating to a sport performed in a hazardous environment and involving great physical risk, such as parachuting or whitewater rafting , I would use extreme excursionist . <A> I Googled thrill-seeking travellers and found a decent number of American and British English citations. <S> 5 Adrenaline Adventures for <S> Thrill-seekers are the hard-core bunch of travellers . <S> The more adrenalin-filled physical activities you can pack into your travels, the better. <S> You're not afraid to ... <S> Living on the EDGE: <S> Thrill-seeking travellers make a living risking their LIVES source <S> This website also uses the term <S> daredevil travelers <S> Planning your thrill-seeking – or daredevil – <S> traveler’s <S> next getaway doesn’t have to be a white-knuckle experience for you – if you know the ropes going in.
| Thrill-Seeking Travelers .
|
We got a situation I heard this sentence from a movie. What does this mean? Each word is not difficult but I can't guess the setence's meaning. We got a situation. <Q> What no one seems to have mentioned is that got is a colloquial, down-register substitution for <S> have or have got or even have gotten . <S> In fact, it can substitute for any verb that means to acquire . <S> We got a dog. <S> This can mean <S> We have a dog. <S> You will hear this used informally all the time, but you would be well advised not to use it in academic or formal writing. <S> If you're writing for the sports page, though, no problem. <S> Other meanings are: <S> We acquired a dog. <S> We purchased a dog. <S> We were given a dog. <S> Used in this sense, got is the past tense of get , and the simple past is no problem in any kind of writing or speaking. <S> Which brings us to the next point. <S> As far as "We got a problem" goes, the most likely interpretation is that have has been dropped from the sentence's syntax. <S> It's this that makes it colloquial and down-register. <S> To promote it a level in formality, you would say We've got a problem. <S> Note that using uncontracted have would be to make a more forceful statement: <S> We have got a problem. <S> Whereas the former statement is merely a more or less uncolored declaration, the latter alerts the listener that the problem is serious. <A> situation : an important or sudden problem <S> b : a critical, trying, or unusual state of affairs : problem <A> It means you have a problem. <S> But not just any problem, but a very serious problem. <S> If a customer comes to your shop complaining about something they bought, then you have a problem. <S> If that customer carries a gun, then you have a situation. <S> So you may hear "we have a situation" quite regularly if you watch action movies. <S> In real life, I haven't ever used "we have a situation" or heard it used.
| Without further context, it likely means we have a problem .
|
Question from Mark Twain's quote Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured. I'm not sure what "anything on which it is poured" actually means.I looked up the dictionary searching for "pour" and "pour on" and tried to construct the sentence but I got more confused. If you poured the acid on "anything", isn't it the same thing as storing the acid in since the "acid" would still remain? Or is it just the matter of degree? <Q> Anger is compared to an acid. <S> About acid, Twain observes the following: If you pour acid on something, it is harmful to what you pour it on. <S> Acid is harmful to the container in which you store it. <S> If you leave acid in the container (long enough), the harm to the container is greater than to anything you pour it on. <S> In a similar way you can see anger: If you are angry at someone (pour your anger at that person), it harms that person. <S> If you are angry (store your anger inside), it is harmful to yourself. <S> If you keep angry (long enough), the harm to you is greater than to the person you are angry at. <S> Pouring acid on something is compared with being angry at someone, in the sense that you can "pour" your anger on someone, or direct your anger at them. <A> It looks like Mark Twain was "inspired" from an old saying, common in Turkey. <S> Sharp vinegar harms its own container (i.e. clay barrel to be exact in translation). <S> Keskin sirke küpüne zarar. <S> It is used to suggest that our angry manners will only serve to hurt us. <A> It's really not that complicated. <S> Twain is a poet, thus poets speak metaphorically & figuratively. <S> You're taking the quote way too literally &/or overthinking it. <S> Thus the literal functions of an acid must be taken out of context to fit this particular metaphorical context, in which anger will harm its user far more than on any person in which said person directs their anger to. <S> Honestly, to intellectualize further would be unnecessary.
| Acid, when stored properly, does not usually harm the vessel in which it is stored, that is just literal fact, but when comparing anger to an acid, well, when not thinking literally, the anger eats one up inside; much like acid would to a surface.
|
I don't want to get lung cancer like you do I was talking with someone who's trying to quit smoking. Then the topic moved to how I want to live here because of poor air quality in my hometown and I said this: I don't want to get lung cancer like you do . Is it correct to say that? How about: "I don't want to get lung cancer like you don't" ? I know that this is a correct way of saying: I don't want to get lung cancer either. <Q> I don't want to get lung cancer like you do. <S> This seems to imply that your friend does want to get lung cancer (which is a little ridiculous). <S> To make it clear that neither of you want to get cancer, a better way to phrase it is: <S> Like you, I don't want to get lung cancer. <A> Only the first sentence is inappropriate, I don't want to get lung cancer like you do . <S> As Mick also said in his answer, it sounds as if the listener wants to get lung cancer ( like you do ). <S> The other two constructions are fine. <S> In a conversation, the person could say any of the following <S> I've moved away from the city centre because just like you , <S> I prefer not to get lung cancer <S> OR <S> I don't want to get lung cancer, like you don't . <S> OR <S> You don't want lung cancer <S> and neither do I <S> OR <S> Neither of us want to get lung cancer <S> I want to be smart like you <S> I want to have a house like yours <S> I want to speak five languages like you do/ <S> can <S> Negative clause <S> I don't want to be smart like you (aren't) <S> I don't want to have a house like you have (don't) <S> I don't want to speak five languages like you do/can (don't /can't) <S> When two people share a common desire. <S> Neither of us want to be smart <S> Neither of us want to have a house like his Neither of us want to speak five languages <A> The clause "like you" just has to be separated enough so that it clearly refers to the whole previous sentence "I don't...". <S> Use any of the following <S> I don't want to get lung cancer, same as you. <S> I don't want to get lung cancer, just like you (don't). <S> I don't want to get lung cancer either like you. <S> Like you, I don't want to get lung cancer. <A> It depends on what meaning you want to convey. <S> If your meaning is: "You have lung cancer, but I don't want to get it" ( this is probably the least polite, because you're focusing on the fact of your friend's cancer <S> ): <S> I don't want to get lung cancer, like you did. <S> If your meaning is: "You don't want lung cancer, and neither do I". <S> (Note that the "to get" is removed, because the friend can't "get" cancer - he/ <S> she already has it) : <S> I don't want lung cancer, just like you don't. <S> Another alternative: <S> I'm trying to avoid lung cancer, like you are. <S> (That is, "are trying") <S> It also uses the more active verb "avoid". <S> The stronger verb emphasizes your strong desire not to get cancer. <S> This does stretch the meaning of "avoid" to include "recover from", but I think this is acceptable in casual conversation.
| This is polite (because you're not focusing on the fact that your friend has lung cancer, but that he/she is trying to avoid or recover from it).
|
What does " out of extreme urgency" mean in this sentence? I have a definition of "desperate": To act desperate means to appear to do something out of extreme urgency or as a last resort, when you feel as if you have no choice, What does " out of extreme urgency" mean in this sentence? Does it mean "keep you from extreme urgency"? <Q> It means because of , or due to , or for reasons of : out of (definition 2) used as a function word to indicate origin, source, or cause: "a remarkable colt out of an ordinary mare", "built out of old lumber", "fled out of fear" <A> The preposition out of has more meanings than what you would expect from out + of . <S> In this case, the meaning is: With the motivation of. <S> Usually it is used with emotions ( I insulted him out of anger ) and states ( he stole bread out of hunger ). <A> In your example out of has the meaning because of because of extreme urgency <S> Extreme urgency can mean very quickly , which is necessary when someone is desperate. <S> This is a matter of extreme urgency.
| It can also mean very important
|
What's the difference between "Once I've graduated" and "Once I graduate"? Consider theses two sentences: Once I have graduated, I will find a job. Once I graduate, I will find a job. What's the difference between them? Of all the resources about the present perfect I've found on the Internet, none talks about using it for a future action, but obviously, I see this use very often in English. <Q> The present perfect describes something that happened at an uspecified time and when the exact moment of occurrence isn't important. <S> Although this usually means "an uspecified time before the present", the present perfect is also used in subordinate clauses to talk about an uspecified time in the future (when the main verb is in the present or future tense.) <S> This usage of the present perfect often follows these words and expressions: when until once if after before as soon as ...and others <S> I'll go shopping when the rain has stopped. <S> After the rain has stopped, I mow the lawn <S> I'll go shopping once the rain has stopped. <S> I'll go shopping if the rain has stopped. <S> Until <S> the rain has stopped, I won't go shopping. <S> I make nachos before the game has started. <S> I'll stop playing as soon as this quarter has ended. <S> Note that we can also (and more frequently do) use the present simple to describe the future in these subordinate clauses with no change in meaning. <S> I'll go shopping when the rain stops. <S> After the rain stops, I mow the lawn. <S> I'll go shopping <S> once the rain stops. <S> I'll go shopping if the rain stops. <S> Until the rain stops, I won't go shopping . <S> I make nachos before the game starts. <S> I'll stop playing as soon as this quarter ends. <A> The use of the progressive tense always implies some kind of temporal relationship, but (I think) with instantaneous events it's a "difference that makes no difference". <S> "Finished" or "completed" can be similar: <S> I'll clean my room once I've finished breakfast. <S> I'll clean my room once I finish breakfast. <S> Only once Luke has completed his training, will he be ready to face the Emperor. <S> Only once Luke completes his training, will he be ready to face the Emperor. <S> As well as other "instantaneous" verbs like "pass/fail". <S> Once you've passed History, we can talk about summer camp <S> One you pass History, we can talk about summer camp. <S> I'm sure you can think of others. <A> There is no real difference. <S> Usually, present perfect tense suggests that the event happens only once (or discontinuously), whereas present tense suggests that the event happens regularly (or continuously, depending on the context). <S> But here, using "once" in the sentence suggests the former. <S> So it makes no difference whether you use present tense or present perfect tense.
| There's really little functional difference between them.
|
"In the race she came second" or "In the race she came in second". Which is right? Which is the right sentence between the two? In the race, she came second. In the race, she came in second. <Q> Your first sentence <S> In the race, she came second. <S> is correct meaning there was one person ahead of her. <S> Your second sentence is a shortened form of <S> In the race, she came in second (place) . <S> It would be incorrect to say <S> In the race, she came second place . <A> Both are equally correct. <S> You'd probably say the first when talking about different people's positions: <S> In the race, she came second after Jane who came first. <S> You may say the second when describing her relative performance to other times she ran the race: <S> In the race, she came in second, while last year she came in third. <S> But the two are <S> so close, that the distinction is probably my own interpretation. <A> Both the examples are fine, in speech nobody would blink an eye, but perhaps the second one ( groan ) is the least convincing, stylistically, because the preposition in is repeated twice. <S> A short and sweet alternative could be: <S> She came second (place) in the race <S> The OP needn't worry about using the expression "second place in the race", it is perfectly acceptable. <S> Examples taken from Google News <S> (July - October 2016) <S> The fight of Hamilton for second place in the race with Max Verstappen has been what has put the spice in the final laps and the younger racer ... <S> * <S> The car was in second place in the race <S> when Walsh pitted on lap 54 after a strong stint, in which he had traded fastest times with the leading Red Bull ... <S> Casey White took second place in the race *in 16:27, while Austin Hallabrin finished third in 16:49, Nick Weiss was fourth in 16:56 Second place in the race for the Austrians and fourth for the Danes leaves the teams tied on points – but it's advantage <S> Red Bull Sailing Team ... <S> But I got second place in the race , and the No. 1 guy <S> ran a (15:13), so I obviously wasn't keeping up with him, but I still wanted to run faster Ultimately, Leonard took second place in the race . <S> At the final finish line, event organizers produced a matching medal for Gobi, too . <S> Canadian yachtsman Lawrence Lemieux […]. <S> The International Olympic committee awarded his bravery for plucking a fellow competitor from the sea during a race. <S> He was also awarded second place in the race despite finishing 21st. <S> Donald Trump has fallen to second place in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a new poll. <S> So you can use other verbs than come for races, such as: take , be , get , be awarded , and even fall . <S> Oxford Dictionaries has an entry which explains place <S> 3.1 <S> British <S> Any of the first three or sometimes four positions in a race (used especially of the second, third, or fourth positions). <A> Both are equally correct. <S> If you said one to a native speaker, not only would he instantly know your meaning, but a minute later, he would not remember which usage you chose. <S> However , I'd like to make a minor point. <S> Consider the following sentences: She came second. <S> She came in second. <S> The first sentence just means she came second is some sequence: a race, a line of people through a door, the priorities given by her husband (eek!) <S> The second sentence can only refer to a race. <S> When you "come in" first or second or third, it's in a race or competition of some sort. <S> It's my advice to use the more specific word or phrase whenever you can.
| In general usage, your two sentences are basically equivalent.
|
Is it okay to say "a big news"? Is it okay to say "a big news" for example, "I am telling you a big news" or is it wrong? I heard a non-native English speaker say that. The word "news" is mystery to me. It has a plural form, but it's singular non-countable. I have no idea how to use it properly. <Q> No, you cannot say that. <S> News is a mass noun , meaning is not used with the indefinite article (a/an). <A> Also, it would be idiomatically better to use give instead of tell . <S> Here are some things you could say: I am giving you a big piece of news <S> I am giving you some big news which are both correct. <A> I am telling you a big news <S> is not idiomatic and a native would not say it using the indefinite article "a". <S> "Big news" means that something is very important and being so might be referred to as <S> I am telling you the big news. <S> I am telling you some big news. <S> If you really must use the indefinite article then <S> I am telling you a big piece of news . <S> might be used.
| I am telling you a piece of big news . You can't use that, as has been mentioned.
|
Why is there no definite article before "Western democracy"? In doing so, Mawdudi is not attemping to incorporate the liberal values of Western democracy . Why did the author not use a definite article before Western? Should it not be used though? Since it refers to a specific democracy type, I think it should. <Q> We don't normally use articles when discussing general concepts like democracy , love , peace , etc. <S> Western in this case is simply an adjective, and as such doesn't cause the noun democracy to take an article, because "Western democracy" is still a general concept. <S> You would only use <S> the if you were picking it out as a specific case from other cases. <S> For example, compare "I like sand" (no article, because it's a mass noun) and "I like red sand" (still no article, because it's still a mass noun) and "I like the red sand" <S> (implies that there are other kinds of sand, but you like this specific red sand that we're talking about right now). <A> Another way to phrase your question is "why is the 'Western' in 'Western democracy' a determiner, when the 'English' in 'the English language' is a qualifier. <S> "Western" and "English" do have a lot in common. <S> They are both proper adjectives. <S> They are both political designations. <S> There doesn't seem to be any reason for English grammar to treat these words differently. <S> As it happens, English grammar treats them the same. <S> For example, "English grammar" and "the English language" are different, not because "English" is different than "English" but because "grammar" is different than "language". <S> Many nouns, including "democracy", "grammar" and "language", have both a count and a non-count sense. <S> When "democracy" is used in its countable sense, it means something like a specific government with a democratic structure. <S> When it's used in it's uncountable sense, it means something like a general collection of guiding principles or a style of governance. <S> Your model sentence doesn't reference a countable democracy. <S> It remains a general idea, even though it is a specific type of that general idea. <S> We can easily imagine a similar sentence that does refer to the countable sense of "democracy". <S> When we do, we realize that there are several Western democracies -- several governments using that style of politics. <S> . . . <S> the liberal values of Western democracies . . . <S> the liberal values of a Western democracy <S> In using the countable sense, we need to reference either a plural collection of government or an indefinite, singular, and possibly hypothetical government. <S> The "Western" in "Western democracy" isn't a determiner. <S> It is merely a qualifier. <S> However, the "democracy" in "Western democracy" is uncountable. <S> The model sentence uses the uncountable sense of the word, even though a countable sense is available. <A> It does not refer to a certain country, it's the synonym of liberal democracy. <S> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy )
| Firstly, democracy in this context is basically a mass noun.
|
"Rollbacked" or "rolled back" the edit? And what about "double-click"? The noun (and verb) rollback on Stack Exchange means to undo or reverse an edit. I'm not sure if there is a difference between the two, but that's how I understand it. Recently, I posted the past participle rollbacked , in a comment, and after a bit I looked at it and realised I should have written rolled back . The problem is that rollback is spelt as one word, so adding the suffix -ed was an automatic gesture. And if I think about it, backed is an adjective, and back is also a verb. Here's another example, double-click , is the past tense doubled-click or double-clicked ? Was I so wrong to write rollbacked ? Why should it have been rolled back (two words)? Are there cases of compound nouns (and verbs) where either the first noun/verb or the second can be placed in the simple past tense with no changing in meaning? I can't think of any on the top of my head. <Q> It is similar to turnoff which is composed of to turn and off . <S> The past tenses are rolled back turned off You may be confusing the nouns with the similar sounding verb phrases Q: Did you roll back the rollback of the databases? <S> A: <S> Yes, we rolled back the databases to before the update. <S> Q: I took the wrong turnoff and got lost. <S> I turned off the wrong exit. <S> Walmart is rolling back their prices to be the same as several years ago. <S> In the case of double-click <S> the implied verb is "click", and the past tense is double-clicked <S> She double-clicked on the "send" button after proofreading her email. <A> Tenses always apply to verbs, so to see where to apply it, you need to figure out which part of the compound (or hyphenated) word is the verb. <S> "Rollback" is a compound word, consisting of the verb "roll" and the preposition "back", as Peter indicated. <S> As such, "rolling" is what you are doing, and "back" indicates where you're rolling (as opposed to rolling forward). <S> "Rollbacked" would imply that "back" is the verb, as in "to support". <S> Unless you're supporting the edit with a cinnamon roll or used said cinnamon roll to move it back, this is not correct. <S> A converse compound word would be "backup" -- here, "back" is the verb and "up" is the preposition (see the etymology of 'backup' in its non-compounded form). <S> You haven't "backupped" the files, you've "backed up" the files. <S> With regards to double-click, "double" is the adverb that modifies the verb "click", so "double-clicked" <S> is the correct form. <S> I can see this possibly being confusing because it could be seen that you're "doubling" the click (or past tense, you "doubled" the click); however, when you tell someone to single click, you just say "click the button", and thus it becomes more obvious that click is the verb here. <A> According to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rollback , "rollback" can be either a noun or a verb, and "rollbacked" is presumably the correct past tense of that verb. <S> But in BrE, I would have written "rolled back" in the OP's example. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/roll gives "Roll something back" as a phrasal verb. <S> By analogy with a word like "rollnecked", "rollbacked" seems like the adjective derived from the noun "rollback", not the past tense a the verb. <S> (But https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/roll-neck gives "roll-neck" with a hyphen...) <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/double-click says "double-click" is a verb, and its past tense would logically be "double-clicked" - <S> though the reference only gives examples in the present tense. <S> A "doubled-click" seems like a noun (i.e. a particular sort of click), but I don't think the word is actually used. <S> For similar computing terms like "shift-click", "Alt-click", forms like "shifted-click" and "Alted-click" would be very strange, compared with the usual "shift-clicked" or "Alt-clicked".
| In your examples rollback is a compound word consisting of the verb to roll and the preposition back .
|
What does "than before" mean in this sentence? I read a newspaper and found a title as follows: We're finally better off than before the recession: Average household now has £24,300 in disposable income each year. Only about half of Americans think they’re better off than before Obama took office. What does "than before" mean in these sentence? Does it mean, for instance, "before Obama took office, half of Americans think they are not better off"? <Q> In this particular example, 'than before' is a shortened form of 'than they were before.' <S> NOTE: <S> The example statement tells nothing about what the other half thinks. <S> Some of the other half may well have no opinion and assumptions about what they think are invalid. <A> You are somewhat correct in thinking <S> Only about half of Americans think they’re better off than before Obama took office. <S> means <S> before Obama took office, half of Americans think they are not better off since "only about half" think they are better off, the other half must think it's the same or worse. <S> This assumes everyone has an opinion. <S> tonight's dinner was better than before tonight's dinner was better in comparison to other previous dinners <A> It compares the situation before and after a point of reference in time. <S> We're finally better off than before the recession: Average household now has £24,300 in disposable income each year. <S> This means that the situation before the recession was not good and now Americans are more economically stable. <S> Only about half of Americans think they’re better off than before Obama took office. <S> This means that half of the Americans think that after Obama took office, conditions are better: the other half thinks that times were better before Obama. <S> Hope this adequately answers your question!
| The phrase than before has the meaning in comparison to before some specific point in time better than before Obama took office better than in comparison to before Obama took office
|
Is "halfly" a word? Google Ngrams shows that it's being used. However, some people disagree on the matter. Is "halfly" a word? If not, what's an alternative? Example sentence: I lied to her. Well, only halfly. I was indeed sick. <Q> OED tells us that it is an adverb with the meaning of "half", but that it is obsolete: <S> Obs . <S> = <S> half adv . <S> c1480 <S> (▸a1400) <S> St. Ninian 1418 in W. M. Metcalfe <S> Legends Saints Sc. <S> Dial . <S> (1896) II. <S> 344 <S> Til hyme, þat halfly-slepand lay. <S> 1565 J. Hall <S> Hist. <S> Expost. <S> in tr. <S> Lanfranc Most Excellent Woorke Chirurg . <S> sig. <S> Dddv, Thine arte is halflye wunne. <S> 1622 <S> M. Drayton <S> 2nd Pt. <S> Poly-olbion xxiv. <S> 83 <S> So holy that him there, they halfely deifide. <S> 1674 <S> N. Fairfax <S> Treat. <S> Bulk & Selvedge 167 <S> This is what it is halfly. <S> The most recent citation is from 1674, but it has happened before that words thought to be obsolete are revived or evolve anew from familiar forms. <S> If singly and on(e)ly are adverbs, it is no stretch to grant halfly the same label. <A> Technically speaking, halfly is a word. <S> It is made up of letters, it looks English, its meaning is easily recognizable, and it even has some history (see @P. E. Dant's answer) <S> If the OP is writing a story, I see no reason why he cannot use the word halfly in his narration, it's called artistic licence; English poets, scholars, and hack writers have been manipulating and twisting English words ever since the Dark Ages. <S> Authors such as W. Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll and J.R.R. Tolkien had the confidence and the competence to "invent" words whenever the occasion arose. <S> Indeed, Caroll coined the expression portmanteau word , which has long been recorded as a "proper" word. <S> George Orwell, in his novel 1984, coined several expressions that have entered the English lexicon: doublethink , and newspeak are but two. <S> The OP asked whether "halfly" was a word. <S> I lied to her. <S> Well, only halfly . <S> I was indeed sick. <S> If halfly is italicized, readers will accept, and interpret it as being artistic license. <S> It also sounds like something a schoolboy would say to justify a lie. <S> All in all, I think halfly is effective, it achieves what it sets out to do. <S> An alternative might be white lie , but it doesn't quite convey the same impish charm, or meaning. <S> white lie <S> A harmless or trivial lie, especially one told to avoid hurting someone's feelings. <S> ‘when I was young, I told little white lies’ <S> As I was writing, it suddenly occurred to me that the compound half-lie is a perfect fit. <S> (It has already been suggested by @Max ) <S> half-lie something that a person says or writes that they know to be partly untrue <S> ⇒ <S> I tried to convince myself that to change a tense was to tell no more than a half-lie . <S> Transforming the original sentence into <S> I lied to her. <S> Well, only half-lied . <S> I was indeed sick Thanks to @martha, in the comments below, who has suggested that the words half , half way , and partly could work equally well. <A> I halfly said yes to their invitation. <S> I half heartedly accepted their invitation <A> There is a word "half-done". <S> You also can say "partially done". <S> In cases like that, if you say "halfly done", it would provoke a reaction like: <S> I understand what you have said, but why have not you said it a proper way? <S> It is a word. <S> But use it wisely. <S> If you need this sort of reaction then go for it.
| halfly has the meaning "only half as much" or "not fully", just as fully means full.
|
Imperative in reported speech I've been told that I should use simple past in reported speech when the direct speech is in simple present such as I **am** the best ~> He said he **was** the best but what happens for imperative mood direct speech "Mom said dont trust strangers" Or "Mom said didn't trust strangers" I think I should maintain the first form. But I'm not sure. And I'm not even sure this relates to the sentence mood.I need the best choice and a further explaination for this :) <Q> Mom said, "Don't trust strangers". <S> When you change an imperative sentence from direct to indirect (reported) speech, you don't change the tense in the reported speech; you keep the present tense. <S> What you should do is that you change the reporting speech into should or to-infinitive clause as follows: <S> Mom told me that I shouldn't trust strangers or Mom told me not to trust strangers. <A> Interesting question. <S> Mother said don't trust strangers. <S> But I don't think this has do with the imperative form, but rather it's more of an informal way to include reported speech. <S> For example, this paraphrase of a famous line from "Macbeth": <S> Shakespeare said life is tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. <S> I could say "was" <S> but I prefer to use " <S> is" because that's the tense Shakespeare uses in the play. <S> In the same way your example is "don't" trust strangers, and not "didn't" trust strangers, because that's not how someone phrases the imperative. <S> I write it as if I was directly quoting them. <S> The challenge here is that it's not necessary to always back-shift reported speech into into the past tense, even if you heard it in the past. <S> For example: He said he is the best, but I don't believe it. <S> John's sister said they have guests at their house. <S> Everyone said this election is the craziest they've ever seen. <S> What these all have in common is that the reported speech could apply to something that is still true. <S> Life could still be an idiot's tale, even if Shakespeare died many centuries before I ever heard Macbeth's opinion. <S> Which, unfortunately, might make you think that if I do use the past tense, whatever I'm talking about is no longer true. <S> Sadly, that's not the case. <S> English is, frequently, woefully, imprecise: <S> John's sister says they have guests at their house <S> (The guests are still there) <S> John's sister says they had guests at their house <S> (The guests have probably left). <S> John's sister said they have guests at their house <S> (The guests are probably still there). <S> John's sister said they had guests at their house <S> (The guests might have left, but might still be there) <S> Usually you can get more information from context, but sometimes you just have to ask someone to clarify what they mean. <S> Anyway, again, when reporting imperatives do use the present form -- but there is no <S> should about using the simple past with reported speech. <S> It's an option, but it's not required. <A> Since your example is an imperative sentence telling you not to trust strangers, the correct phrasing is <S> Mom said: don't (you) trust strangers! <S> Your second sentence <S> didn't you trust strangers would be a question.
| To answer your question: yes, when reporting imperative speech you should use the present tense in the same way it would have been spoken:
|
When to use "bon appetit"? I know that meaning of bon appetit is enjoy your meal, but I want to know when shall I use it? Like if I am eating and someone else joins me, can I say that? What if I am leaving the table? <Q> As some of the comments have mentioned, it's not frequently used in English. <S> I would say that, unless it's being used in a humorous way, the phrase is usually reserved for fine dining settings. <S> In other words, if a bachelor friend of mine was about to eat a bowl of hastily prepared Ramen noodles, or if I was about to eat a hamburger with my nephew at McDonald's, I don't think I'd say "Bon appetit!" – not unless I was trying to be a little humorous. <S> On the other hand, I might be more inclined to say it more seriously if I had just spent several hours working on a fancy meal. <S> Even then, though, it's not a phrase I would utter very often. <S> In other words, you can say it, but I'd caution against overusing it. <A> Bon appetit is a salutation and can be said to a person who is about to start a meal, under any circumstance. <S> No hard and fast rule regarding that. <S> Even when a person joins you for a meal, it can be said. <S> bon appetit is defined by Google as: bon appétit bɒn apɛˈtiː,French <S> bɔn apeti/ exclamation used as a salutation to a person about to eat. <S> Also refer to the following explain from Wiktionary: <S> Alternative forms <S> bon appetit Etymology Borrowing from French bon appétit, from bon(“good”) <S> + appétit (“appetite”). Interjection bon appétit! <S> Used to wish someone enjoyment of the meal they are about to eat. <S> Synonyms enjoy your meal <S> Hope <S> It is clear. <A> You are wrong on the meaning, it is "Have a great desire to eat". <S> In french countries, you say it at the start of a dinner or whenever you join it or whenever someone joins you. <S> If you finished eating and someone arrives (late) you could say it but they wouldn't answer it to you. <S> That is, you don't wish someone to have a great desire to eat if they won't eat anymore. <S> In that, the true meaning can help you. <S> English people use it to appear classy and will use it much less often but the same rules can apply. <A> "Bon appetit" is not used too often in English, but when it is used it is usually like so: <S> When you are serving others food and you wish they will enjoy their meal you can say, "bon appetit" When you are about to eat a meal with friends you can say <S> "bon appetit" Don't overuse it, or you will look strange. <S> Also, like J.R. mentioned you can use this if you are trying to be funny when serving, say, an uncooked potato to someone. <S> Other phrases you can use are: "I hope you enjoy your meal," "please enjoy," or simply "enjoy!" <S> Those phrases are typically said by whoever is serving the meal. <S> For example, a server at a restaurant would say these phrases, or if you are hosting a dinner at your house for guests you can say these phrases. <S> If you are already sitting down and eating with friends, or are leaving your table, you can say "enjoy your meal." <S> However, the phrases I typically hear and use are more along the lines of: "this looks good," "this smells good," "I can't wait to try this. <S> " When you are eating with your friends these are the more informal phrases that basically mean "I hope that we all enjoy this meal" without actually saying that. <S> Think of it more as a shared experience and that it is assumed that you want everyone to enjoy the meal. <A> We tend to use bon appetit before someone is about to start their meal. <S> It is a fun and friendly thing to say, and should be used in informal environments. <S> Personally I feel that it is more normal for the person who has cooked or brought you your food to say bon appetit, as a way of saying 'I hope you enjoy it'. <S> For example, imagine if you are at a restaurant and your food has just arrived. <S> This would be a perfect situation for the waiter/waitress to say bon appetit. <S> Or another good example, a family is sat at the table ready to eat dinner. <S> Once all of the food is on the table and the family are about to eat, someone (most likely the person or people who have cooked the meal) can say bon appetit. <S> I do not feel that it is correct to say bon appetit when you leave the table where other people are still eating. <S> It would be better to say 'enjoy the rest of your meal' or something similar. <S> I hope this helps!
| In the situations you have mentioned, such as when someone joins you at the table, it would be correct to say bon appetit to this person if you offer then some of your food.
|
What's the difference between "I didn't sing the song" and "I had not sung the song"? I wanted to ask that what is the difference between the following sentences: "I didn't sing the song." "I had not sung the song." <Q> Interesting question, the meanings are very similar, for the difference is context. <S> I had not sung the song - <S> This phrasing would typically be used in context of another event, or as part of an explanation to a series of events. <S> On it's own this sentence would seem strange. <S> i.e. "Until I knew the tune, I had not sung the song" <A> They both grammatical <S> The difference is I didn't sing the song <S> Is simple past tense <S> and I hadn't sung the song <S> Is past perfect tense <S> We use past simple when the action started in the past and completed in the past. <S> Past perfect is also used for a completed action in the past but the action was not interupted by any action before another action. <S> For example : I had eaten some food before I went to bed last night. <S> Had eaten.. <S> was completed before went to bed <S> and it was not interupted by any action <A> The second sentence is in pluperfect tense: it speaks of an event in relation to some later event, which is also in the speaker's past. <S> We expected Harry to sing “Six String Orchestra”, but at intermission he still had not sung it . <S> (Maybe he sang it later.) <S> The first form does not imply such a reference point. <S> I went to Harry's concert and was disappointed that he did not sing my favorite song. <S> This also refers to a time, but to a range of time as a whole rather than before a specific point.
| I didn't sing the song - This is a sentence that can stand alone, in response to a question or as a statement of fact.
|
"His job is a teacher" Looking for a correct way to express this thought His job is a teacher. Is this expression appropriate? If not, how I could express this? <Q> Franks V. Maia's answer is 100% correct, but I would like to clarify the problem from the learner's point of view. <S> The OP's sentence is a typical error which I have heard countless numbers of Italian students make over the years. <S> Although “His job is a teacher” is comprehensible, an English native speaker would simply not say it. <S> The forgivable error is due to the question, What's his job ? <S> To which some learners reply automatically, His job is a teacher. <S> Instead, the idiomatic and correct reply is <S> He is a teacher <S> Alternatively, there are many ways to state somebody's profession. <S> His job is teaching <S> His job is to teach (grammatically OK, but can sound dictatorial) <S> He works as a teacher <S> He's a teacher by profession <S> He earns his living as a teacher <A> You should use the undefined article for positions within a group: an engineer, a teacher, a technician, etc. <S> Therefore, the sentence I am a teacher is correct. <S> Your profession describes what you do, not what you are. <S> There's a slight difference, which I will try to clarify. <S> This is what you do: My profession is teaching. <S> Because: I'm a teacher. <S> Someone must be "a/an" something. <S> The profession can only describes what someone does. <A> His job is a teacher is clearly incorrect since "teacher" is not a job. <S> It's a position/person. <A> Instead of saying "His job is a teacher", you could say: "His profession is teaching" " <S> He has the job of a teacher" " <S> His career is teaching" " <S> He teaches for a living"
| You could say his job is that of a teacher.
|
Looking forward to talk to you or looking forward to talking to you. Which is correct? I always use Looking forward to talk to you . But I kind of have the feeling it is not correct. Which of the following is the correct way to use? Looking forward to talk to you or Looking forward to talking to you. <Q> ... <S> looking forward to talking <S> Is correct. <S> Many students were told by their teacher to not put -ing after to. <S> But, to in ..look forward to.. <S> is not an infinitive marker. <S> A preposition needs a direct object. <S> A direct object can be a noun or a noun form of verb (gerund). <A> The structure is either "I look forward to X" or "I am looking forward to X". <S> Both are idiomatic. <S> Here "X" represents some noun , so you can insert any person, place, or thing. <S> "Talking" is a gerund , which is the -ing form of a verb used as a noun to represent the action of doing that thing. <S> Other examples <S> : I look forward to [having dinner with you tonight]. <S> I look forward to [meeting you for dinner tonight]. <S> I look forward to [eating dinner with you tonight]. <S> I look forward to [seeing you for dinner tonight]. <S> I look forward to [dining with you tonight]. <S> By the way, despite the fact that I use different actions, all of these sentences mean more or less the same thing. <S> Or I could avoid the gerund entirely and just insert the noun: <S> I look forward to [dinner with you tonight]. <S> Similarly any other noun (or noun phrase) works: <S> I'm looking forward to the playoff game. <S> I look forward to my next paycheck. <S> I look forward to when this election is finally over. <S> I'm looking forward to Spring. <A> look forward to requires -ing form. <S> In such phrase to is a preposition (not an infinitive form), therefore it must refer to a noun. <S> Often, a verb in -ing form is used as noun. <S> This is a phrase and you can check its correctness in any English dictionary or grammar book. <S> In conclusion: looking forward to talking to you is the correct form.
| "Look forward to" is a prepositional phrase and "to" is a preposition here.
|
Specific word to describe someone who is so good that isn't even considered in say a classification When someone says "He's the best", or "he is definitely first".But there is someone else who is better and when some other subject considers him/her and asks "what about -name-?", is replied with something like "Yeah dude he/she is a god, it doesn't even count.".I mean when people start counting after that person because they're so good.. Example: Michael Phelps, he says Rio was his last Olympics right? Next Olympics, when someone says "CompetitorName is the best" as in he'll win, someone else might say "Phelps is still better", and be replied with "yeah he doesn't count", not as in "he isn't here, hence he can't win" but as "he is so damn good he doesn't even count". Is there an actual word to describe this? Excellent means good, etc.. The closest thing I can think of is is the expression "out of the spectrum".Hope you can understand what I'm asking. Thank you. <Q> You might use the phrase "to be in a different league." <S> A: This guy is one of the fastest runners I've ever seen! <S> B <S> : Is he better than Usain Bolt? <S> A: <S> Well, Bolt's in a different league. <S> A common variation on this is "in a league of his own," which may fit your question even better. <S> It means, "Far excelling even the closest contender; not having any worthy competition." <A> He is off the charts . <S> The meaning is: Outside of the normal range of measurement; beyond expectations. <A> In the link provided by @stangdon (nice word BTW) scroll down to the synonyms for a number of possible options which I have selected from below: incomparable peerless <S> unequaled (or unequalled) <S> unparalleled <S> Of all of these, I think unparalleled is the most like what you want. <A> Generally, in this kind of situation, English speakers will actually comment on the rest of the competition: <S> Everyone else is competing for second place. <S> Which is to say that who will come in first is a foregone conclusion. <S> Sometimes this will be played with, for example if you wanted to discuss the competition you might say “so, who do you think will get second?” <S> This isn’t a set phrase or anything, and most listeners will do a double-take (it’s an unusual question), but if they’re familiar with the situation they’ll likely understand the implication with just a second thought (that who will get first isn’t interesting to discuss because we all already know that). <A> A very famous and well-used catchphrase is greatest of all time . <S> Sometimes an extra word is put in, between <S> greatest and of . <S> For example: Greatest swimmer of all time Greatest <S> Olympian of all time Greatest athlete of all time <S> By the way, I'm not claiming that Phelps is any of those things; I'm just showing how the phrase can be used. <A> You could use a word that figuratively describes the person as being beyond human... <S> transcendent superhuman Or a word that describes him as having no equal... <S> unparalleled <S> Some people describe such a person colloquially, as a phenom . <A> English speakers (or at least writers) might in fact revert to a Latin phrase that has found its way into English usage and say "He is sui generis ", meaning literally "He is of his own kind". <A> If you're talking to a statistician, you can call this an outlier . <S> It describe a data point that is so unlike the other that they are often excluded from the data set. <A> You could use: Unrivaled <S> Beyond compare Without equal <S> In data science we consider that person an outlier . <S> Meaning someone that is an anomaly, or set apart from the main body. <S> We use it to describe a piece of data that, if we include it, throws off how we measure everything else. <S> So we often remove them from consideration. <A> They broke the mold (when they made somebody/something). <S> something that you say which means someone or something is very special and that there is not another person or thing like them. <S> They broke the mold when they made Elvis. <S> There's never been a star to match him. <S> – TFD <A> The term that immediately comes to mind for me is: A natural (n) -- a person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity. <S> This distingushes a person who seems to have been born with great skill or talent for something from a person who merely became good at it through rigorous practice. <S> Example: Einstein is one of the greatest scientists to have ever lived. <S> While he spent most of his life refining his theories of relativity (practicing his craft), the brilliance that led him to the idea in the first place was something he was born with. <S> This is backed up by science, by the way. <S> Einstein's brain has been analyzed ever since his death. <S> Sadly, this means that no amount of learning and practice will ever make you as as much of a genius as he was. <S> To use your example: Michael Phelps doesn't count. <S> He's a natural. <A> Usain Bolt is in a class by himself. <A> Another option is to say that he "stands head and shoulders above" the competition, indicating that his skill level is significantly more than anyone else's. <S> See http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/head+and+shoulders+above
| You could say he's in a class by himself , meaning he's unique, unrivaled or has no equal .
|
"I am finished" vs "I have finished" What is the difference between "I am finished" and "I have finished"? For example, when finishing a task, should I say "I have finished" or "I am finished". Is there a difference in meaning? <Q> Depending on context they could have the same or slightly different meanings <S> I have finished <S> would be said after completing a task either very recently or some time in the recent past I am finished would be said after very recently completing a task. <S> It can also have the meaning of hopelessness as a person faces impending doom <S> I've lost everything, I'm finished. <S> or drawing a dramatic end to a relationship <S> She said she was finished with her boyfriend. <A> You could say either one, but things get more complicated when you elaborate and mention what you've finished: <S> I have finished this task. <S> I am finished with this task. <A> Both are grammatically correct. <S> I am finished <S> The speaker is in the state of being finished with a task. <S> I have finished <S> This describes the completion of the task in the very recent past. <S> ( present perfect tense ) <A> The first sentence does, in fact describe the speaker as in the state or condition of being finished, specifically with the task of washing the dishes. <S> This construction is the more passive of the two. <S> The second version describes more accurately the completion of the task as the point of reference for the listener. <S> To put it another way, the first sentence commands the listener to wait until the speaker is in the condition of being finished, the second says to wait until the action is completed. <S> The example I'm using is the following: 'Wait until I am finished washing the dishes' vs. ' <S> Wait until I have finished washing the dishes' <A> to life or any action like I am finished with my life. <S> or I am finished with you. <S> while I have finished is used to say that I have completed an action like I have finished that book. <S> Here is an example... <S> I am finished with the classes <S> means I do not want to attend the classes anymore due to the teacher <S> or I don't understand that subject. <S> I have finished the classes <S> means there is a confirmation that I have completed the classes. <A> "I am finished. <S> " Here 'finished' is an adjective. <S> "I have finished. <S> " Here 'finished' is the past participle form of the verb 'finish'. <S> Former one explains the state of being finished. <S> It talks about the subject "I". <S> It usually comes with a preposition like "With". <S> E.g., I am finished with homework. <S> Note: "I am finished" (without object) means you're fed up with your life, and you don't have a reason to live your life. <S> Later one is a sentence in present perfect tense. <S> It may take an object as a complement to the sentence. <S> E.g., I have finished homework. <S> Note <S> : Here there is no preposition before the object.
| Grammatically, both are correct, but they are linguistically different. I am finished is generally used to describe a situation where I am done and want to put an end(or there is no hope for me for that action or thing or person or anything like that.)
|
"drifting toward" and "idling toward" Are drifting toward something and idling toward something used in the same meaning , i.e to move slowly and gradually toward someone or something? for instance, The match was idling toward the goaless draw The match was drifting toward the goaless draw Drifting toward death Idling toward death <Q> They are both valid phrasings, although I would not say either means exactly moving slowly and gradually - they imply a kind of aimlessness, wandering, or lack of focus. <S> For example, you might say Realizing that his train would not arrive for several hours and he had a lot of time to kill, David idled towards a cluster of newsstands. <S> But not <S> The tortoise idled intently towards the lettuce. <S> even though a tortoise is certainly moving slowly and gradually! <S> Here are some examples in live usage: ... <S> the narrow rivers idling toward the horizon... <S> Most were idling toward the other corner where refreshments were being offered. <S> A cigarette was burning in an ashtray, grey smoke idling towards the ceiling. <A> "Idling toward" would generally refer to a motorised vehicle whose engine was idling, so is much more specific than "drifting toward". <A> And indeed, GloWbE has not one single instance of "idling toward" in its 1.9 billion words from 20 countries. <S> The NOW corpus, with 2.5 billion words, does have precisely one instance of it, which is literal: "Even the obligatory cluster of skinheads made no comment on these two nutters idling toward the station".
| To me, "idling toward" is a failed metaphor, because "idling", used of a motor, is not moving, as Lambie says in a comment.
|
What does "penned down" mean? What does "penned down" mean in the below? If it's the past form of the verb "pen" then I couldn't find any particular meaning of "pen". I came across a sentence: Don't worry if you are single, trust on destiny and remember destiny has penned down for you a lovely soulmate. Just be patient. Till then keep improving. Could anyone please explain this to me? <Q> You would more often see something like "I penned down a quick note". <S> In the context of destiny writing something down for you, it seems a bit odd to me, but I guess the intention was poetic. <A> The writing isn't the best quality but it is common to imagine destiny taking the form of a book <S> (Arabic has a word for it, Maktub). <S> What the writer is suggesting, is that if God (or the universe) plans for you to meet your soulmate in a few year's time, you should be patient and work on being a better person for that time. <A> It's likely a misspelling. <S> It should probably be "pinned down" as one sticks a pin in something to fix it in place. <S> See macmillandictionary.com: Pin Down
| I understand it to mean "written down".
|
What does "in telephone duplicate" mean? Stoneman held out the telephone alarm card with the complaint signed in telephone duplicate on the back. What does this sentence mean, especially in telephone duplicate ? This is from the book Fahrenheit 451 . I know what a telephone is and I know that duplicate is a copy of something. But what is in telephone duplicate ? And what the sentence means? <Q> In this context the Fireman was showing her the complaint sent in by her neighbor over the wire. <S> They used to call copies from a copy machine <S> "duplicates" years ago, and I think it's fair to assume that she wrote a note and sent it over something like a fax. <S> The book is based on a fictional future where entire walls are video screens, cars drive themselves, and the government finds and burns all books. <S> So I think we can safely assume Bradbury had some 'futuristic' way of communicating written text across a distance in mind when he was referencing "telephone duplicate". <A> Remembering that Fahrenheit 451 was written in 1953, I suspect that it means "duplicated over the phone", like a fax . <A> Honestly, without hearing the entire context, I have no idea. <S> Farenheit 451 is a science-fiction story and so Ray Bradbury wrote in many technologies and practices that would have seemed futuristic back in the 1950s. <S> One of these, possibly, is the idea that, instead of signing a physical piece of paper, a form could be signed and authorized over the telephone. <S> This would have been a big deal back in 1953, although today it seems hopelessly archaic. <S> With this kind of science fiction, you often have to judge what the words might mean from how the author uses them. <S> For example, it may seem odd to read an old science fiction story from the 1930s with the hero pointing a "ray gun" at some Martians. <S> Nowadays we would more likely use "laser pistol", but of course the laser wasn't invented until the 1960s. <S> Still you can easily guess from the hero's actions that a "ray gun" is some kind of weapon -- a gun that shoots some kind of rays instead of a physical projectile. <A> A telephone duplicate might refer to something like the following: <S> You can search for "Telephone Duplicate Message Spiral Book" to find examples of advertisements for these kinds of books (link not provided due to the hassle of posting disclaimers for advertisements). <S> There are two sheets to every entry. <S> Someone writes on the top sheet (the original ), and the message is copied by ink transfer to the bottom sheet, also called the carbon copy or duplicate . <S> The author might have meant that the original complaint was written in this kind of stationery, and Stoneman was holding out the duplicate (or carbon copy).
| Clearly the card came in by telephone, but it was also signed "in telephone duplicate"; since you can't literally sign something over the telephone, and the signature is a "duplicate", this seems to suggest that it was somehow duplicated over the telephone system, like a fax machine does.
|
Would "breaking point" only be used in a bad way? I wonder if there's any case where "breaking point" could be considered to be used as a disruptive-productive moment to express a deeply insightful moment. <Q> I don't think so. <S> When you "reach your breaking point", you have been pushed beyond your limit in some sense, and figuratively "snapped" A good word for a moment of realisation is "epiphany". <A> It would be difficult to put a positive slant on the Cambridge Dictionary definition of breaking point: the stage at which your control over yourself or a situation is lost . <S> A more appropriate term to use for a deeply insightful moment would be a turning point which is defined as the time at which a situation starts to change in an important way . <A> In terms of positive outcome sure. <S> Marco finally reach his breaking point and dumped his cheating boyfriend. <S> or The pinata is almost at it's breaking point, soon it will rain candy! <A> The phrase breaking point only has the meaning of something <S> breaking if pushed beyond that point. <S> Without further context, it is not necessarily good nor bad, though often something <S> breaking is not considered to be the best outcome. <S> There are many things that can lead people to their breaking point when they come to the realization that they need to quit using drugs and alcohol for good. <S> The pain associated to reaching the breaking point often makes people ingenious and creative... <S> After passing the breaking point either something will be rendered broken and unusable, or may transform and change into something new and different. <S> It is this latter stage that primarily occupies peoples' ideas of whether a breaking point is good or bad.
| However, with additional context, the breaking point can be a good thing
|
There is nothing to talk about + noun There is a question on French SE asking for a translation of There is nothing to talk about . Multiple answers give a translation for There is nothing to talk about followed by a noun, for example There is nothing to talk about this book . I find these constructions ungrammatical and this QA (The difference between 'TALK' and 'SAY') seems to confirm. I would like to confirm that I am not the one making a mistake. Is There is nothing to talk about + noun grammatically incorrect and better replaced by There is nothing to say about + noun ? <Q> You are correct. <S> The constructions employed by the two verbs are different: <S> He says UTTERANCE about TOPIC. <S> ... <S> In the construction There is nothing to say about TOPIC , nothing <S> represents that direct object—the UTTERANCE. <S> There is a syntactic slot left for another noun: object of the preposition about , representing the TOPIC. <S> He talks about TOPIC. <S> ... <S> The verb TALK is intransitive and does not take an object. <S> In the construction There is nothing to talk about , <S> nothing represents the object of the preposition about —the TOPIC. <S> There is no syntactic slot left for another noun to fill. <A> Sample sentences make it easier, without a long explanation using formal grammar: <S> There is nothing to talk about in this regard. <S> ORI have nothing (left) to talk about in this regard./with <S> regard to, as regards, with respect to some x//in this regard/ <S> with respect to this, etc./ can be used to make the sentence work. <S> There is nothing (else) to be said about this book. <S> I have nothing to say about this book. <S> This is not correct English: <S> There is nothing to talk about this book . <S> (It is a literal translation from of the French) <A> You are correct. <S> Incorrect: "There is nothing left to talk about David." <S> Correct: <S> "There is nothing left to say about David." <S> Correct: <S> "There is nothing left to talk about." <S> Reason: "Talk" is an intransitive verb, as mentioned in other posts, and cannot be applied to a direct object.
| The verb SAY is transitive and takes a direct object.
|
Is "The chances of her saying yes are high" a valid sentence? Is this a valid sentence? The chances of her saying yes are high. Gerunds always confuse me. Should I say that (if possible) or The chances that she says yes are high. <Q> The sentence: <S> The chances of her saying yes are high. <S> is fine in normal speech. <S> Presumably in a situation such as: <S> I asked Jenni to the Drag Races on Saturday. <S> The chances of her saying yes are high. <A> Yes, this a perfectly acceptable sentence. <S> I don't know if there is any substantial difference between chances and chance , so use which sounds best to you. <S> There are other ways to say the same thing. <S> As FumbleFingers mentions in his comment, you can say "the probability of .." than "the chance of"; however in my opinion we don't usually use the word probability unless we actually talk about something measurable, like the odds on a game of chance, or the statistics of a particular event. <S> Rather, in casual conversation you would say something is "likely" or "unlikely": <S> It's likely that she will say yes. <S> It's unlikely that he will win the election. <A> That is good, standard English. <S> A gerund is (in simple terms) the use of a verb as a noun (with "-ing"). <S> It is a part of toolkit of the language, to allow you to use a verb, when you cannot think of a proper noun, or when it would be complicated, pompous, etc. <S> In "I like eating", "eating" has to be interpreted as a noun (in theory, you could say "I like alimentation", but that would sound awkward). <S> You could interpret "eating" as a short form for "the fact that I am eating", or something of that sort. <S> The possibility to use a a gerund with a complement, e.g. "saying yes" ("the fact that someone says yes"), is a nice feature of the English language. <S> Note that in casual conversation, someone might say: "chances are, she will say yes". <A> I can imagine some people talking about a script for a show that is under review, and asking themselves questions about what a girl says in at a given point. <S> "Well, it may be that she says 'blue' or 'heavy', here, but it seems to me that the chances that she says 'yes' are high." <S> Now, if you're talking to your friend and he's describing his plan to ask a girl out, then I think "the chances of her saying 'yes' are high'" is what you'd say. <S> (Unless they aren't.)
| You can also say: The chance of her saying yes is high
|
What does "Rx accounts" mean? Here's an audio file . In number three (1:25) a woman seems to be speaking to her secretary. From what I understand she says: Also could you bring the file on the Rx accounts? According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary : on : about, e.g. a book on South Africa Rx : the written abbreviation for a doctor’s prescription account : a written record of money that is owed to a business and of money that has been paid by it, e.g. to keep the accounts up to date The meaning of each word seems to be clear. However, I don't understand the meaning of the whole phrase. P.S. Just a guess: can RX be a proper noun in this context? <Q> I also hear "Also could you bring the file on the Rx accounts?" and the information you have provided is accurate. <S> The speaker is making a request. <S> She is asking the secretary for the file "on Rx accounts". <S> I also hear "Rx", but I am not convinced that this is correct. <S> It might be some kind of special business lingo, a surname or a fake company name like "Arix Company". <S> Anyway, the file on X accounts means the file regarding/about X or the file that contains the transactions with X . <S> In X accounts , X is a noun that modifies accounts . <S> So, the file on Rx accounts likely means the file with the transactions regarding prescriptions. <S> Maybe the speaker runs a pharmaceutical company, for example. <S> If we pretend it's a company name or surname <S> "Arix", then Arix accounts would be accounts regarding the transactions the speaker makes with Mr./Mrs. <S> Arix (or the Arix Company). <S> Think of "Smith" if "Arix" doesn't make sense. <A> You are correct and Rx <S> (actually the symbol: ℞, representing the Latin imperative verb, recipe = take, take thou) refers to a doctor's prescription, or (sometimes) to prescription medicine and/or pharmacies. <S> So the "Rx accounts" are some kind of records that relate to doctors' prescriptions, or possibly pharmaceuticals/pharmacies in general. <S> I can't tell what exactly she means without more context, or even if it's important to know more detail, but it seems like you already have a good enough general idea to understand the sentence. <A> on: about, e.g. a book on South Africa <S> I belive this interpretation is correct. <S> Rx: the written abbreviation for a doctor’s prescription <S> First I have heard that, in my world Rx is an abbreviation for "Receive" but as with lots of two letter words/acronyms it can likely mean many different things in different contexts. <S> Likely yes. <S> P.S. <S> Just a guess: can RX be a proper noun in this context? <S> Very possible. <S> The meaning of each word seems to be clear. <S> However, I don't understand the meaning of the whole phrase. <S> The business has a "file" (collection of records) which it refers to as "RX accounts". <S> The boss wants the secretary to bring it for him. <S> Anything beyond that is essentially speculation on the internal business practices of the business in question.
| a written record of money that is owed to a business and of money that has been paid by it, e.g. to keep the accounts up to date
|
"you know" in conversational language I noted that in conversational language and slang, English native speakers often use "you know". Should this phrase be understood as a question "do you understand what I'm trying to say?" or as an assertion "as you probably know"? <Q> It's a bit more complicated: ..., you know,... inserted somewhat randomly is one of those typical " fillers " with little to no semantic content. <S> In almost all cases the speaker could simply leave it out - but so they could do with well,.... <S> erm.... <S> etc. <S> Hint: There will often be a small break in the "flow" of the speech, a deep breath while the speaker unconsciously gathers their thoughts. <S> All signs for filler words. <S> Note that the Wikipedia article linked above explicitly lists "y'know" as an example. <S> In the few cases where "you know" really is significant, it will either come as a clearly recognizable question (even in spoken language you should be able to "hear" a question) being short for <S> Do you know? <S> You know my sister? <S> (possibly points to person) <S> or as a statement (again: listen), being short for As you (probably) know... <S> You know I've been interviewing for that job - I'll start Monday! <S> Context is key, as usual. <A> "You know" frequently joins "ummm", "aaah", "I mean", "the thing is", "like" and numerous other expressions as a vocal pause for thought (to which some speakers seem addicted). <S> It is properly used at the end of a statement for emphasis or to seek a positive response. <S> ( http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/you+know ) <A> For example "When you turn a computer off, you know, it takes a few seconds to shut down - well this new tablet computer doesn't!" <S> The "you know" here is being used to soften me telling my conversation partner something they probably already know, without implying that I'm teaching them the basics, in order for me to then add some further information to that background/contextual information. <S> It's also occasionally used to cut yourself short when you realize you're over-explaining the background information: in this context it's being used to mean "You get the gist, and you already understand what I'm talking about, so I'll get on with the rest of my sentence". <S> This usage is usually used when you just need to get your conversation partner "onto the same page", eg to make sure they know vaguely what topic you're talking about. <S> These are both fairly subtle uses of the phrase, and frankly I wouldn't worry about it: they're mostly just an additional social skill relating to "judging your audience", in order to help conversations flow better.
| While I agree with the answers already present that it's often used as a "filler" like "like" etc, I'll add another use which is to reduce perceived condescension when you're either adding context or background information.
|
Difference between ‘as little as’ and ‘as many as’ Some sentences: It takes as little as four seconds for a car thief to break into a car. (Or should it be as few as four seconds? Because seconds is countable) You can fly to Paris for as little as 20 euros. (Or as few as 20 euros? Because euros is countable) He drinks as much as three bottles of milk a day. (Or as many as three bottles of milk? Because bottle is countable) The weather can change completely in as little as half an hour . (Or as few as a half an hour ... because hour is countable) I could be back in as little as five days. (Or as few days as ... because days is countable) I don't know why in the above examples we used 'little/much' instead of 'few/many'? Am I wrong? <Q> As little as , as much as , as few as and as many as are idiomatic phrases. <S> The definitions in Merriam-Webster dictionary are: <S> As little as : used to suggest that a number or quantity is surprisingly small <S> As few as : used to suggest that a number or amount is surprisingly small <S> As many as : used to suggest that a number or amount is surprisingly large <S> But As much as : used to say that two things are equal in amount or degree, or that an amount is as large as another amount; other meanings are "almost but not quite" and "even though". <S> As you can see, "as little as" is almost the same as "as few as", but the former can be used for a quantity while the latter can be used for an amount (see this question for the difference). <S> These two are interchangeable in some cases. <S> But all the examples you provided are related to continuous quantities, so "as few as" is not suitable. <S> As a suitable example, you could say "In my math class there are as few as two girls". <S> However, "as much as" does not carry the same meaning - it is typically used in different contexts (which makes it much more common; see these Ngrams ). <S> Using "as much as" instead of "as many as" (as in your third example) may be considered correct, but it will likely create some confusion when the sentence is read, so I would suggest using "as many as" instead. <A> "Bottles of milk" can be interpreted as a quantity of milk (which is uncountable) as well as a number of bottles of milk (which is countable). <S> In other words bottle can be a unit of measure as well as an object. <S> It's just a quirk of English. <S> You can use "as much as" or "as little as" in this case. <A> In the first and second sentence, 'as little as' is used to mean "a small amount, quantity, or degree". <S> In the fourth and fifth sentence, 'as little as' is used to mean "the minimum period of time". <S> It mostly conveys the meaning of only or just : <S> It takes only four seconds for a car thief to break into a car. <S> You can fly to Paris for only 20 euros. <S> The weather can change completely in just half an hour. <S> I could be back in just five days. <S> If the quantity/amount is lower, we use as little as. <S> If it's higher we use as many as: <S> It takes as little as four seconds to start a car. <S> It takes as many as four days to fix a car. <S> Definition of as many as — used to suggest that a number or amount is surprisingly large .
| Definition of as little as — used to suggest that a number or quantity is surprisingly small .
|
Meaning of the word "may" I'm struggling a bit with the meaning of "may". Does "You may eat that apple." mean any of these?: "You are able to eat that apple." "You are allowed to eat that apple." "I want you to eat that apple." I think it's probably the middle one but I'm not quite sure. Same for the negative version of the above-mentioned sentence. Does "You may not eat that apple." mean any of these?: "You are unable to eat that apple." "You aren't allowed to eat that apple." "Whether you eat that apple, is up to you." "I want you to eat that apple but you don't have to do it." "I wish you won't eat that apple." "I'd prefer if you won't eat that apple but you are able to and allowed to if you want to." (Side note: Is that sentence grammatically correct?) If none of the proposed meanings quite cut it, please let me know what would. <Q> May can express permission or authority, and conditionality (in the present perfect) or potentiality. <S> In your sentence <S> You may eat that apple, depending on context, may could convey either of these meanings: <S> ( Potentiality ) <S> You are allowed to eat that apple. <S> ( Permission ) <S> In the negative form <S> You may not eat that apple, (depending again on context) <S> may not could convey one of the following meanings: <S> You are not allowed to eat that apple. <S> ( Permission ) <S> It is possible that you will not eat that apple. <S> ( Potentiality ) <A> may is about permission <S> can is about ability <S> You can eat an apple, but you may not. <S> you are able to eat an apple, but you are not allowed to eat an apple <S> Your sentence <S> I'd prefer if you didn't eat that apple <S> but you are able to and allowed to if you want to. <S> is correct and understandable. <A> In US English, speakers often mix up "can" and "may". <S> Using "may" is proper, but many speakers say "can". <S> My aunt would constantly correct people that used "can" incorrectly, but she was the grammar police. <S> In my experience, most people would say "You can eat the apple." <S> (giving permission) or "Can I eat the apple?" <S> (asking permission) even though it's technically incorrect. <S> The proper way to say it is "You may eat the apple." and "May I eat the apple?", but, again, most people I've encountered use "can". <S> Using "may" in conversation can sometimes appear very formal. <S> When someone says "Can I eat the apple?" a sarcastic person may retort "I don't know. <S> Can you?". <S> However, I find this to be rare and obnoxious.
| It is possible that you will eat that apple. We use the modal may to talk about the possibility of doing something, or about permission to do something. You might hear parents say "may" when they are talking to a child (in an effort to teach them the correct usage).
|
What does "they are facing their chest and shoulder" mean in this paragraph? I'm reading a book about body language. The book has a paragraph: The most obvious nonverbal indication of contacting is how you position yourself in relation to other people. This includes both how close you are to them and the angle at which you face them. You should always try to turn your entire body toward them while at the same time positioning yourself in front of them, judging by wherever they are facing their chest and shoulders. By placing yourself right in front of them, you can easily nonverbally contact with them , which is ideal. I wonder if the writer wrote correctly in the expression "judging by wherever they are facing their chest and shoulders", because I think people can't face their chest and shoulders. Can you explain it for me? <Q> In my opinion, the author's wording is a little awkward, but understandable after a moment. <S> face <S> noun <S> 5 : <S> surface: <S> a (1) : a front, upper, or outer surface (2) <S> : <S> the front of something having two or four sides (3) : facade <S> tr. <S> v. <S> 4. <S> b : to have the front oriented toward < a house facing the park > intr. <S> v. 1 <S> : to have the face or front turned in a specified direction 2 : to turn the face in a specified direction <S> The verb face can be used with things that don't actually have a (human) face. <S> The thing needs to be or have a "front" part. <S> So when two people stand so that their chests and shoulders face each other, the chest and shoulders are more or less parallel to one another. <S> They look like this. <S> Their entire bodies are toward each other and in front of each. <S> Here is a different example. <S> Notice that their faces are facing one another, but their bodies are not. <S> They are not positioned like the two women above. <S> B's body is partly facing A's body, but their chests are not facing one another. <S> judging by wherever they are facing their chest and shoulders. <S> If B wanted to follow the author's advice, then B would use A's chest and shoulders to determine where he (B) should move/stand so that his body is in front of A and so that their chests are parallel. <S> Then they would be facing each other like the women above. <A> It is used in this sense in military commands like "Face left/right" (turn through 90 degrees left/right), "About face" <S> (turn through 180 degrees), etc. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/face , verb, sense #1.2 <S> So the meaning is "judge which direction the upper part of their body (chest and shoulders) <S> is pointing towards (i.e. not necessarily the same direction that their head is looking towards, or where their feet are pointing) and stand in front of them in that direction". <A> Perhaps the author wanted to convey the meaning that you should place yourself where their body is facing, not where their head is facing? <S> "Facing their chest and shoulders" does sound a little clunky. <S> It is all too easy to ignore someone by turning your head away. <S> By placing yourself directly in front of their body, this makes it impolite for them to do so. <S> It doesn't really matter if your body is not facing them. <S> You can always turn to face them directly if they engage you in conversation. <A> The sentence is saying that you should position yourself "wherever they are facing their chest and shoulders." <S> To face in a direction is to point toward it. <S> So, if I am facing my chest and shoulders toward you, that means my body is pointed at you. <S> So, the author is directing you to move to wherever the other person's chest is pointing. <S> On a side note, I don't know why they specified chest and shoulders. <S> I don't think it is possible to point your chest one way and your shoulders another...
| In the phrase "wherever they are facing their chest and shoulders", the author is using "face" in the military sense, where it means "to turn in a particular direction".
|
When a girl mentions her girlfriend, does she mean it like lesbian girlfriend? I have a classmate and sometimes she says something like "I told my girlfriend that she has to blah blah". Does this wording imply a lesbian relationship, or is she referring to a her best friend (a girl) only? <Q> It's true that girls often call their close female friend(s) girlfriend(s) , at least in the US. <S> And although I am inclined to believe that the friend is likely a platonic female friend, it is still ambiguous. <S> girlfriend <S> 1. <S> A female companion or friend with whom one has a sexual or romantic relationship. <S> 2. <S> A female friend. <S> If you really care to know, you should ask her for clarification. <A> It depends where in the world you are. <S> Everywhere, as far as I know, one meaning of "girlfriend" is "a woman you're having a romantic and/or sexual relationship with but aren't married to." <S> In the UK, the friend-who-is-a-woman meaning is much less common than in the US and would be seen as something of an Americanism. <S> Having said that, the proportion of women in the UK who use "girlfriend" to mean any close female friend could easily be higher than the proportion of lesbian and bisexual women. <S> If that's the case then a woman saying "my girlfriend" in the UK would still be more likely to mean "my close female friend" than "my romantic/sexual partner". <A> The other answers have done a great job, and I fully agree. <S> If a girl refers to another girl as a "girlfriend" it could mean either way <S> but it's very common to refer to just a female friend. <S> I wanted to add some additional information to say that this (for whatever reason) is very specific to one girl referring to another. <S> If a girl said "boyfriend" most people would would assume that means a romantic relationship, and it would sound weird otherwise. <S> I have heard "guy-friend" to refer to platonic male friends, but I'm not sure how common this is. <S> (It might be regional) <S> Similarly, if I (a male) were to refer to someone as a "(girl|boy) friend" most people would infer that I mean a romantic partner. <S> I probably would too. <S> I would never refer to a platonic friend as a "(girl|boy) friend", and it would sound very strange to hear someone doing so. <A> Unlike boys, girls very often call their close female friends girlfriends . <A> Even as a native speaker (a gay one, at that) this can be ambiguous. <S> In my experience, using "girlfriend" to refer to friends is something that older women do and probably not the under-thirty set that is more used to gay culture. <S> However, I've always lived in liberal, very gay-friendly environments so I wouldn't be shocked if I found that young women in less LGBT-friendly American regions used "girlfriend" as a synonym for "friend". <S> If understanding were crucial to your conversation, I think asking "Is she just a friend or are you two dating?" would be perfectly acceptable. <A> Often, if the ladies in question are in a romantic relationship then they will refer to each other as their partner (this is true for both genders). <S> As mentioned, that doesn't also preclude them from referring to each other as girlfriend as well.
| In the US, it's very common for women to describe close female friends as "girlfriends", even when there is no romantic or sexual involvement.
|
Asking when someone leaves work or home? I need to know the most natural and least wordy way in English to ask what time someone leave work for the day. Could you please verify these sentences below and let me know if 1) They are actually used by native speakers and 2) if I can improve them in anyway? And lastly, how do you usually ask this question yourself in everyday life? A. What time does she usually leave?B. What time does she usually leave work (home)? A. What time does she usually get off?B. What time does she usually get off work (home)? A. What time does she usually work until? B. What time until does she usually work? C. Until what time does she usually work? Is there a way to ask this via the verb stay ? <Q> In U.S. English, the simplest way would be to ask What time does she get off work? <S> A shade more formal would be What time does she usually leave work? <S> or What time does she usually leave for the day? <S> In the latter, the work context would be understood. <S> Don't use it if there could be some confusion. <S> Here's one way to ask involving the word stay : <S> How late does she usually stay [at work]? <S> Be careful, though, because any of these might be construed by the listener as evidence that you may be nosy at least, and possibly a stalker. <S> So unless you're checking up on this woman as a job applicant, the prudent course would be to ask her yourself. <S> addendum for OP <S> You asked where you should place <S> the until in your constructions. <S> Presumably you're wondering whether you should avoid putting it at the end of the sentence. <S> The answer is: don't avoid that. <S> While some pedants will wince at this, they really don't have a leg to stand on . <S> See this accepted answer on ELU to the same question. <S> (TL;DR: This is a rule made up hundreds of years ago by fussbudgets who determined, against all usage evidence to the contrary, that English should behave more like Latin.) <S> Therefore you should feel no qualms about asking <S> What time does she work till? <S> or What time does she work until? <S> But since English is pretty flexible, you could also easily say Until what time does she work? <S> But for my money, that sounds a little more formal, even stilted. <S> Note that till and until are pretty much interchangeable here. <S> See this related discussion on till and until on ELU. <A> The direct and unambigious way in British English would be "When does she leave home (to go to work)?" <S> and "When does she leave work?". <S> In BrE you can also ask "When does she leave for work?" <S> meaning "When does she leave home to go to work?". <S> But "When does she leave for home?" <S> would sounds strange. <S> People leave home to go to many different places, but when you leave work you almost always go home. <S> But you could ask something like "When does she leave for Paris? <S> " if she was going on a business trip and travelling direct from work to an airport, perhaps in the middle of the normal working day. <S> You can replace "When" by "What time" in all of the above. <S> Using "stay": <S> You could ask something like "How long does she stay at work?" <S> or "How long will she be staying at work? <S> " <S> Those questions assume that when she finishes work she will go home. <S> The first question is asking about the usual time she finishes work. <S> The second one is asking about one particular occasion - "when will she leave work today ?". <A> The three A versions are better. <S> However, in real life I'd usually just say "What time do you finish?". <S> (Note to moderators: I'm not sure how I'm supposed to provide justification or backup information for this type of answer) <A> As an example (a bit wordy, but I want to setup the context), I need to call a company and speak with a specific person. <S> I call and ask to speak to Susan Smith. <S> The response could be: <S> Sorry, she is out of the office right now. <S> Sorry, she is out for lunch right now. <S> Sorry, she is out for lunch <S> right now, she'll be back around 1:00 (1:00 PM). <S> If they didn't mention it, I'll ask when will she return (to work)? <S> But, I won't be available around that time, so I want to know when she will leave work so I can plan when I will call her back. <S> I'll ask something like <S> (I'd probably go with #1): <S> What time will she be done working today?When will she leave work today?What time will she work until, today? <S> Including "today" is somewhat optional as most would see it as implied, but to avoid ambiguity, I'd include it. <S> Particularly if I needed to speak with her today, it's important to not ask what time does she usually work until because "today" may not be a "usual" day. <S> today?Can <S> I call her back anytime between 1:00 and 5:00? <S> Perhaps after she returns, she will be in a meeting from 3:00 until the end of the day. <S> If possible, I'd like to know that so I can call her back between 1:00 and sometime before 3:00. <A> What time does she usually get off? <S> I would be very cautious about using that phrase. <S> "Get off" has a number of connotations, including sexual ones: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/get-off <S> It also has other meanings like "get off a criminal charge", "get off a bus" and so on. <S> What time does she usually get off home <S> You don't normally "get off" home, so that wouldn't work. <S> I need to know the most natural and least wordy way in English to ask what time someone leave work for the day <S> I would say: When does she leave work? <S> "At what time" is wordy. <S> "When" means the same thing. <S> "For the day" is implied. <S> You aren't asking "for the week" or "for ever". <S> And lastly, how do you usually ask this question yourself in everyday life? <S> In Australia we might ask someone: "When do you knock off?" <S> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/knock+off <S> Informal a. <S> To take a break or rest from; stop: knocked off work at noon . <S> b. <S> To cease work: It's after five; let's knock off . <S> However that is a bit colloquial as well (and can also have sexual implications).
| To be completely clear, I might also ask: When might she be available to speak with me
|
Difference between a clue and a cue? English seems to have several similar-sounding words that have related meanings. Personally, I am having a bit of a problem / difficulty understanding the difference between a clue and a cue (apart from "snooker cues"). My intuition tells me that while the former is more general, the latter is more specific and is limited to gestures or sounds. I want to know whether the word "cue" always carries the connotation of a forceful, coercive, interaction mode, or whether the imperativeness associated with a cue's call to action is always based upon a preestablished agreement between the person or device issuing the cue and the person responding to such cues. As an reasonable example, I would like to ask about the exact meaning of the word "cue" in Cued Speech for the Deaf . Why is the speech cued, and not clued? Take also the audible cues provided by screen readers for the blind such as TalkBack on Android with Explore By Touch enabled. I guess the word here means prompt, but I am not sure about whether it carries any other specific connotations. The Merriam-Webster dictionary carries the following definitions 2.1.b and 3.1, and I am interested in their direct comparison: something serving a comparable purpose : hint and to give a cue to : prompt In response to Andrew's answer: Similarly, anything can be a cue, as long as it signals meaningful information to someone. What would that information be needed for, if not to solve a problem. Thus, while a clue is a cue, it also sends to me, that under this definition, a cue would also be a clue. <Q> I suggest you start with the formal definition for each. <S> While both "clue" and "cue" have related meanings, their dictionary definition is not the same: <S> Clue : <S> A fact or idea that serves to reveal something or solve a problem (e.g. a crime or a puzzle). <S> Cue : <S> A signal for action (like an actor entering the stage). <S> Also, a piece of information which aids the memory in retrieving details, or indicates a desired course of action. <S> Really, anything can be a clue, as long as it helps to solve something. <S> Similarly, anything can be a cue, as long as it signals meaningful information to someone. <S> So, more than anything else, the difference is in their individual purpose , and not what they are or who might be involved. <S> If all that is confusing just remember this: A detective searches for clues ; an actor waits for his cue . <A> The etymology and meaning of the two words is completely different. <S> cue (n.1) "stage direction," 1550s, from Q, which was used 16c., 17c. <S> in stage plays to indicate actors' entrances, probably as an abbreviation of Latin quando "when" (see quandary) or a similar Latin adverb. <S> Shakespeare's printed texts have it as both Q and cue. <S> clue (n.) 1590s, spelling variant of clew "a ball of thread or yarn," in this sense with reference to the one Theseus used as a guide out of the Labyrinth. <S> The purely figurative sense of "that which points the way" is from 1620s. <S> As something which a bewildered person does not have, by 1948. <A> They're not really that closely related in meaning. <S> It's most often used when talking about acting. <S> Like, "When Sally opens the door, that's your cue to begin your speech. <S> " It can be used in other contexts, like, "When I hold two fingers in the air, that's your cue to start the engine." A "clue" is information that helps to solve a problem or mystery. <S> It's often used when discussing solving crimes. <S> Like, "The detective realized that the position of the glass on the table was an important clue to the identify of the murderer. <S> " The word is also used for other sorts of mysteries, like, "I got a subtle clue to why the refrigerator was not working when I saw the power cord lying on the floor, not plugged into anything." <S> I guess a cue could be considered a kind of clue in a sense. <S> "I'm not sure when I'm supposed to start talking. <S> Maybe you could give me a cue/clue by turning on the lights when it's my turn to speak. <S> " Either word would work here, but they don't really mean the same thing. <S> A "cue" is definitive: when you get your cue, you're supposed to take action. <S> A "clue" is a hint. <S> You MIGHT be supposed to take action when you see or hear the clue, but maybe not. <S> It's information to help you come to a conclusion. <A> Cue : something that gives you an indication of something that needs to be done: music cue, cue cards.
| Clue : things that help you guess/solve a mystery. A "cue" is a signal to prompt someone to speak or take some other action.
|
What is a word for people I follow? I want to know the word for person or group of people that I follow. I tried searching on the internet and found nothing. <Q> Depending on the context the person or group can have different names: <S> Followee <S> One who guides others in action or opinion; one who takes the lead in any business, enterprise, or movement; one who is ‘followed’. <S> Guide <S> - A person who shows the way to others, especially one employed to show tourists around places of interest. <S> This person can also be a commanding officer (CO) in the context of missions, a conductor, maybe a profile or an account. <A> There is no general term for this in English other than leader , but social media has given a new meaning to the term follow , meaning to subscribe to status updates, and you can't call the person you're following a leader in this case. <S> Depending on your context you may be able to use the terms <S> publish/subscribe or even <S> publish/follow <S> but that is unlikely to be understood by many social media users. <S> However, a term that might work across multiple such services is account , since it can be said you follow both a Facebook and Twitter account, for example. <A> Apparently, the word followee seems OK, but it's little usage to mean the person you follow. <S> The leader of the religious sect and 30 of his followers killed themselves in a suicide pact last - Cambridge Dictionary <S> I think the word leader is approriate and most common.
| [ followees - plural] - A person who is being tracked on a social media website or application; A person who is being followed. Leader - The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country;
|
How do you say "enchufado" in English? "Enchufado" or "enchufe" is a colloquial way of saying that a person got a job because a friend or relative gave it to him, instead of earning it themselves. I thought about the word "appointed" but that is too formal and I don't think it conveys quite the same meaning (you could be appointed and still have earned the job). <Q> (It does not apply for friends, however.) <S> patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics <A> From SpanishDict enchufe <S> masculine noun (colloquial) <S> (influence) a. connections <S> Yo estoy mejor cualificado, pero le dieron el trabajo a ella porque tiene enchufe. <S> — I am more qualified, but she got the job because she has connections. <S> b. friends in high places <S> (colloquial) <S> Tengo un enchufe que te puede ayudar a conseguir un aumento. <S> — I have some friends in high places who might help you get you a raise. <S> enchufado <S> adjective (colloquial) <S> (favored) a. <S> well-connected Mariano consiguió el puesto de gerente solo porque está enchufado.—Mariano only got the manager position because he's well-connected. <S> b. <S> no direct translation <S> ¿ <S> Sabías que Jaime está enchufado en <S> la empresa <S> de su tío?—Did <S> you know Jaime's got a job in his uncle's company just through his connections? <S> Esto está lleno de gente <S> enchufada.—This place is full of people who got a job because of their connections. <S> masculine or feminine noun (colloquial) <S> (person with connections) <S> a. <S> well-connected person <S> En esta empresa solamente los enchufados consiguen un <S> aumento de sueldo.—Only the well-connected people get a raise in this company. <S> b. person with pull <S> Le <S> di mi nuevo disco a un enchufado que trabaja <S> en la <S> discográfica.—I gave my new album to a person with pull who works at the record company. <S> As is often the case, there does not seem to exist a direct translation. <S> Although connected and well-connected might not necessarily have negative connotations, they can still be perceived negatively under the right context. <S> Example. <S> He's obviously underqualified. <S> I bet he got the job because he's got connections. <S> Less formally, you could say "know someone" or "hook up": <S> He got the job because he knew a guy/someone at the office (on the board, etc). <S> I didn't need to apply. <S> My friend hooked me up with the job. <A> The closest I can think of is "Crony", although the term is usually seen as " Cronyism ". <S> And as far as I know, you have to be the Crony of somebody else, you can't just say "a Crony" without some reference as to whose Crony they are. <S> Example " <S> He's one of Bob's cronies" is OK. <S> But "He's a crony" would need to have been preceded by something to indicate whose crony they are. <S> See also: Tony's Cronies , and Crony Capitalism . <A> Nepotism noun 1. <S> patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics: <S> She was accused of nepotism when she made her nephew an officer of the firm. <A> You would have to find another way to express it. <S> E.g., you could talk about a “job for the lads”, shifting the subject of the sentence. <S> Concerning the answers above, nepotism is a terrible fit. <S> “Estar enchufado” or “ser un enchufado” means to benefit from some sort of favouritism, whether one is related to the person giving or facilitating the job or just a friend, or even a friend of a friend, or even a simple acquaintance in some cases. <A> "Old boys club"; "it's who you know"; "friend of the family"; "a legacy" would all be related terms.
| If we are specifically talking about a family member, nepotism is a good word. Being fluent in Spanish, there isn't a direct equivalent in English in terms of cadence, register, connotations, and of course meaning.
|
Meaning of "struggling is neither okay nor normal, but second thoughts on her part might be" A female is not going to make the decision to date with a male based on thinking, because in the heat of the moment, her emotions run the show. She will not think about it, she will feel about it[...]This is why some resistance or hesitation on the woman’s part is both normal and expected. Obviously, struggling is neither okay nor normal, but second thoughts on her part might be. The fact that she is married, engaged, or has a boyfriend might all of a sudden surface, or she will realize that she is about to do something that is considered “naughty”. I couldn't understand the meaning of the sentence in the bold text. I understand the meaning of every word, but the way the sentence was written still confused me. So can you explain it, or better, can rewrite it to be easier to understand? <Q> Obviously, struggling is neither okay nor normal, but second thoughts on her part might be <S> The structure: <S> [A] is not ok or normal, but [B] might be (ok or normal). <S> It's not uncommon to implicitly refer back to a previous assertion without explicitly restating it. <S> Other examples: <S> Jim and Jill both said it's fine to sneak into the movies, but I think it isn't. <S> Juicing and filtering are necessary parts of the process, as is a final pasteurization. <S> Typing and answering telephones are normal secretarial duties, but cleaning windows is probably not. <S> Otherwise "struggling" and "second thoughts" should be easy to look up. <A> "Struggling" sounds like highly agitated, possibly physical effort to avoid dating somebody. <S> This sentence is saying that it is not okay for a female to struggle to get out of dating. <S> A "second thought" is a hesitation. <S> To have "second thoughts" about going on a date is to hesitate because you are thinking about it differently. <A> The paragraph seems to contradict itself. <S> It says "A female is not going to think . <S> . . <S> but second thoughts . <S> . <S> . are normal and OK. <S> I have a PhD in Linguistics, and I can't understand it either!
| So, this sentence is saying that it's not okay or normal for a woman to struggle to avoid a date, but it is okay and normal for a woman to hesitate about going on a date.
|
Is it good to call someone "Nerd"? My friends always use "nerd" to describe an intelligent person, but when I searched its meaning online, I found that it's not really a good word. "A foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious." Oxford Dictionaries I've become so confused with this word. Is it an insult or a compliment? <Q> Nowadays it can be good or bad. <S> In the past it was inherently bad, but it has undergone the phenomenon of reappropriation , which causes insults to become a "badge of honour" for the insulted group. <S> In my personal experience, nerd was an insult most (~ 90%) of the time until the mid-late 2000s, when the concept of a "nerd culture" became surprisingly popular. <S> Of course, nerd as " person who follows nerd culture " and nerd as " person who studies too much " do not always overlap. <A> If they are referring to an "intelligent" person like you say then they most probably mean: a person who is extremely interested in one subject, especially computers, and knows a lot of facts about it — <S> Cambridge Dictionary Example, I'm a real grammar nerd. <S> So, no it is not in the bad or negative sense <S> but you still have to be careful with this word <S> some people might find a bit offensive to be called a "nerd" especially when this word has a first definition that is kind of negative. <A> I don't agree nerd is restricted to intelligent. <S> A nerd can use the n word to describe themselves but <S> other people should not. <S> A nerd can say he is a nerd pack like me. <S> As a non nerd there are so many ways to express without using the n word. <S> He/she is into computing. <S> He is a car racing enthusiast. <S> All she can talk about is medicine. <S> He is cryptography nerd from MIT that works for the NSA is OK. <S> It clearly does not have the strict negative connotation of the other n word. <S> Just making a silly comparison. <A> And I think that, when speaking to men especially, it's safer to assume that the other person considers themselves "dominant" (not like a bully; more like, someone you don't f**k with), so best to choose language that doesn't convey a disconnect between how you're viewing the other person and how they view themselves. <S> This applies w/o much qualification when talking to women, too; if you're talking to a woman, for example, keep in mind that she may well be elected in as a parliamentary MP one day, or become the CEO of a major corporation, or end up owning a large and highly successful business, etc. <S> Such a woman may not appreciate being called a "nerd", I think. <A> A nerd is someone with a drive to study. <S> The driver can exist for any of a bunch of different reasons. <S> There are also different areas of focus. <S> Eventually, though, a nerd, in order to be a nerd, must have a certain "love of the subject". <S> And then there are shy nerds, who will cringe upon hearing the word, and less shy nerds, who will openly affirm, part of their identity, as a nerd. <S> For a reference and idea, please see the movie T.G.I.F by Katy Perry , which might be able to give you some ideas about why one would be, or want to be, or end up being, a nerd.
| In some language communities, "nerd" is a loaded word; for example, when used to describe a boy or man, nerd can carry connotations of being easy to push around and/or sexually frustrated. In some language communities, it's basically considered inoffensive; but unless you want to risk offending the other person, I don't think this a good term.
|
Could you teach me this usage of "with"? This is from a novel "The Story of Doctor Dolittle". I can't understand this usage of "with", or what "it" indicates. (Dr. Dolittle had cured a horse because he could talk to him.) And so it was with all the other animals that were brought to him. As soon as they found that he could talk their language, they told him where the pain was and how they felt, and of course it was easy for him to cure them. <Q> It there is so-called "dummy it" and the word refers to a general existential truth. <S> It's hot. <S> It is difficult to read tiny print. <S> It is fun to swim. <S> It = to swim. <S> With all could be paraphrased "in respect to each one". <S> And so it was with all of the new students: each received a packet of information. <A> The "with" here means "In regard of", see dictionary.com (sense 7) <S> The 'it' in " <S> And so it was" is a "weather it". <S> Its main function is to serve as the subject of the clause. <S> You could say that the "it" refers to the state of being able to speak to animals. <S> To paraphrase, it means " <S> And Doctor Doolittle found he was also able to speak to other animals that were brought to him." <S> But to use a sentence like that would be repetitive. <S> The original phrasing is more difficult, but more skillful. <A> Here's a simplified example. <S> " <S> The lion is hungry and Alice is afraid. <S> So it is with Bob." <S> There are at least two possible interpretations. <S> On the one hand, the word "it" might have its usual meaning, that is, the word "it" refers to the most recent subject that isn't a "he" or a "she", in this case the lion. <S> In that case "So it is with Bob" means " <S> Therefore the lion is with Bob". <S> On the other hand, the interpretation of "So it is with Bob" might be "Bob is also afraid". <S> This is harder to analyze. <S> One might say "it" refers to the state of affairs "that Alice is afraid", and "So it is" means " <S> It is so" or "it is true", which means "That Alice is afraid is true" or "It is true that Alice is afraid". <S> One might say that "with Bob" has the effect of replacing the old topic "Alice" with the new topic "Bob". <S> I think it is easier to learn that "So it is with (something else)" has a possible interpretation "The same thing is also true about (something else)".
| The word "it" can function like a proxy for the existential complement: It = to read tiny print
|
"Used to" with multiple verbs Which of the following 3 options is correct, assuming that she doesn't work anymore (and of course she doesn't drink tea before work anymore as she doesn't work anymore): She used to drink tea and then started her job. She used to drink tea and then start her job. She used to drink tea before starting her job. <Q> The phrase "start her job" can refer to her entire period of employment (that is, her getting hired) or her shift for a particular day. <S> The phrase "used to" takes an infinitive, so in the first one, "used to" can't apply to "started". <S> (If you take out "drink tea" and just say "She used to started her job", that would be grammatically incorrect). <S> Since "started" is thus not a habitual action, it must refer to her getting hired. <S> So your first example means "Before she got hired, she used to drink tea", and implies that she stopped drinking tea after she was hired. <S> In your third sentence, both readings are possible: "starting" could be a habitual action preceded by drinking tea, or it could be a one-time process of being hired. <S> It can be read as "She used to (drink tea before starting her job)" or "She (used to drink tea) before starting her job"; that is, it could mean that both drinking tea, and then starting her job, were things she repeatedly did, or it could mean that drinking tea was something she repeatedly did, and all of those instances of drinking tea occurred before one instance of getting hired. <S> With your second sentence, only the "She used to drink tea before each shift" reading works. <S> Since this is the least ambiguous wording, you sthis is the best one out of the three. <S> You could also say "She used to drink tea before starting her job each day." <S> @ThePhoton 's suggestion of "she used to drink tea before going to work." <S> or just "She used to drink tea before work". <A> It implies that Drinking tea (everytime) before starting work was her habit. <S> That is, I'm talking about her in her absence <S> and I'd say "She used to drink tea before starting work/her job." <A> She used to drink tea and then start her job. <S> She used to drink tea before starting her job. <S> Both the second and the third are correct. <S> The first one is incorrect since the tenses don't match and the second part doesn't match the used to part. <S> The second can be understood as, " She used to drink tea and start her job afterwards " <S> - she started her job after she had finished drinking tea.
| She used to drink tea before starting her job. Third one is probably correct.
|
''Charity begins at home'' or ''Charity begins from home''? Which one is correct, 'charity begins at home' or 'charity begins from home'? And I also want to know the exact meaning of the proverb. <Q> The idiomatic expression is: " Charity begins at home " which means: You should take care of family and people close to you before you worry about helping others. <S> Origin 'Charity begins at home' isn't from the Christian bible but it is so near to being so that it is reasonable to describe it as biblical. <S> The notion that a man's family should be his foremost concern is expressed in 1 Timothy 5:8, King James Bible, 1611: <S> But if any prouide not for his owne, & specially for those of his owne house, hee hath denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel. <S> Sir Thomas Browne was the first to put the expression into print in the form we now use, in Religio Medici, 1642: <S> Charity begins at home, is the voice of the world: yet is every man his greatest enemy. <S> From The Phrase Finder <A> Please see this for more information <A> Charity begins at home is correct. <S> Its meaning is Be generous to your family before helping others <A> The common phrase that gets used is Charity begins at home. <S> and people often interpret this to mean <S> take care of your family before helping others <S> However the original intent of the proverb is <S> Charity begins in the home. <S> Which is to mean that children will learn about charity at home .
| The phrase is "charity begins at home", and the current usage is to imply that you should take care of your own family / community / country before giving help to others.
|
the preposition after "get stuck" I would like to ask what is the correct preposition after the phrase "get stuck" when you want to figuratively express that you are bogged down. For example you are dealing with a logical task and you are not able to find out the correct solution. Is it "I have got stuck with/on/with…"? <Q> Consider these possibilities: <S> I am stuck on the database problem. <S> This means you can't continue because you can't figure out how to solve the database problem. <S> You could also say I am stuck at the database problem. <S> This means much the same thing, with the nuance that you are stuck at the point of the database problem among a set of tasks you are trying to address serially. <S> You probably can't do anything else till you solve that one. <S> If you use on it might suggest you could do other parts of the task while waiting for enlightenment on the database issue. <S> But on and at <S> are pretty much interchangeable here. <S> I would expect to hear on more frequently. <S> I got stuck with the database problem. <S> This means someone left you or assigned you the database problem to solve (with overtones of it being an unpleasant or difficult task). <A> There are several possibilities: <S> You can get stuck with your mother in law for the weekend. <S> You can get stuck by the side of the road. <S> You can get stuck in the mud. <S> You can get stuck half way up/down a mountain. <S> You can get stuck climbing through a narrow window. <S> You can get stuck on a difficult problem - or a window ledge. <S> You can get stuck between a rock and a hard place. <S> You can get stuck for hours. <S> But in your example, you're probably stuck with or on ... <S> whichever suits. <A> I have got stuck on this problem. <S> It's appropriate to use the preposition "with" instead of "on in this sentence. <S> You use the "with" when you are unable to get rid of someyhing that you don't want. <S> For example: I don't like to wash dishes. <S> I am stuck with this job.
| If you are unable to find out a solution, you should use the preposition "on" after stuck, for example:
|
Which is the most acceptable numeral for 1980 to 1989? Previously, I asked a question about whether I should omit the article, "the" before the late 80s. I saw in the answer by Absolute Beginner that he writes '80s for Eighties, the apostrophe is added before the numeral, i.e. 80s. Lawrence C put the apostrophe in between, i.e. 80's. The answers have made me very confused, could you tell me which is the correct numeral for the years 1980, 1981, 1982... 1989: 80's, or '80s, or 80s ? I always write 80s, does it mean that I am wrong? Please help! <Q> The ' in '80s is a placeholder for the omitted 19 in 1980s . <S> For most people those are the only '80s relevant to their personal experience, so it is safe to omit the century. <S> It works in the same way as in <S> don't for do not and <S> it's for <S> it is . <S> In my opinion, just writing 80s is fine, too. <S> Writing <S> 1980's in this context is just plain wrong! <S> feels wrong to me. <S> As Larry Trask points out in his Guide to Punctuation , it is commonly used at least in American English. <S> In my opinion it would only be correct, if you wanted to describe a possessive . <S> For something that "belongs to" 1980 : So, " Hurricane Allen was 1980's first named hurricane" would be fine. <S> It was the first named hurricane of the 1980 season. <S> (Note, that this refers only to the year 1980, not the decade 1980s!) <S> So the wide use of both versions on the internet (just use your favourite search engine to find thousands of sites where 80's is used) propably is due to the differences in American and British English usage. <A> The apostrophe in '80s marks the omission of the century, just like an apostrophe in a contraction shows the omission letters. <S> The apostrophe in 80's comes from an old style rule for making plurals of numerals and letters ( mind your p's and q's ). <S> This style rule has fallen out of fashion, but it was common enough that you'll still sometimes see it. <S> Some might not bother with an apostrophe at all and just write 80s , but that would be less precise. <S> Technically, '80's would also be considered correct by adherents to the old style rule, but that could lead absurd constructions like, The '80's' biggest pop star was Michael Jackson. . <A> From a strictly logical standpoint, '80s makes the most sense, using the apostrophe to mark the omission of the 19 , followed by 80s as a further abbreviation that omits the apostrophe. <S> However, I've seen 80's probably more than anything else, and very rarely see '80s . <S> Bottom line <S> : In most contexts, you're good with either 80s or 80's , as long as you're consistent. <S> If you're writing in a formal context (academic or professional) there will be a style guide to tell you which to use.
| The most common correct answer nowadays would be '80s .
|
Is it okay to use passive voice after or before "with great interest"? Is it okay to use passive voice with "with great interest", such as "With great interest, the book was read." or "The book was read with great interest"? Mostly I see people say or write "With great interest, I..." I'm not sure whether it is okay that there isn't a clear subject, such as I, you, he, etc. written before or after this phrase. The reason I wanted to write it this way is that it would sound more formal when "I" is not used in such a sentence. <Q> "With great interest, the book was read" sounds even worse. <S> Both sentences give the impression that you are going out of your way to hide who did the reading. <S> As for how to rewrite it, that depends on what you're trying to say. <S> You could say "The book was very interesting", in which case it would be assumed that it was of interest to the writer (namely you). <S> But if this is a formal piece of writing, you should replace this sentence, which doesn't tell the reader much, by something more specific, such as: "Certain aspects of the book were {especially interesting, of special interest}, namely..." Basically, unless your essay is primarily about your personal reactions, you want to focus on the book itself. <A> Yes, that is perfectly fine. <S> Both passive voice options are typically literary, so they are fine in writing, but not necessarily in speech. <S> People tend to write in English how they speak, so an active voice rendering is more common. <S> Also, using "with great interest" after the sentence is also more common. <S> When speaking you would typically use an active voice such as "They read the book with great interest. <S> " <S> Otherwise you sound overly formal or outdated. <A> You are correct in your concern that there is no "actor" i.e. person doing the activity. <S> In fact, often that is why newspaper accounts use the passive voice so they don't have to specify the doer of the action. <S> It will not make your writing seem "more formal" to use the construction. <S> You do not say if you are writing for an academic purpose, or a blog, or a facebook post (in the case of the latter two it won't make much difference); but if you are writing at a college level it is likely a bad idea. <S> Unless it is a low level course where instructors forgive more easily, use the more formal "this author" or "this researcher. <S> " <S> Better still, do some research on the book and cite other authors.
| The sentence "The book was read with great interest" would be okay if it meant that it was read by a number of people, but if it's meant to refer to you, it sounds rather stilted (artificial).
|
Is there an English idiom for provocative titles, something like "yellow title"? There is a Russian idiom "yellow title" used for provocative / trolling news and articles titles . It's similar to yellow journalism but used particularly for titles. Does this idiom exists in English language as well? Maybe there are similar idioms with same meaning? <Q> I've seen scare headline for provocative or exaggerated titles (not necessarily scary). <S> In reference to the titles of online media (such as articles and videos), we have the word clickbait , which can also refer to the content itself. <S> An option similar to your suggestion of yellow headline is yellow-journalism headline , but it is quite rare . <A> Wikipedia describes it as follows: <S> Clickbait is a pejorative term describing web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue, especially at the expense of quality or accuracy, relying on sensationalist headlines or eye-catching thumbnail pictures to attract click-throughs and to encourage forwarding of the material over online social networks. <A> Catchy headline is the expression generally used to refer to newspaper titles designed to attract readers' interest: A catchy headline is extremely important to bring the reader in to view an article or advertisement. <S> It includes words and thoughts designed to catch someone’s eye and get that person interested in reading what follows the headline. <S> Yourdictionary.com <A> The phrase "Red rag to bull" has a similarly provocative meaning, see here for example . <S> It is used quite generally, it is not specific to titles. <S> Used in sentences such as <S> "The way he spoke was like waving a red rag to a bull" meaning his speech was provocative. <A> From @ColleenV's related answer link: "Hook" (Think of a fisherman catching a fish) or "Come-on <S> " (Think of a guy trying to pick up a girl in a bar)
| With reference to internet only "clickbait" might be appropriate.
|
How common is it to use the word 'bitch' for a female dog? Today I was exposed to the fact that the female form of dog is bitch (just like bull (m) and cow (f)). But I have never heard someone who called his female dog a bitch. So I suspect that in fact it is not in use, Isn't it? <Q> In the UK, you can still use the term bitch without embarrassment, providing that the context is clear: <S> Our bitch, Sally, has just had pups. <S> However, you might want to think twice before referring to someone else's dog as a "bitch". <S> I have the feeling that the term is falling out of use, partly because most dogs are given names <S> and so it can easily be avoided. <S> You can still hear the term on British television, mostly on nature and countryside programmes. <S> Thinking about it, a lot of gender-specific names for animals are used infrequently. <S> You rarely hear male ducks called drakes , male geese called ganders , or female cats called queens . <S> However, male cattle are still called bulls , and male sheep are still called rams , but then these are farm animals and that may be why the usage has persisted. <A> In the U.S., it is only used in veterinary and dog-breeding circles. <S> Outside of that, it is almost exclusively used as a pejorative. <A> British veterinarians and veterinary associations routinely use "bitch" to refer to female dogs and "dog" for males, particularly in the context of reproductive health. <S> Example: <S> BVA strongly supports the practice of neutering cats (castration of tom cats and spaying of queens) and dogs (castration of dogs and spaying of bitches) for preventing the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies and the perpetuation of genetic defects. <S> from https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Policy/Companion-animals/Neutering/ - there are many more examples on the same page. <S> Owners and the general public do it much less, and while they usually won't be offended, some may not even associate "bitch" with "female dog". <S> I suspect the use of the gender specific terms is easier in a professional context where the health implications are immediately useful to know. <S> If the client says bitch, so will the vet; if they say its a "girl dog", so will the vet. <S> A lot of the job is establishing a good relationship with the client. <S> source - asked my partner, a UK vet. <A> If you look at this Google Ngram , you will see the rise of the usage of the term 'bitch' in written works over the years. <S> Having said that, if you look at the frequency values of its usage (the scale on the left-side), you will notice how rarely they are used. <S> The word 'bitch' has been often marked as an offensive term nowadays. <S> When someone shouts out: "Hey, look at that bitch !" <S> people will expect to see a woman* (or man, no offence intended), and not a female dog. <S> Literally, the word means a female dog, but today, it is considered as a term that has been deemed as an offensive slang usage. <S> Now, if you ask why a cow is still called a cow, or a bull, based on it's gender and why bitch is not often used to reference a female dog, I'm as clueless as the next guy. <S> But please restrain from using the term as the listener <S> will take offence and he wouldn't have the patience to listen to your justification that you had indeed referenced a female dog, by calling out so. <S> Fun Fact : <S> A female pig is called a gilt or a sow. <S> But I'm sure most people are unaware of this terminology. <A> "Bitch" is the word you use when you need to distinguish between male and female dogs. <S> All English-speaking dog owners worldwide will use it for that purpose. <S> It's the correct word to use, and in that context it is entirely clear that this is what is mean. <S> Owners may say they have "two girls and one boy" instead, which is a natural extension of the tendency to treat dogs as children and members of the family. <S> If a dog owner doesn't have to be specific about whether the dog is male or female, they generally won't be. <S> In that case, "dog" is the generic term for both male and female familiar canines. <S> If a dog owner has to be specific about the animal being female though, the word "bitch" is entirely relevant, and no dog owner should be offended by it. <S> The insult "dog" used to also be common - Samuel Pepys, on being woken by his friends at 3am, reports saying "What, is it you, you dogs!" <S> - but has fallen out of use in English. <S> Various other languages still use it, but in English it seems comically archaic (think of translated communist Chinese propaganda about "capitalist running dogs").
| Outside of the doggy world though, "bitch" will almost always be an insult. That said, dog breeders in the UK use the term, and vets tend to use the same language as their clients.
|
Is it better to use article "a" or not with "sore throat"? More often one thing happens to us, that is, your throat is sore. So we may say "I have a sore throat". But somebody also say "I have sore throat." So the article "a" here is necessary or not? If necessary, why? <Q> I have a sore throat. <S> is of course correct. <S> This, I have sore throat. <S> follows the same logic as <S> I have mumps, I have measles, I have oral thrush, I have mad cow disease. <S> and is fine. <S> "Sore throat" can be considered a compound word that describes an aliment like the above words, and saying I have {disease-condition} is common and accepted. <S> It's not going to appear in any medical dictionary as a unique disease but is certainly a common symptom or condition that people call off of work or school for. <S> The reason one might tend to say it this way is if one needs to care about "sore throat" as a distinct trait, such as a physician listing symptoms to see if a greater disease is in play. <A> It really depends on the context. <S> Compare the different situations here: <S> Symptoms of the common cold include sore throat, stuffy nose, and headache. <S> I have a sore throat. <S> In the first, the symptoms are spoken of in abstract, generic terms. <S> In the second, a speaker is complaining about the soreness in his own throat. <S> I have a sore throat = <S> my throat is sore. <S> I have sore throat and ringing in the ears = <S> the symptoms of my malady include soreness of the throat and a ringing in the ears. <S> For example, a small child would tell her mother: "Mommy <S> , I have a sore throat and my tummy hurts" not "Mommy, my symptoms include sore throat and abdominal distress". <S> and not "Mommy, I have sore throat and painful tummy". <A> you could not say "i have sore throat" because sore throat is not an actual disease or the name of an infection. <S> You could say "i have Strep Throat", because that is a diagnosis, but since a sore throat is just an indicator/symptom of an infection, it needs the indefinite article "a".
| You could say "I have a sore throat" or "my throat is sore".
|
Avidly received news vs excited to receive the news I have a sentence: "I was excited to receive the news that I won the lottery..." and I need to keep the meaning but avoid the word "excited" (I have the same word in the sentence before) Can I say: "I avidly received the news that..." Or any other suggestions? Thanks! <Q> To do something "avidly" means that you do it enthusiastically, you do it more thoroughly than you might otherwise because you enjoy it or have a great interest in it. <S> To "avidly read the news" would mean you read through an entire newspaper (or news web site or whatever), or read news from many sources, and that you do this because you want to and not because you have to for some reason. <S> So I don't think "avidly" works in this context. <S> You can't really "avidly receive something". <S> You may be excited or happy to hear this news, but you can't "avidly receive" it because "avid" implies that you are actively doing something. <S> "I was happy to hear ..." is grammatically correct but seems weak in context. <S> You could also try something more colorful, like, "I practically fell out of my chair when I heard ..." or "I was beside myself when I learned ..." <A> I would use thrilled: <S> I was thrilled to receive the news that day. <S> That being said, I have not heard the use of the word avidly so personally I would avoid it. <S> Avid also seems to be used when you are greedy, when you desperately desire something which is, for as far as I can tell, not what you want to convey. <S> You can also consider using "keen" or "eager" which both show a strong desire for something but are less negative than avid. <A> It really depends on the context. <S> There are different levels of wording for formal, informal, business, texting, etc. <S> While I agree that "thrilled" fits the literal definition, I would probably use "very happy" to convey my actual feelings, regardless of context.
| Words that come to mind are "I was overjoyed to hear ..." or "thrilled to hear ...".
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.