source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is it correct to say "I hurt"? In this dictionary , hurt (of part of your body) to feel painful; (of an action) to cause pain:My feet hurt. Ouch! That hurt! It hurts when I bend my knee. Can we use "hurt" for things that is not a part of our body. Ex, Is it correct to say " I hurt "? <Q> Hurt means "causing oneself/experiencing pain" with no object. <S> When used with personal pronouns as subjects it means "something indefinite/general causes X pain" or "X experiences pain in general. <S> " <S> My arm hurts = <S> My arm causes me pain. <S> I hurt = <S> Something indefinite causes me pain, I'm feeling pain in general. <S> If it has an object, it means "to injure X" and can be used with objects as well as people or body parts. <S> I hurt my arm <S> = <S> I injured my arm. <S> I hurt our relationship = <S> I damaged our relationship <S> I hurt myself = <S> I injured myself, I probably hurt too. <S> I hurt me <S> is sometimes used to say you damaged yourself emotionally or spiritually. <S> I hurt myself <S> can mean this too, and if you mean you physically damaged yourself, is the preferred phrase. <A> Yes, it's perfectly idiomatic to say "I hurt" to mean "I am in (physical or emotional) pain." <S> You can find many examples of this in current usage with a Google Books search. <S> For example, I Hurt Like Hell <S> If God is So Good <S> , Why Do I Hurt <S> So Bad? <S> I hurt for Samantha and Timothy, who were as good as orphaned now, and I hurt for Julia, who wouldn't be able to see much of either of them for a long, long time. <A> Well the American band R.E.M had a worldwide hit in the 1990s with a song entitled: <S> Everybody hurts , <S> so I see no reason why a person cannot say " I hurt " <S> When your day is long <S> And the night, the night is yours alone <S> When you're sure you've had enough Of this life, well hang on <S> Don't let yourself go <S> 'Cause <S> everybody cries <S> And everybody hurts <S> sometimes [continues] <S> For the complete lyrics, see here . <S> Merriam-Webster reports that hurt <S> is both a transitive and intransitive verb, and defines the latter as: <S> intransitive verb 1 <S> a : to suffer pain or grief b : to be in need —usually used with for ‘hurting for money’ 2 : to cause damage or distress ‘hit where it hurts’ Finally <S> , Collins Cobuild adds this clarificatory note <S> In American English, you can also say that a person hurts . <S> When that anesthetic wears off, you're going to hurt a bit. <S> Some British speakers also use hurt like this, but this use is not generally accepted in British English. <A> For whatever reason, "I hurt" might be used to describe a general, often non-physical, non-life-threatening pain. <S> Ngram suggests the use of "I hurt" has grown hugely since 1970, so my guess is that it became a common phrase in self-help and self-awareness books, websites, and other media, and nowadays has spilled over into general usage. <S> The present progressive is also acceptable (and suggests more urgency): <S> I'm hurting! <S> Or, alternately: I'm in pain! <S> As in your first example, a common way to refer to pain is by mentioning the source of the pain: <S> This really hurts! <S> This is really painful! <S> Or more colloquially: <S> This hurts like a sonofabitch! <S> There are, of course, many more colorful ways to express pain. <A> @FumbleFinger's comment <S> In principle, you could say "I hurt", but in practice, almost no-one ever would - it's simply not idiomatic today. <S> Intransitive "My feet hurts" has the very strongly implied object me , but no such "transitivisation" is possible with "I hurt me". <S> Note that people invariably ask, "Are you hurt?" <S> For the more general enquiry "Where does it hurt?" <S> Feasibly "Where do you hurt?" <S> for the specific. <S> Just as with "My feet hurt. <S> " the strongly implied "object" is me . <S> Unless it's "His feet hurt", in which case that could be because he's kicking me, or because I'm standing on his feet.
| Yes, it's ok to say "I hurt".
|
Is "she don't" sometimes considered correct form? Recently I was exposed to a lot of uses of "She don't + infinitive" ( 3rd person singular + don't) , instead of "she doesn't + infinitive" ( 3rd person singular + doesn't) . I'm not sure if it is a mistake or just accepted usage sometimes. I found it in a very famous songs such as: " She don't know me " by Bon Jovi Also in Stan- by Eminem (in 3:04) But she don't know you like I know you Slim, no one does She don't know what it was like for people like us growin' up, you gotta call me man I'll be the biggest fan you'll ever lose Sincerely yours, Stan, P.S. we should be together too You can find a lot more by searching in you tube "he don't" or "she don't". <Q> You should understand that, in school, you will be taught a certain kind of "formal" (or "standard") English, much the same as what native English speakers are taught. <S> This is not necessarily the same English that many people actually speak . <S> A regional or cultural style of language that is different from the "standard" is called a vernacular . <S> Vernacular isn't wrong or bad English. <S> It's just different English, although it may be associated with a particular social class, culture, or even a particular ethnic group, and it may not be appropriate to use in every situation. <S> "She don't" is one such example. <S> To some people, this is perfectly normal English, and clearly it's OK to use it in music or poetry. <S> But because it's not "correct" grammar, people who use it might be considered lower-class or uneducated. <S> It's usually not OK to use it on a school paper, or in business, and definitely not OK to use it if you aren't familiar enough with the vernacular to make it sound natural. <S> Remember, there is a fine line between imitation and mockery. <S> Personally, I do not say "she don't" -- unless I am trying to imitate a particular vernacular that uses it. <S> Naturally, it sounds better if you can also imitate (even exaggerate ) the hallmark accent, tone, and colloquialisms used by that vernacular. <A> 3d-person singular don't is quite common and unremarkable in speech communities where formal correctness is not held in particular esteem. <S> It should not disturb you. <S> But it's not acceptable in communities where formal correctness is valued; and <S> since doesn't will not mark you as a pedant or an outsider in any speech community, there is no reason why you should make any effort at all to emulate the informal use. <A> Your question is clear and concise, and warrants a clear and concise answer, without equivocation: <S> Is “she don't” sometimes considered correct form? <S> The answer to that question is: <S> No. <S> The construction <S> she don't is never considered to be "correct form. <S> " <S> It may be acceptable, or part of a vernacular, or idiomatic in some communities (and employed both by those in whose dialect it is a natural utterance and by songwriters who pretend to be conversant with such dialects for financial reasons) but your question does not introduce any of these qualifications. <S> You ask whether "she don't" is sometimes considered correct form. <S> The verb do is an irregular verb. <S> While there are a multitude of idiomatic or vernacular conjugations of this (and of many other) English verbs, there is only one correct conjugation of <S> do in the present tense, and it is: I do you (singular) <S> do <S> he/ <S> she/ <S> it does <S> we do <S> you do <S> they do <S> Thus, the only correct negative form in the present tense with the feminine third person singular pronoun is: <S> She does not (doesn't ) <A> What the other respondents fail to mention is that there is a whole dialect in American English (i.e., black inner-city English), that uses "don't" in the third person singular as a matter of course. <S> Although you can hear that, and things like it, in practically every rap or hip-hop track put down recently, and nearly every rock song since the '50s— including the one you cite —its pedigree goes back well before that. <S> Here's a song from 1931 by Duke Ellington ( "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" ) <S> that perfectly illustrates the license that black English takes. <S> And note that it has every right to do so. <S> There's more to English than sounding educated. <A> However, it is not business English, and if you are a language learner I would not use it. <S> I would not say it is "correct", i.e. it would be a mistake in any written English exam or paper. <S> The best way to understand how it is used is to listen to people who use it. <S> Song lyrics are a start (but note there's a chance the songwriter just wants "don't" to fit the meter, and "doesn't" does not). <A> It's true, as many have pointed out, that it's in use in many different contexts where correct grammar is unimportant. <S> But the OP is trying to understand the language, not make value judgements. <S> As a learner of Italian, I don't want to know about the dialects spoken by 70% of the population. <S> I have enough trouble learning the primary language. <S> But I do want to know when I hear things that sound wrong that they might be due to dialect influences. <S> And I need to understand the difference.
| "She don't" would be vernacular and I think any English speaker understands it fine and many English speakers prefer to speak that way. "She don't" is incorrect english grammar.
|
Difference between expend and spend What is the difference between expend and spend. Both words have quite similar dictionary meanings Expend: spend or use up (a resource such as money or energy) When to use which? <Q> I cannot think of any obvious difference in meaning and they may be interchangeable, but there is a difference in usage with various words. <S> Consider "spend effort" vs "expend effort, "spend money" vs "expend money", and "spend time" vs "expend time": The only difference that I can think of to explain these differences in usage is that you can use up both time and money, but it is more difficult to use up effort -- you can always try harder. <S> However, this is pure guesswork on my part. <S> You can experiment with other word combinations using Google Books Ngram Viewer . <A> Please consider a child with a sweet tooth: <S> “Dad; may I spend my pocket money on chocolate?” <S> Could “expend” reasonably replace “spend”? <S> Also consider in the boardroom: <S> What is our spending on widgets?What are we spending on widgets?What is our expenditure on widgets?What are we expending on widgets? <S> Does that show that “spending” and “expending” are not always, if they are ever, interchangeable? <S> There’s a sense in which “one who spends his money on chocolate” is more present and “one who expends his money on chocolate” more continuous and that would be tenuous and archaic. <S> Today’s moralist might still moan about anyone “spending money like water” or “… like it’s going out of fashion” but it isn’t only the metaphors that are modern… <S> Can we see Dickens making Mr Micawber compare income with “spending” rather than “expenditure”? <A> I believe the general difference is that spend means the actual giving of money (or resource or time) <S> whereas expend generally means to budget the giving of those things. <S> While someone could expend money on the fly, the implication is that they did while considering a whole budget. <S> In the tooth fairy example: the little girl would be spending the money when she gave the cashier her 5 dollar bill in exchange for chocolate. <S> If however, she considered that she had 5 dollars and a chocolate bar is a dollar, that would mean she'd only have 4 dollars left to buy a small toy that she wants, she would be expending that money for the chocolate bar.
| I don’t know enough to explain this fully and there is very little difference in dictionary meaning and in some circumstances they might be interchangeable but in general usage, they are not.
|
Actual meaning of 'After all' According to the Cambridge Dictionary, after all means: despite earlier problems or doubts: The rain has stopped, so the game will go ahead after all. What's the problem here, raining? Am I correct to think that "after all" means 'ultimately" here because the rain has stopped? used to add information that shows that what you have just said is true: I do like her - after all, she is my sister. Does 'after all' mean 'because' here? Why do we need to use 'after all' here in this sentence? According to the Macmillan Dictionary, after all also means: used for saying that something is true despite what was said or planned before Maybe she was right after all. I'm sorry, but we’ve decided not to come after all. used when giving a reason to explain what you have just said She shouldn’t be working so hard – she is 70, after all. I’m not really ambitious. After all, money isn’t everything. I don't understand what 'after all' exactly means in both of these usages in the sentences above. Does it mean 'ultimately' or what ? Could you please illuminate my confusion about what 'after all' actually means? Note: I have also read How to Grammatically Discern "after all", Phrase? but It wasn't helpful for me for this question <Q> Great question, Yubraj. <S> The dictionary answers that you referenced above are correct but delivered in a way that is rather difficult for even native speakers to understand. <S> Quite simply, "after all" is used to show that something is true or happened despite reasons to believe otherwise. <S> To address your examples above: <S> "The rain has stopped, so the game will go ahead after all." <S> → We might have expected that the game would be cancelled because of the rain. <S> Instead, it's going to continue. <S> "I do like her - after all, she is my sister." <S> → There may have been a question about whether I like my sister. <S> At the end of the day, however, I must like her because she is my sister. <S> "Maybe she was right after all." <S> → I didn't believe that she was right before, but now I think that I was wrong about her. <S> "I'm sorry, but we’ve decided not to come after all." <S> → We intended to be there, but something changed and we are not going to attend. <S> Now there's another usage which the Macmillan Dictionary captured in the two examples below. <S> In this usage, the intention is to emphasize a point by adding an additional reason. <S> "She shouldn’t be working so hard – she is 70, after all." <S> → She shouldn't be working so hard, especially considering that she is so old. <S> "I’m not really ambitious. <S> After all, money isn’t everything." <S> → I don't need to be ambitious, especially when there are other priorities in life. <S> (This writer is equating ambition with money.) <S> I hope that this helps. <S> Feel free to ask any follow-up questions <S> and I'll do my best to respond. <A> I believe 'After all' to be a shortening of 'After all things have been considered'. <S> In the examples given, "I'm sorry, but we've decided not to come after all" is " <S> I'm sorry, but we've decided not to come after all things have been considered" so after they have looked at everything going on and considered them, they have decided not to come. <A> it just means "in the end" or "after all things are considered". <S> beware of over-analysis! <S> :) <S> there's a big difference between "dictionary meaning" and usage. <S> so "after all" does indeed mean ultimately (in the end), but it can be used to convey additional meaning, like surprise or contrast or whatever.
| It's a cue to tell the reader about an idea/action continuing despite something else .
|
Is it correct to say "On vacation till forever"? Is it correct to say "On vacation till forever" or should it be the following? "on vacation forever" <Q> Both are acceptable, although I think it's " ' <S> til forever" (short for "until") and not "till". <S> Another variation: <S> On vacation 'til whenever. <S> I'll add more as I think of them. <S> Edit: <S> Apparently "till" is fine in place of "until". <A> On vacation forever <S> Is correct here. <S> Since forever comes from the combination of the preposition 'for' and the word 'ever', you ought to be able to vaguely swap forever for for ever : <S> On vacation till/until for ever <S> This sentence makes no sense at all and is, in fact, flagged as grammatically incorrect by my grammar checker. <S> On vacation for ever This makes perfect sense and so should be used in your sentence. <A> Technically, you should say On vacation forever since until X is meant to express an upper limit of something, and forever <S> means there is no limit (of time). <S> However, by saying until forever , you are acknowledging/signifying that an upper limit on your vacation is important, requested, or required, but you are intentionally disregarding this and still not going to limit your vacation. <S> So it's fine to use if you mean that. <A> A bit tongue-in-cheek, but in the military and Department of Defense circles, this is sometimes referred to as "terminal leave," meaning that you are on leave (vacation) until you die. <S> A more concise way to say this is that you are 'retired'. <S> This is more acceptable than any form of 'vacation forever.' <A> There's a slight difference between the sentences but they are still synonyms: <S> "On vacation till forever <S> " - Means up to a very long time (forever) . <S> Till is just an informal way of saying until . <S> However, till is not a shortening of until . <S> ’Til turns up now and then, but major usage dictionaries and style guides consider it an error, <S> so it’s best to avoid it. <S> Possible variants: <S> Ever on vacation. <S> - Means that someone is always on vacation . <S> On vacation until forever ends. <S> - <S> An idiomatic way of saying "for all eternity" . <S> On vacation until (for all) eternity. <S> - The same as the above. <S> On vacation until the end of time. <S> - For eternity. <S> On vacation forevermore. <S> - <S> For ever. <S> On vacation for ever. <S> - The same as the above. <S> On vacation for good . <S> On an everlasting vacation. <S> Some very uncommon but idiomatic ways: <S> On vacation until hell freezes over . <S> On vacation until doomsday . <S> - Till Doomsday is also possible. <S> On vacation until the cows come home . <S> On vacation until kingdom come . <S> On vacation until (till) forever and a day . <S> On vacation till time stops. <S> On vacation for aye . <S> - [SCOTTISH] <S> Archaic
| "On vacation forever" - Means for all future time; for always .
|
What does "there lived here then" mean? There lived here then, away at the North, a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress. The sentence is cited from The Wizard of Oz, page 37 . What do the words in bold mean? Thank you! <Q> The word there has no meaning. <S> It is the same word we see in sentences like: <S> There is a fly in my soup. <S> This makes the sentence more interesting. <S> This is called a presentational construction. <S> The sentence means: A beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress, lived here then. <S> The word <S> then means at that time . <S> The word here means in this place . <A> To add to @Araucaria's answer, it's important to note that this is a rather old-fashioned sentence construction and would not be used in spoken English, even when L Frank Baum wrote his books. <S> Using old-fashioned grammar makes it sound like an older fairytale though. <S> These days, the construction "there is a fly in my soup" is the normal way to describe something's presence, but any verb beyond "is/are/were/will be" is not normally used. <S> So we would say "there was a fly, swimming in my soup" <S> (where "swimming in my soup" is a further description of the fly's presence), but not "there swam a fly in my soup". <S> When dealing with archaic grammar to help someone who doesn't have English as a first language, I think it's important to be clear about what a native English speaker today can read and understand, and what a native English speaker would actually say themselves. <A> The word "there" sometimes appears just to introduce a concept, rather than specifying a particular location, as in: Limerick rhymes: "There once was a girl from Nantucket..." Expressions of ultimate approval: "There will never be another ... like him." <S> Presence or absence: "There are no more carrots." <S> Suggestion: " <S> There's no better time to...(e.g. <S> buy a house) <S> " General (non-specific) location: <S> " There you are!" <S> " There they go!" <S> (In both of these examples, the actual location is unimportant; the first means " <S> At last I've found you, ", and the second means " You can see them now ", and their location is even continuously changing and their actual destination irrelevant and usually completely unknown ). <S> Most authors would avoid including both " here " and " there " in the same phrase, due to the obvious potential for ambiguity and confusion. <A> There lived here then, away at the North, a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress. <S> This is an old-fashioned way of writing, trying (successfully) to portray the feeling of old fairy tales. <S> So what does it mean? <S> "then" is there to convey that the fact reported here follows from something stated previously. <S> There will have been an introductory phrase. <S> We could replace it loosely by "so". " <S> So there lived here..." <S> "there lived" is much the same construction as "there was". <S> We could replace it by "somebody lived" - <S> That gives us the exact meaning of the phrase:"So a beautiful princess lived here, away at the North, and she was also a powerful sorceress." <S> But that's boring. <S> The Brothers Grimm version has more style (even if it's hard to read). <A> That is my understanding of it. <S> I must also say, sentence constructions such as this are fairly archaic.
| In the sentence from the Wizard of Oz, the writer has used it so that the noun phrase "a beautiful princess, who was also a powerful sorceress" appears at the end of the sentence instead of the beginning. The word 'then' in the emboldened phrase refers to some information that the reader or character in the story is already aware of; so saying 'then' refers to that information to continues the story.
|
just(recently) + present perfect or simple past I heard many people saying "he just left the room", but I read that just(recently) is used with present perfect. So are people just omitting has ? <Q> He just left the room. <S> He has just left the room. <S> The adverb just means very recently. <S> In BrE, the usage of the present perfect for recent actions is dominant, whereas in AmE, the past simple and the present perfect are equally used. <A> You may say either. <S> He just left the room / <S> He has just left the room. <S> She just ironed that shirt. / <S> She has just ironed that shirt. <S> There is no real difference between these two forms. <S> I expect there are some people who prefer one over the other, but both are natural English. <A> Just with present perfect tense, to mean "a very short time ago" Example: He has just left the room. <S> Just with past tense is also to mean, "a very short time ago <S> " Example: He just left the room <S> Note: In British English "just" is often used with the present perfect, however, in American English the simple past is often used with it. <A> The grammar of the two sentences is different, but you can't see it because the verb form is "left" in both cases. <S> Let's use the verb "to eat" instead. <S> He just ate a sandwich. <S> He was just eating a sandwich. <S> He has <S> just eaten a sandwich. <S> He has <S> just been eating a sandwich. <S> He had <S> just eaten a sandwich when ... <S> He had <S> just been eating a sandwich when ... <S> You can used "just" with any past tense (including the present perfect) with the meaning of "shortly before". <S> The present perfect actually describes something that happened in the past, but is finished in the present. <S> In the present tense and future tense "just" means "only": <S> He just eats a sandwich. <S> He is just eating a sandwich. <S> He <S> will just eat a sandwich. <S> He will just be eating a sandwich. <A> In short, both are grammatically correct. <S> Other answers are informative and very helpful. <S> I'm just adding a figure. <S> Google Ngram shows that the past simple version is more commonly used than the present perfect version.
| Just is used to express recently completed action in both tenses. Both the sentences are grammatical, without any difference in meaning.
|
What's the difference between "scarce", "rare" and "uncommon"? According to a dictionary, all these words are quite synonymous. Is there any subtle difference in meaning? I consulted the Free dictionary and found that: scarce : Hard to find; absent or rare. rare : Infrequently occurring; uncommon. uncommon : Not common; rare. <Q> All three talk about frequency of occurrence for something within a population of things <S> ordinary "scarce" has more of an absolute meaning of "hard to find or obtain" sometimes do to very high demand or very low supply <S> Available tickets to the playoff finals are very scarce since everyone wants to go. <S> Snow in the Sahara is uncommon and would be a rare occurrence. <S> Potable water in the Sahara is scarce . <S> If you say something is "uncommonly good" <S> it means it is "more than very good", however, if you say something is "rarely good <S> " it means it is "not often good" or "usually bad". <A> When my son was in kindergarten he told me rare is a city word you use to discribe art, wine and jewels and scarce <S> is a country word you use to describe food and water. <A> "Scarce" is something that is rare, compared to what is needed. <S> In the zoo, the food for the elephants might be scarce, but they still have a lot of it - just not enough considering the size of an elephants belly. <S> Diamonds are rare, but we have enough of them. <S> " <S> Uncommon" is usually related to being different from a common variant; triplets are uncommon, because single births and twins are much more common. <S> So all three words imply "rare", but "scarce" and "uncommon" <S> have additional meanings. <A> In writing my latest book, I wanted to describe the relative availability of a selection of certain military artifacts. <S> I "graded" the words in ascending order of difficulty to find: "Uncommon" being the most likely to be encountered, then "scarce", then "rare" to describe the items least likely to be found.
| rare does not occur as often as uncommon does not occur as often as common
|
"Our mission is not to __, but (to) __." Should there be a second "to" in this sentence? Which one is correct? Our mission is not to prevent you from seeking a lawyer, but to educate you on your rights. Our mission is not to prevent you from seeking a lawyer, but educate you on your rights. <Q> Our mission is not to prevent you from seeking a lawyer, BUT TO educate you on your rights. <S> This sounds more natural to me, as the second part of the sentence flows in place of the original subject. <S> I.e. <S> ... <S> and for context <S> Our mission is not ethical, but quite sinister. <A> Our mission is ... to educate you on your rights <S> This only works properly if the the two phrases both match the first part of the sentence and are grammatically identical. <S> This is true with the two phrases above, but would not be true with the two phrases below: <S> Our mission is ... to prevent you from seeking a lawyer <S> Our mission is ... educate you on your rights <S> This pair of phrases does not work because the second phrase does not match the first part of the sentence (and does not match the first phrase). <S> Of the two example sentences in your question, only the first one is correct: <S> Our mission is not to prevent you from seeking a lawyer, but to educate you on your rights <A> I think this could go either way, and is just a matter of opinion. <S> Both seem correct, and I would just say it the way you think sounds best.
| This sentence is an example of a parallel structure , where the first part of the sentence is applied in the same way to two separate phrases. Our mission is: not to prevent you from seeking a lawyer BUT to educate you on your rights. Our mission is ... to prevent you from seeking a lawyer
|
How to convey that the doctor has asked his patient to perform certain medical tests? Arvind went to his family physician. He asked Arvind to "perform" a couple of tests.Is this usage correct? Since the past few days Arvind has been feeling a little unwell and as a result had consulted his family physician. He was given a couple of medical tests to perform. Will this imply that Arvind is the pathologist himself and would conduct the tests or would this mean that Arvind will seek help from one of the medical centers which would conduct the medical tests for him? How do I convey the latter meaning in this context? <Q> Tests are always performed by the therapist, on or upon the patient, unless for instance the doctor asks the patient to take his own blood pressure or swab her own cheek, or some such… <A> One would only say that the patient was asked to perform the test, if the test was one that the patient could self-administer. <S> For example, there are now (and have been for a good number of years) blood-sugar tests where the patient punctures his or her skin, applies a drop of blood to a special test strip, inserts this into a meter, and reads off a blood-sugar value. <S> The patient would be said to perform such a test. <S> There are similar self-administered tests for blood pressure, lipid levels, and pregnancy, among others Saying that the doctor asked the patient to "perform" a test suggests that it is one of these. <S> If it is not, then it would be more likely for the doctor to tell the patient to have the test performed, or just to "have it done", probably by a testing lab or other suitable specialist (not usually a pathologist). <A> It would be wrong to say Arvind was asked to perform the tests. <S> Instead, use: <S> He was recommended a couple of medical tests <S> He was asked to undergo a couple of medical tests
| He was prescribed a couple of medical tests
|
Is it possible to say "my most illegal software yet"? Is saying My heart pounded as I clicked the “build application” button, not realizing that I had created my most illegal software yet... a grammatically correct sentence? I'm having doubts about the "my most illegal" part. <Q> Illegal is not usually associated with shades of insidiousness. <S> It would be better to provide degrees to the effects of the illicitness: <S> My heart pounded, ... <S> I had created my most dangerous illegal software yet... <A> "My most illegal software yet" sounds odd to me for a different reason that others have not mentioned yet. <S> Among native speakers, the noun "software" is most commonly used as a non-count noun: it is not normally put into plural forms (like "softwares") or preceded by the singular indefinite article "a" ("a software"). <S> For some reason, the "my most [adjective] [noun] yet" structure feels to me like it requires a count noun. <S> Another example of this: "I gave him my best advice yet" also sounds funny to me <S> (although "I gave him my best advice", without the "yet", seems fine). <S> A way to make "software" indisputably count is to change it to "piece of software". <S> To me, this makes the sentence sound better: <S> I had created my most illegal piece of software yet... <S> An example sentence with similar structure from Appvertising <S> - How Apps Are Changing The World , by Stephen Molloy - 2013: <S> Embarrassing, appalling, illogical, incomplete, erroneous — these words are rarely used to describe Apple's products but all and more have been applied to Apple Maps in what observers are calling Apple's least usable piece of software yet. <S> I don't actually think "(the) most illegal" necessarily sounds wrong. <S> Here is an example that sounds natural to me in the title of a Quora question: <S> What was the most illegal thing you have ever done on a computer? <A> That is the most likely sense of illegal which would allow for a superlative. <S> It's more common to think of legal/illegal as lacking degrees (per se); e.g. murder is not more illegal than stealing. <A> It is grammatically correct, and you might find it in informal English. <S> It is not conceptually correct, however. <S> Formally, legal/illegal is a binary relationship, so you would not be "more" or "less" illegal.
| This would be grammatical if by "most illegal" you mean "breaks the most laws".
|
What is the more appropriate adjectival form of Trump? Wiktionary has " Trumpian ", Tumpesque ", and " Trumpish " meaning: Related or pertaining to Donald Trump but there are few usage examples. Is there a more established term among those cited above or possibly a different one? What is a "neutral" term that could be used for instance in e following sentence? Protectionism will probably be part of (Trump.....) economic policies in the future. <Q> Trump is a recent enough phenomenon that there is no "established" way to refer to him as an adjective. <S> I'm sure, right now, the legions of journalists are straining their brains to come up with the best witticism. <S> Be aware that these suffixes can imply different things. <S> For example -ian means "One from, belonging to, relating to, or like." <S> while -esque means " <S> In the style or manner of" or "resembling". . <S> A "Trumpesque" policy would be something like what Trump would do, but not an actual Trump policy. <S> As a side note, you might be interested to know that Trump supporters have been referred to as "trumpers", "trumpets", and (more pejoratively) "trumpsters", among others. <S> The clever part is to play off of another word, so that your resulting word has two (or more) meanings. <S> "Trumpet" is a good one, because it's already the name of a loud, braying musical instrument. <S> "Trumpster" plays off of the word "dumpster" (another word for "rubbish bin"). <S> In the same way, if you want to come up with a clever word that means "of or like or relating to Trump" you need to consider words that sound similar or which have similar structure. <S> TRomano suggests things like "trumpical" ("topical"? "tropical"?) or "trumptastic" ("fantastic"), so you can see how the process works. <A> In the particular example, just use the possessive form: Protectionism will be part of Trump's economic policies... <S> This solution will work in many situations. <S> Where it won't work is when describing the wider administrative style and allies of Trump. <S> For this Trumpian seems reasonable (and has been in use since the '80s). <S> You may use Trumpite for a follower of Trump. <S> Note that adjectives formed from proper nouns like this normally use a capital letter (Trumpian, not trumpian). <S> Examples: <S> https://www.ft.com/content/3f16e476-7e5c-11e6-8e50-8ec15fb462f4 <S> http://drrichswier.com/2015/12/28/trumpites-are-fundamentally-changing-the-republican-party-a-k-a-the-gope/ <S> http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/22/what_makes_the_adjective_trumpian_so_perfect_for_the_candidate.html <A> I've heard "Trumpian" used many times in neutral contexts. <S> He's not a "recent enough phenomenon" though. <S> These things tend to solidify over time (Nixonian, Reaganite, Clintonian, Johnsonian, Washingtonian, etc.)
| I'd say the trend is leaning toward "Trumpian."
|
What is the meaning of "cow in the middle"? This is the context. They receive their measure of food, hormones and medications from one set of machines, and get milked every few hours by another set of machines. The cow in the middle is treated as little more than a mouth that takes in raw materials and an udder that produces a commodity. What is the meaning of cow in the middle ? <Q> The cow, the living animal, is in the middle , between the machines which provide input and those which take up the output. <A> The immediate meaning is that the cow is like a "black box" A . <S> That is... <S> it is treated as a device -- a machine -- that gives milk, as long as it is given food etcetera. <S> However, a context B is implied; it is not the machines that view the cow as merely a device that produces milk; it is human beings -- on one side, those who want milk, and, on the other side, those who make money from producing milk. <S> That is... <S> the point of calling it "the cow in the middle" is about, not the immediate fact that it is in the middle, but that the persons [who want milk or money] do not care about the cow . <S> (This is obviously the point of the article containing the quote. <S> The point here is that there would be available a more dignified/caring/respectful label for the cow, if the point was not that the cow is being ignored.) <S> A <S> "Black box" [often shown with quotation marks [""] ] means a machine that just does something -- we do not know, or do not care, how. <S> B <S> Here, context means, not sentence context, but real-world context. <A> So to whomever "they" applies to, "they" are analogous to a cow.
| Assuming the context implies they does not refer to a cow, the analogy of a cow has been used because a cow takes in food and nutrients and gives milk by processing them in its body.
|
"Do you like the color red" vs "Do you like the red color"? When your favorite color is red, do you say, I like the color red. or I like the red color. Is there any difference of meaning between the two ways of saying about your favorite color? <Q> "The red colour" is a fairly rare expression, but it can be used. <S> It answers the question "which of the colours?", selecting one from a set of colours that is somehow already known: maybe the colours on a chart, or some colours that have already been talked about. <S> "The colour red" is much more common, and refers to a colour (really, a range of colours) chosen from all possible colours. <S> [I'm using the British spelling for 'colour'] <A> "I like the red colour" implies that you are liking a specific red colour - that it is an abbreviated phrase, e.g. of "I like the red colour [in this photograph]". <A> For the phrase as written, you should use the first one. <S> Ideally, it means: <S> I like (the color) red . <S> I like red . <S> Wording like "red color" is usually used to describe a quality of something, and therefore would be used as an adjective like "red colored". <S> For example: I like the red colored fire engine. <S> (The fire engine that is painted red) <S> or I like the red colored candies. <S> (The candies where red coloring was added) <A> The colour red. <S> Here, “red” is a noun. <S> “Red” is a colour; it’s a ‘thing.’ <S> It’s similar to saying: The city Paris. <S> It’s also conceptual <S> , we’re not talking about a colour we’re physically seeing. <S> The red colour. <S> Here, “red” is an adjective - we’re describing a colour we see as being red. <S> “The colour red” is therefore what you’d use to state your favourite colour. <S> Also, if someone asks your favourite colour, it would be more idiomatic to just say: <S> I like red. <S> I.e. <S> It’s not necessary to say “the colour”. <S> You could even just say: Red.
| "I like the colour red" implies you like red in general.
|
How would you say "to scold" in a less formal way? Luke’s mother scolded him for having spent too much money last weekend. I've read in the Cambridge Dictionary that to scold is an old-fashioned term in British English, so I guess it wouldn't be used in a less formal context. How would you express the same idea in an everyday language? <Q> tell sb off — phrasal verb with tell <S> to speak angrily to someone because they have done something wrong: The teacher told me off for swearing. <S> Mum told me off for slopping water all down her shirt. <S> If you make your sister cry, you'll get told off. <S> Their teacher told them off for chattering in the lesson. <A> The term "scold" meaning "reprimand/rebuke" is actually common, and as shown in Ngram <S> its usage is not decreasing. <S> The Oxford Learners Dictionary says it is formal , not old-fashioned, but I think you can use it also in colloquial contexts. <S> From Twelve Lauren Myracle - 2008 <S> “Winnie and Ty, stop distracting your sister,” Mom scolded . <S> “Driving is very serious business. <S> One wrong turn and you could ruin a life forever.” <S> “We know, we know, we know,” I said. <S> Earlobes popping off, innocent bystanders getting killed in the blink of an eye—in Mom Land there was disaster lurking around every corner. <A> The phrase 'to get after' would be a less formal American English way to say this. <S> This phrase doesn't seem to appear in the Cambridge Dictionary, but does show up in Macmillan's. <S> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/get-after <S> Luke's mother got after him for having spent too much money last weekend . <A> Slang English would be "To bitch at". <S> "John's mom was upset he came home with bad grades and she bitched at him all night about it. <S> " <A> If you wanted to go really informal, you might say "to bollock". <S> As in: <S> "I got a bollocking from my boss this morning for being late again" <S> "My girlfriend bollocked me for putting her bra in the dryer" <A> You've got a lot of options since your request is somewhat vague in context required . <S> Punish <S> Chastise <S> Ream <S> Berate <S> Chew out <S> Read the riot act <S> Thrash <S> Lay out <A> "Scolded" is fine -- it is not particularly formal. <S> Almost all of the suggested words are synonyms for "criticized," and many of these synonyms also carry with them an impression of the style (tone of voice, body language) in which the criticism is delivered. <S> If the criticism is moderate, she "scolded." <S> If the criticism is mild, she "chided" or "reproached." <S> A truly formal ways of expressing criticism is "reprimanded," but this implies that the speaker is speaking in a distant or formal way, like a judge or employer. <S> A common institutional phrase is "a formal reprimand." <S> Another set of more formal words are "admonish" or "rebuke. <S> " These may be forcefully stated but convey a sense of the speaker's moral authority, like a preacher or prophet, and are often associated with religious writing, in which a holy figure admonishes or rebukes sinners (or devils). <A> To "have a go at" is a fairly informal/colloquial alternative.
| Less formally, you might consider tell off . If the criticism is intense , she "berated."
|
The meaning of 'already' in the sentence 'Let's go already!' Does Let's go already! mean Let's go now ? Then, does already in the sentence mean "we should be going now; we're late?" That's what I understood so far. Could you please tell me what Let's go already! means? You should already know how to do that. A: Can you show me how to fill out this form? B: Absolutely. And after that, you want me to show how to wipe your ass? C: It's funny, because you should already know how to do both those things. I know that the way B and C are speaking is kind of kidding and teasing A, but I was wondering why C is using the word already . You should know means "you better know", but I know that already means "happened in the past", and "happened than you expected". Does it mean "You should know it sooner: you should learn how to do that sooner than you planned"? <Q> In "Let's go already", already has no direct reference to the passage of time; it merely expresses impatience. <S> It's not 'native English' but a Yiddishism, a loan translation of shoyn , equivalent to German schon . <S> Schon / shoyn means 'already' in formal contexts, but is also employed with considerably wider (and vaguer) sense as a modal particle : ... <S> an uninflected word used mainly in spontaneous spoken language in colloquial registers. <S> It has a dual function: reflecting the mood or attitude of the speaker or narrator, and highlighting the sentence focus. <S> — Wikipedia <S> In this function the word itself is never stressed, as it may be in ordinary use: it typically follows the word to be emphasized and 'falls off' from that word in stress and pitch. <A> Already in American English is used also as an intensifier, to give more emphasis to the expression it relates to: (Informal) <S> Used as an intensive: Be quiet already. <S> Enough already . <S> AHD Colloquial use in U.S. as a terminal emphatic (as in enough, already!) is attested from 1903, translating Yiddish shoyn, which is used in same sense. <S> The pattern also is attested in Pennsylvania German and in South African. <S> Etymonline <A> In your second example, "already" is used in one of its more standard ways. <S> It simply means by now <S> Your first example is an Americanised usage. <S> You can think of it as bringing up the idea of "by now" as before.
| The speaker is saying: We should have gone by now , but since we haven't, let's go.
|
Is "become like" valid english words? Something like: It becomes like a spaceship. He becomes like a mad person. They become like intermediate objects. Is "become like" valid english words? If not, what's the better alternative for daily conversation? <Q> It becomes like a spaceship. <S> It changes in such a way that while previously it was not comparable to a spaceship, it now is similar to a spaceship in some way, but is not actually a spaceship. <S> If it was always similar to a spaceship that would be "it is like a spaceship" if it changed so it actually was capable of travel through space that would be " <S> it becomes a spaceship". <S> He becomes like a mad person. <S> Likewise, he changes in such a way that while he was not comparable to a mad person, he now is similar to a mad person in some way, but is not actually a mad person. <S> They become like intermediate objects. <S> Again, they change in such a way that while they were not comparable to intermediate objects, they now are similar to intermediate objects in some way, but are not actually intermediate objects. <S> It's perfectly valid English. <S> Whether it's the correct English for what you want to express is another matter, depending on whether you want to express what is described above. <A> In this context, 'become like' are not valid English words. <S> When we refer to things, we can use "become like' as inThe sand castle crumbled and became like an old building in ruins. <S> It can also be used to refer to a state a person is in. <S> 'He has become like a vegetable due to his advancing years'. <S> The better alternative for daily conversations would be'He behaves like a mad person'. <A> I think "becomes like" should be more appropriate when referring to an inanimate object which can pass through some physical metamorphosis and change its form. <S> For example, we can say:The mountain flaked away when hit by the rocket and the debris became like powder. <S> A better alternative is perhaps to say:He acted like a mad person. <S> Thank you. <A> He becomes like a mad person " <S> He is becoming mad. <S> " sounds much better to me. <S> If you really want to compare his behaviour to someone else's: <S> "He is behaving like a mad-man." <S> "He is acting like a mad-man." <A> The closest you are looking for is: "He's becoming a mad-like person" "To become like" in most cases means 'to look like, to resemble, to show signs of' when referring to things/objects or 'to behave like, to resemble' with living creatures. <S> Examples: <S> He's become like Jane. <S> He's always crying and shouting. <S> The house is becoming like a dumpster. <S> There's all sorts of trash everywhere. <S> The grown-ups in the sandbox become like little children when they play. <S> The son has become like his father. <S> He is such a talented and an educated person. <A> "If we take that cabin and stick fins on, give it an air-lock and some rockets at the back, it becomes like a spaceship" is fine, isn't it? <S> "When he's had too much to drin, he becomes like a mad person" is fine, isn't it? <S> "They become like intermediate objects" sounds grammatically acceptable, even though I have no real understanding of what "intermediate" as opposed to any other object might be… <S> "They become like solid/visible/artistic/valuable objects"? <S> Why not?
| "He's becoming a mad-like person" or "It is becoming like a spaceship" might in some way be better but they surely alter the meaning and are in no way necessary. "become like" is a valid English word construction but not in the way you used it.
|
Why this sentence "You should worry" meaning has been "You don't worry"? I think that "You should worry" meaning is to be "It is good for you to do worry", But in dictionary defines "You should worry" meaning is "You don't worry".How is the meaning to be "You don't worry"?I've been thinking it seems an irony sentence. <Q> I think it might be helpful to think of the dictionary's definition as: <S> You don't worry enough . <S> "You should worry" would be said in only two contexts in English. <S> The speaker is confirming/adding new information, or The speaker is contradicting. <S> The speaker will be Person A and the listener will be Person B. <S> In context 1, Person B is already worried about something. <S> Person A states, "You should be worried", meaning that he agrees with Person B. <S> In context 2, Person B is not worried about something. <S> Person A states, "You should be worried", meaning that he believes Person B is wrong and not worrying enough. <S> As an aside, English has a verb "to mean" that would make your sentence sound more your question more natural sounding. <S> I think that, "You should worry" means "It is good for you to worry"... <A> As you found it, it's totally irony. <S> In a normal sense, that means that you absolutely have a reason to worry. <A> I don't think I have ever heard a person say "you should worry" to someone who he thought was not worrying enough. <S> It would be more like "if I were you (or in your shoes etc), I'd be worried". <S> However the ironic version is much more common. <S> Person A thinks that person B is worrying for no (according to person A) good reason... and in particular that some other person C (or A!) has much more reason to worry. <S> In this case the emphasis is on the first word: " YOU should worry!". <S> i.e. you do not have a lot to worry about... <S> but person C has! <A> It means "You don't appear worried enough about (situation), there is real reason to be concerned."
| "You should worry" is not in any way ironic.
|
What is the grammar construction used in "which is then" I saw a sentence on the web page of python as below: This means that source files can be run directly without explicitly creating an executable which is then run. I do understand what the sentence means but it does confuse me, could you please explain the grammar used here in the clause that contains "which is then"? <Q> The relative pronoun "which" serves as the subject of the clause. <S> In this context, the "then" is roughly synonymous with "subsequently". <S> "An executable which is then run" is the direct object of the gerund "creating". <S> This gerund is modified by the adverb "explicitly". <S> The act of running the executable is subsequent to the act of creating it, even if one or both actions are hypothetical. <S> The gerund phrase "explicitly creating an executable which is then run" is the object of the preposition "without". <A> This sentence basically says, <S> This means that instead of explicitly creating an executable and then running it you can just run it directly <S> Here is an example of using "which is then" in a sentence. <S> The back of the chair is then put in place, which is then screwed in place. <A> "which is then" is used to link the phrases "explicitly creating an executable" and "run" (run the executable). <S> The sentence is presenting two alternatives: run the source files directly create an executable and then run the executable
| The clause "which is then run" is a restrictive relative clause that modifies "an executable".
|
High/highly, which one is most appropriate in the given sentence. He thinks high/highly of me. Which one is correct and why? <Q> Generally speaking, the adverbial form of "high" is "high": so you can say "The ball curved high above the crowd". <S> However, there are two instances where "highly" is used: <S> One is as an intensifier: " <S> That food is highly spiced". <S> The other is the idiom "think highly of". <S> "To think high of" is simply not English. <A> /He thinks highly of me/ is the correct one. <S> Alternatives: He holds me in high esteem. <S> He holds me in high regard (a bit old fashioned). <S> It's an idiom: to think highly of someone. <S> (And no, one cannot "think lowly of someone".) <S> There is also to "think kindly of someone". <S> It may be argued that highly is an adverb describing think but that is not very useful. <A> SUPPLEMENTAL to the answers of Lambie and Colin Fine <S> The why part of your question cannot be addressed as a matter of formal syntax; you can only take think ADV of NOUN as an idiomatic construction, not susceptible of further analysis. <S> The verb think has a very complicated history. <S> It actually represents the collapse of two related but semantically and syntactically quite distinct Old English verbs into a single form in Middle English, so it already had very muddled types of argumentation 800 years ago; and as its semantic sense expanded the muddle got even worse. <S> The modern idiom think ADV of NOUN seems to have arisen fairly abruptly at the end of the 16th century. <S> My guess is that what's involved is a conflation of genuinely adverbial constructions like <S> I think contemptuously of him with nominal constructions like <S> I think nothing of him , <S> I think ill of him , mediated by <S> the nominal but ambiguous I think well of him . <S> But that's no more than a guess. <S> Wherever the construction came from, people liked it and adopted it; and since language is nothing if not democratic, that's what we say today.
| One can't "think high of someone" in English.
|
You talk as if you were a child In a live debate on a news channel with English subtitle.I saw this sentence when a person(named Ram) was pointing to another person(named Sam) by saying this "you talk as if you were a child" 1.Sir my question is do this sentence above denote a report by the verb "talk" made a few seconds ago? and why is present simple "talk" here not present continuous "are talking"? 2.One more question why past tense "you were a child" It should be "you are a child"? Sir Please get me clear I am confused. <Q> He wants you to forget time, and think about the style, or the understanding of the person being described. <S> Were in this case <S> is hypothetical, not a past tense. <S> It used to be described as subjunctive, because in some languages there is a separate verb form for imaginary, or supposed events. <S> In formal English "If I was a rich man, ...." becomes " <S> If I were a rich man." <A> Answering your second point. <S> In the sentence "You talk as if you were a child", the person talking is not talking to a child. <S> Then, the "if" refers to something that is definitely false, and the speaker knows this is false. <S> This is why the past tense is used. <S> The most common example is If I were you . <S> Another example of this, to clarify : <S> @Indranil Bar, If you were an bird, you would be able to fly . <A> Using the present progressive "are talking" would mean that it's purely happening in that moment. <S> It would be referring to the last statement the other person made and nothing else. <S> "Talk", on the other hand, is more general. <S> It's not referring to a specific instance so much as the overall way the person speaks. <S> It's referring to the past and present. <S> For example: "You run fast" vs. " <S> You are running fast" <S> You might say the first to compliment a runner. <S> You know he has a history of being fast and are describing the way he runs in general. <S> The second would only make sense if the person was running in that moment . <S> And it doesn't describe his past running, only this single moment of running.
| In this case Talk is timeless.
|
Accompanied with or by? Can "accompanied" be followed by preposition with?I've only heard about accompanied by. But I want to know If there is any context in which we should use accompanied with. My last year was accompanied by hardships, struggles, and ups and downs. My last year was accompanied with hardships, struggles, and ups and downs. <Q> Accompanied "by" something is the idiomatic usage: with something extra to go along with something else; with something to complement something else. <S> Dessert was accompanied by a fine white wine. <S> (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs.) <S> As shown in Ngram "accompanied with" used to be a common expression, but it is rarely used now. <A> As the following Ngram shows, "accompanied with" has fallen out of favour over the last 200 years: <S> I don't know why. <S> " <S> Fillet steak accompanied with French fries" sounds good to me. <A> A small child stood sullenly by her side. <S> He wanted to keep her close by him always. <S> The policewoman walked by (= past) them without saying a word. <S> Usage of with in your context has a meaning of having or including something : A tall woman with dark hair <S> Two coffees please, one with milk and one without. <S> We're an international company with offices in Paris, New York, and Sydney. <S> He woke up with a terrible headache. <S> Now lets have a look at <S> accompanied : ..to go with someone or to be provided or exist at the same time as something: <S> The course books are accompanied by four CDs. <S> Depression is almost always accompanied by insomnia. <S> The salmon was accompanied by (= served with) a fresh green salad. <S> see? <S> Almost in every situation it is used with by to express the feeling of near or at the side of someone . <S> So if you use with , it will give the impression of " not necessarily but still accompanied " by having the meaning " having or including something " and if you use by instead, it will give the impression of " someone is intended to be accompanied ". <S> resource: <S> Cambridge Dictionary
| Usage of by in your context has a meaning of near or at the side of someone :
|
"There should be someone at the reception desk" "There should be someone at the reception desk" (affirmative sentence) I believe this sentence is correct and also next one. "Shouldn´t there be someone at the reception desk? but what about the 3rd? "Should there be someone at the reception desk? and with must? "There must be someone here" (affirmative sentence) "Mustn´t there be someone here?" "Must there be someone here?" Somehow I feel that N°s 3 & 6 are not correct or are they? Please help. Thank you. <Q> All of your segments are correct and understandable, intonation and context can be key, here are some possible scenarios for each of them 1) <S> There should be someone at the reception desk. <S> bellhop telling hotel guest to see someone at reception 2 <S> ) Shouldn´t there be someone at the reception desk? <S> hotel guest telling bellhop wondering why is no one at the reception desk 3) <S> Should there be someone at the reception desk? <S> do we need someone at the reception desk? <S> hotel manager asking if it is necessary to have someone at the reception desk <S> hotel guest asking why no one is at the reception desk 4) <S> There must be someone here! <S> hotel guest screaming in an empty hotel not being able to find anyone 5 <S> ) Mustn´t there be someone here? <S> why is nobody here? <S> hotel guest asking cab driver when being dropped off at an apparently empty hotel 6) <S> Must there be someone here? <S> why does someone need to be here? <S> does someone really need to be here? <S> Should there be someone... <S> is used when someone is not there but is supposed to be there and one is wondering why they are not there. <S> Must there be someone... <S> is used when someone is there and one is questioning the necessity of them being there. <A> There isn't anyone at the reception desk <S> but there should be. <S> There is someone at the reception desk, as there should be. <S> --Are <S> you sure there should be someone at the reception desk? <S> Isn't the hotel closed for repairs? <S> There isn't anyone at the reception desk <S> but there must be. <S> There is someone at the reception desk as there must be. <S> These modals don't refer to simple reality but to a desired reality, a supposed reality, an obligatory reality. <A> I'll take a stab at #3 and #6. <S> Both of them could be used in specific situations . <S> If I was designing a hotel, or developing the staffing plan for a hotel, I could use #3. <S> So let's talk about where we'll be stationing employees during the overnight shift. <S> Should there be someone at the reception desk? <S> As long as the back-office person is close enough to hear the bell ring, I don't think we need to do that. <S> If I was in a bad mood and wanted to be left alone, I could use #6. <S> Must there be someone here? <S> I just want to sit in my dressing room alone, without any bodyguards or makeup artists or you other people who are always hanging around!!! <S> Of course, Ms. Diva, we'll be going. <S> If you need anything just text me, I'll be waiting outside. <S> EDIT <S> I could also use #6 in the 'reception desk' scenario as follows: <S> Here's the estimated bill, sir. <S> Must there be someone at the reception desk? <S> I've booked the entire hotel for a private party and all of my guests are already here. <S> What's the point of having somebody at the desk - they won't have anything to do! <S> I don't want to pay for that! <A> The difference between these sentences... <S> Shouldn't there be someone at the reception desk? <S> Should there be someone at the reception desk? <S> ... is that Sentence 2 expects a "yes" answer (the speaker thinks there ought to be someone at the desk), while Sentence 3 expresses more uncertainty <S> (the speaker doesn't know whether there should be someone at the desk). <S> To me as an American speaker, starting a question with "must" sounds somewhat archaic, even though it is technically correct grammar. <S> Usually a better way to express this meaning is to use "have to" instead of "must": <S> Doesn't there have to be someone at the reception desk? <S> Does there have to be someone at the reception desk? <S> In the case of these sentences... <S> Must there be someone at the reception desk? <S> Does there have to be someone at the reception desk? <S> ... <S> the emphasis is often placed on "must" and "have" to express reluctance (the speaker doesn't want there to be someone at the desk).
| All of the sentences are grammatically correct.
|
Is there a verb for the phrase "to pile on the agony" I am looking for a casual and/or formal verb for a situation in which people emphasize the bad experiences they have in order to get sympathy and/or advantage from other people. For example, in a job interview a candidate talks more about how she/he is desperate/needy in order to take the job because she/he has to take care of 3 kids, 2 dogs and 3 cats rather than emphasizing her/his qualifications. I am not sure the phrase "to pile on the agony" meets that meaning also. <Q> Note that agony is suffering that one experiences, specifically strong mental or physical pain/duress - while sorrow would be the sympathy felt by others due to seeing someone else's agony. <S> So piling on the agony would not work but <S> piling on the sorrow would. <S> A well known idiom is to play the race card - meaning to accuse someone of racism--or try to present oneself as though such an accusation could happen--as a move towards personal, economic, or political gain. <S> Adapting this idiom to other things besides race works - so, you can say play the sympathy card or victim card as @P. <S> E. Dant suggests in the comments. <S> The Google Ngram on the phrases is interesting, while race is the most common, sympathy and victim are not unheard of and the idiom itself is well known and common enough that adaptations come through loud and clear with the meaning. <S> The passive form of She played the sympathy card , for example, would be <S> The sympathy card was played by her. <A> I feel like Guilt Tripping may work for this situation. <S> Although it doesn't refer to someone emphasizing their misfortunes in order to gather sympathy, it does refer to someone who provides you with information that may lead to you feeling guilty. <S> For example: Now that I know she has to feed 3 children, I would feel guilty not giving her the job. <S> It isn't a perfect fit for your description <S> but I feel it does still fit the situation you used. <A> One colloquial way to say that might be " singing the blues ". <S> For example: "Our cab driver sang the blues about having to work three jobs to support his family, but I think he was just looking for a bigger tip." <S> Singing the blues usually means complaining, usually about bad luck or misfortune. <S> I associate it with listing a lot of bad things that have happened, like a stereotypical blues song. <S> My lover left me, my dog died, my house flooded, a bird pooped on my new hat, and so on. <S> The person in the interview also might be "telling you a (or their) <S> sob story ". <S> There's a connotation that "sob stories" aren't entirely true and that they're embellished to get more sympathy than the reality might justify.
| A less harsh term would be pulling at my heartstrings , which doesn't have a strong implication that the person doing so is trying to manipulate you.
|
Can "to" be reduced to "ə" in fast speech? Many times in fast speech, i've heard people say the prep "to" like only with a sound /ə/ (maybe with a little flap t as in 'better'). For example: i'm trying to help. I'm not trying to get mad at....Or, Power to sing. In the sentence, i'm trying to help, it sounds like /am trai ə help/. Is that really what they do? I ask this because i feel like it's smoother and easier for me to pronounce "to" with only a schwa sound when speak fast. I just wanna make sure it's proper. PS: for instance, in this utube video https://youtu.be/tVja6oEUYlo , min 1:16. 'He helps people and corporations learn how to make better decisions'. That "to" is pronounced /ə/ or /də/ ?. it's fast, so i can't be sure,but I think it's /ə/ <Q> Yes, but only in certain constructions. <S> Specifically "Going to" and "Trying to" are often rendered as "gonna" and "tryna". <S> Some linguists regard these two as new English words. <S> It doesn't happen, as far as I know, even with similar constructions such as "wanting to" or "planning to". <S> Edit: <S> but as J Sibeneichler point out, it does happen with "want to". <A> Perhaps what you heard was "am /traɪnə/ help". <S> You sometimes see this contraction of trying to written as tryna or trynna . <S> The same phenomenon is found in wanna ( want to ) and gonna ( going to ). <A> This is probably because enunciating the "-g t-" combination of sounds is a little slow and awkward. <S> In practice, "to" is often pronounced more like "tə" than like "t oooo ". <S> In the video you linked to, I do hear the t of "to". <S> It's not particularly emphasized, but it is there. <S> Because t is a stop consonant , it's hard to emphasize it strongly, particularly when it comes next to a word boundary. <S> Also, I can't imagine anybody dropping the n sound from "trying" as in /am trai ə help/. <S> This may be because while you know that the word "to" has to be "to" because of its position in the sentence, regardless of exactly how it sounds, if you say "trai" for "trying", it sounds like you're just saying "try", which would be grammatically incorrect in "I'm try to help".
| In fast, informal, speech, yes, we often reduce to to a kind of ə, particularly in constructions like "going to", "want to", or anything "-ing to".
|
Usage of one, one's, oneself, one's own I'm not sure but I think "one" refers to the people in general or anyone. I've found the following sentences where One has been used : One must treat other as one expect to be treated. One should take care of one's health. One should do one's best at all times. What one actually refers to in above sentences? Can I use- one's own health and his own health in the second sentence? Can I say "One should take care of oneself or himself " ? Both correct? <Q> "one" refers to a general person. <S> Yes, generally you can use "one's own" instead of "one's". <S> Note, that "his own" excludes "her own" which is also covered by "one's own" <S> so in general you cannot just use "his own" in place of "one's own". <S> "Oneself or himself" make no sense, because "himself" is already covered by "oneself". <S> " <S> Herself or himself" instead could be an option. <A> 'One' is used as a gender-neutral third person singular to refer to an unknown person(as opposed to eg animals). <S> It is not specified whether the person referred to is male or female. <S> It is considered quite formal these days, and tends to be replaced by either 'you' or 'they'. <S> He/him/himself could replace one/one's/oneself grammatically, but from a usage point of view you might have changed a gender neutral sentence into a sentence about a man. <S> Using both 'one' and 'him' to refer to the same person is incorrect: use of 'him' implies you know its a man <S> , whereas use of 'one' implies it could be a woman. <A> While it's true (as Mick says) that it's not as commonly used these days <S> I think your English is advanced enough you should become familiar with it. <S> It can be a useful genderless pronoun if you don't want to pick between male or female. <S> "One" can be used in place of "you", for example: <S> One should take care not to use "one" too frequently, lest one sound pompous . <S> It can be a little tricky to use "one" in a sentence. <S> It can seem overly formal to use "one" too many times in a sentence, but at the same time it can be awkward to switch between pronouns, especially if you're trying to avoid gender. <S> Example: <S> "One needs to provide food for oneself and one's family". <S> (formal) <S> "One needs to provide food for himself and his family." <S> (less formal, but requires you to pick between the male and female pronouns) <S> "One" is a third-person pronoun, so it can be useful if you want to avoid saying something that could be interpreted as directed at the listener. <S> "You need to provide food for yourself and your family" (fine, but the listener might think you're talking specifically about them ) <S> "One" also doesn't work well as the object of a sentence: <S> "I give one an apple" (formal, but sounds very awkward) <S> As you noticed, you can use the possessive "one's" and the reflexive "oneself". <S> As before, these are formal and should be used carefully, once you understand the nuance. <S> Lastly, "one" is much more common in writing than when speaking, and you should probably avoid it in conversation as it can sound awkwardly formal. <S> More information on using "one"
| "One" is used as a pronoun , in place of "a person".
|
"work your way up to becoming a director" — "becoming" but not "to become"? work your way up to becoming a director Why we use becoming but not to become ? <Q> Work your way up in an idiomatic expression: <S> to achieve a better position within the organization you work for: <S> She quickly worked her way up to vice president. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> Actually "way up to" is more commonly followed by the bare infinitive, but also the gerund is used as shown in Ngram . <S> The reason is that in "way up to + ing" the "to" is a preposition, it is not part of an infinitive verb. <A> In "Work your way up to become a director", 'to' goes with 'become' to mean "in order to become". <S> It would be saying that the purpose of working your way up was to become a director. <S> Because of the meaning of the phrase "work your way up", there's little difference. <S> But the structures are rather different. <A> Yes, /work one's way up/ is an idiom. <S> His song worked its way up the chart to become number one. <S> The same meaning semantically as: His song worked its way up the chart and became number one. <S> It is the outcome . <S> versus His song worked its way up the chart to becoming number one. <S> The same meaning semantically as: While his song was becoming number one, it worked its way up the chart. <S> Though the ing form is not as common. <S> Though in some cases, it might be more common in another type of sentence: <S> She ate her way through all the muffins to becoming thoroughly ill . <S> to becoming = to reaching the state of being thoroughly ill. <S> For me, the ing is the state or condition of a person or thing.
| In "work your way up to becoming a director", 'to' makes the the indirect object of "work your way up": there's no expressed purpose.
|
Should I use was or were with a two-item list? In the sentence, " Jonathan Oldstyle and Diedrich Knickerbocker (was, were) two of Irving's pen name " do I use was or were? <Q> were : <S> Ann and Mark were at the baseball game. <S> Milk and eggs were required to make the recipe. <S> The Lannisters and the Starks were friends of my family. <S> There isn't much more to say about this simple case, but if you are interested, you can read more about how to conjugate the verb when using compound subjects like "milk and cookies". <A> Were Jonathan Oldstyle and Diedrich Knickerbocker were two of Irving's pen name <S> s <S> Were <S> is (in this case) <S> the 3rd person, plural past form of the verb be . <S> Was <S> is (in this case) <S> the 3rd person, singular past form of the verb be . <S> You have two subjects, Jonathan Oldstyle and Diedrich Knickerbocker , so the plural form is correct. <S> Here is an example where the singular form, was , would be correct: <S> Jonathan Oldstyle was one of Irving's pen names. <S> Note: <S> use the plural names , rather than name , <S> because you are talking about a collective of pen names, by saying two of , you are implying that there are many (more than one) pen names. <A> The answer is were. <S> Any sentence with two subjects takes a plural verb. <S> The cat and the dog were sitting on the fence. <S> Jonathan Oldstyle and <S> Diedrich Knickerbocker were two of Irving's pen name. <S> Jonathan Oldstyle and Diedrich Knickerbocker are the subjects of the sentence .
| The straightforward answer is that, since there are two subjects, the subject is plural, and you should use
|
"Here you are & Here you go" When somebody asks you for something and you give it to them, which expression is correct or more common? eg., My little sister plays with toys and she wants to give one of her toys to me. So what should she say? ' here you are ' or ' here you go '? which one is correct? What is the difference between them? <Q> It is neutral as to formality. <S> It is brusque rather than polite, but in an informal context, that might just be seen as friendly - <S> it depends on the tone of voice. <S> "Here you go" is a colloquial idiom, which doesn't really make literal sense. <S> It is informal and friendly. <A> Both Here you are. <S> Here you go! <S> basically have the same meaning that you have given something to someone . <S> The difference is intent. <S> "Here you are" is merely a statement that "here is something you wanted". <S> P1 <S> : I'm really thirsty, could I have a glass of water!" <S> A1: <S> Here you are, your glass of water. <S> A2 <S> : Here you go! <S> Now drink that down! <S> Of course these subtleties can change depending on intonation by the speaker. <A> Addition: While they mean the same when you are telling somebody - 'here is the thing you wanted, I am giving it to you/have just given it to you', they do not mean the same in other circumstances: ' <S> Here you are' can also be used in the sense 'you always wanted to visit the King's court, and now here you are...' to refer to finally being in some place , be that a physical location, as in this example, or a place in life, eg: 'we always wanted to be court musicians, and now here we are'. ' <S> Here you/we go cannot be used in these circumstances. <S> Similarly, 'Here we go'/'Here I go', a slightly different phrase to 'Here you go', can be used before embarking on something important, nerve-wracking, or incredible, eg. <S> saying 'here we go' or 'here I go' before executing a difficult stunt on a skateboard. ' <S> Here we are' or ' <S> Here I am' could not be used in this way.
| "Here you are" is literal - "This is the thing I'm offering you". "Here you go" expresses more enthusiasm and excitement.
|
Does the trick of replacing “who/whom” with “he/him” always work? In many grammar books, whenever Who vs Whom comes up, you get the rule ( who is used for to refer to the subject, whom is for the object or preposition) and then you get this supposedly handy tip: If you are confused about using who/whom , try substituting he/him or they/them to see which makes sense. If he/they makes sense, use who . If him/them makes sense, use whom . e.g. [Who/whom] do you serve? You serve him . Therefore: ' Whom do you serve' = CORRECT Aren't there examples where this trick fails to work? Can you think of any? I ran into this problem applying the trick to the question ' Who are you? '. I know, instinctively, that Who is correct, but if I were to use the trick, I would get it wrong: [Who/whom] are you? You are him . Therefore: ' Whom are you' = CORRECT But this is obviously INCORRECT , so what gives? What am I doing wrong? What's the best way to remember how to correctly use Who/Whom <Q> The trick does work substituting the objective pronoun or the subjective pronoun in place of "who/whom". <S> Did you speak to him ? <S> Whom did you speak to? <S> Did you go to see her ? <S> Whom did you see? <S> Who is it? <S> the problem you are running into is the "I/me" switch. <S> Properly, one should answer the phone <S> It is I not <S> It is me <S> but the latter gets used very often and is understandable. <S> A way to remember "who" is subjective is that it's the name of the band <S> The Who - <S> Who Are You? <S> imagine if they were named "The Whom"...? <A> Since whom is a formal pronoun whose use doesn't come naturally to speakers, it sounds wrong to use it with colloquial case rules. <S> So this "trick" would fail to work in cases where prescriptive rules for case don't correspond to English speakers' intuitions. <S> As you've said, one example of this is case after the copula. <S> I can't think of any other common examples, but I did think of an uncommon one. <S> Consider the topic of the foliowing question <S> : Tom is taller than I? <S> Many people would say "Tom is taller than me." <S> However, it would be wrong to use "whom" in a sentence like "Who is Tom taller than? <S> " I don't think this is very useful information though because such sentences seem to be very rare. <S> I only found one example so far, and it is from a translation of scripture, with a different word order and an archaic feel to it: <S> Stronger than who is he? <S> - <S> The Two Targums of Esther , translated by Bernard Grossfeld <S> A more contemporary-sounding example <S> I found uses "who" in a non-question context: <S> And when you have that many kids, there's always going to be a lot of competition - <S> who's better than who, who's bigger than who, who's stronger than who and the way people usually figure that out is by proving it. <S> - Everyday Violence: <S> How Women and Men Experience Sexual and Physical Danger , by Elizabeth Anne Stanko Actually, this kind of construction—"who's [adj]er than who"—is probably the most common circumstance where "who" shows up as the complement/object of "than". <S> Another example I could think of is case in coordinate noun phrases (such as "Emily and I/me") <S> but I don't think this is relevant to your question as "who/whom" seems unlikely to be used in coordinate phrases like this. <A> Put in mind that linking verbs or copular verbs do not require an object. <S> Are/is/am, the verb to be is <S> a linking verb. <S> Unlike action verbs, linking verbs show a relationship between the subject of the sentence and a noun or adjective being linked to it. <S> What comes after to be is a compliment and describes the subject. <S> In other words to be does not make an action on the compliment, so a compliment is never an object. <S> Who are you? <S> I am a student. <S> I am I. A student and <S> I are compliments that describe the subject and not objects that receive the action. <S> Therefore, you can' t say I am him . <S> You are him is logically impossible. <S> You are yourself not him. <S> You are you. <S> Who are you? <S> Not whom are you? <S> For more information, you can read about linking verbs and action verbs.
| You're right that this trick doesn't work all the time.
|
Why is the article "the" used in "the events?" Here is the second sentence of Lovecraft's "The Shunned House": Sometimes it enters directly into the composition of the events, while sometimes it relates only to their fortuitous position among persons and places. According to the English language rules, was the word 'events' representing a class of objects or why is "the" placed before it? <Q> A definite article is used because "events" is referring to a specific set of things that happened. <S> Without further context, I couldn't say what those things are. <S> Presumably the book details a specific set of happenings, and "it" is becoming involved in those specific happenings. <S> Consider this sentence from the introduction of the book The Airship ROMA Disaster in Hampton Roads (by Nancy E. Sheppard), a book detailing the crash of the airship <S> Roma : <S> The events you're about to read have been collected through extensive research from personal letters, essays, articles, official testimony, interviews, imagery, genealogy and notations from archives and libraries. <S> In this case, the sentence refers specifically to what happened regarding the crash of the airship. <A> The definite article locates the noun it defines within the discourse context, so any question about use the definite article must take context into account. <S> Here are the first two sentences of Lovecraft's story: From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent. <S> Sometimes it enters directly into the composition of the events, while sometimes it relates only to their fortuitous position among persons and places. <S> It is clear that the events are those which are previously referred to as the greatest of horrors . <A> This is why the definite article is appropriate, because it refers to a specific series of events, and not events in general. <S> You will find, though, that Lovecraft's writing can seem old-fashioned by modern standards and there may be many grammatical features that don't follow the rules of your textbook. <S> If you wish, take note of these as artifacts of older English and not necessarily patterns you should use in your own writing.
| In this story, "events" most likely refers to "the (set of) events (that I'm now going to tell you about)", where "events" means "the things that happen in this story".
|
Meaning of "prostrate bowed but not believing" I struggle to understand this line in G. Hansard's song Bird of Sorrow : You prostrate bowed but not believing Can you please help? <Q> You prostrate <S> bowed but not believing <S> [which is significantly different from the lyric on the site; my answer concerns the phrase as given above] <S> This is a noun phrase, not a sentence. <S> you is the noun at the head of the phrase. <S> prostrate is an adjective, modifying you . <S> bowed is the past-participle of the verb bow , used adjectivally, modifying you but not believing the present-participle believing , from the verb believe , is again used adjectivally, modifying you . <S> We might use a noun-phrase such as this one either as the subject or the object of a verb. <S> This picture of the mob of supplicants before the emperor-god of the planet Xenon shows you, prostrate, bowed, but not believing . <S> You, prostrate, bowed, but not believing , cursed the pious intergalactic bastards. <A> A typical "bow" is slightly bent forward and indicates obedience or reverence. <S> If you bowed so much that you were prostrate on the ground (face down, outstretched) <S> it would imply that you are "all in" in your dedication and submission to the target of the bow. <S> Here is the full line from the song, with proper usage of you're : <S> You've given over to self-deceiving, you're prostrate bowed, but not believing <S> This indicates to me the author is accusing the subject of being a spectacular liar. <S> His actions show that he believes whole heartedly, yet he does not. <S> He might be putting on a show for others around him so that they think he is a devout believer, but he's even deceived himself, as the author states at the beginning of the line. <S> This is a common theme in religion and all of humanity. <S> Our actions deceive us. <A> "to touch the forehead to the ground while kneeling, as an act of worship.... <S> " http://www.dictionary.com <S> This would not maintain the meter in the poem, but might be clearer in projecting the meaning.
| I think the best synonym here for the highly poetic prostrate bowed would be the Chinese loan word kowtowed .
|
The least or the fewest? Why do we use "the least" in this sentence: She is the least polite person in our family. A person is a countable noun so shouldn't we use: She is the fewest polite person ... ? <Q> "Fewest" is an adjective , not an adverb; it applies only to count nouns, so it would not be usable in this sentence. <S> Compare the following two sentences: <S> Our family has the fewest people of any in the village. <S> ("fewest" as an adjective modifying the noun "people") <S> She is the least polite person in our family. <S> ("least" as an adverb modifying the adjective "polite", which in turn is modifying the noun "people") <S> Of all the people in our family, she is the least polite . <S> (a rewording of your sentence, with exactly the same meaning, which makes it clearer that "least" applies to "polite" and not "person") <A> You aren't counting the person in the sentence, you're modifying 'polite' with the word 'least.' <A> She is the least polite person in our family. <S> her level of politeness is <S> very low (least) "least" is being used to mean "low level". <S> " <S> Least" can also mean "not much" which in some cases might be synonymous with "least" He made the fewest errors. <S> He made the least number of errors. <S> "Fewest" ordinarily does not get used to describe a small number when referring to people <S> it is usually one of the few <S> She is one of the few least polite people I know. <S> I know a few people who are impolite, and she is one of them
| "Least" in this sentence is an adverb ; it applies to "polite" (an adjective), not to "person" (a count noun).
|
they did not think vs they thought In a conversation, a man said, "my parents got me a bad guitar 'cause they did not think I was gonna stick with it." I am a little confused about why that sentence is correct, because if I were to say the same thing I would have said, "my parents got me a bad guitar 'cause they thought I was not gonna stick with it." Please tell which one of the sentences sounds more correct and native, or if there is any other way of saying the same thing. <Q> Short answer: Both alternatives are grammatical. <S> Between the two alternatives: <S> a) <S> They didn't think I was gonna stick with it, and b) <S> They think I wasn't gonna stick with it, a) is more natural and this syntactic phenomenon is called negative raising (or neg-raising ). <S> I understand that from a learner's eye, it looks more natural to embed an original idea in the negative in a think -clause directly. <S> However, it's more natural in English to raise the negation to the main clause when the main clause has a certain word (or technically, a predicate) such as: think, believe, want, seem, suppose, likely , and ought to . <S> 1 <S> It might be counter-intuitive to learn that negative raising is the more natural/usual choice (if you want to dig deeper, search for marked-unmarked or markedness ). <S> But if you consider a little different sentence pair 2 , you may instantly see why: c) <S> I didn't claim anything. <S> d) <S> I claim nothing. <S> Even though both sentences are semantically equivalent, I bet you can feel that d) is much stronger than c). <S> (And thus, c) is the more natural/usual (i.e., unmarked) choice.) <S> 1 See more details at http://www2.let.uu.nl/uil-ots/lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=negative+raising 2 <S> The sentence pair was taken from Negation in the History of English , p. 55 <S> BONUS: <S> This excerpt from Syntax and Metonymy also explains it quite well: The sentence John doesn't think this novel is good. <S> is usually interpreted not as a statement about what John doesn't think <S> but as a statement about what he does think. <S> He does think this novel is not good. <S> Similarly, the sentence John doesn't want to leave early. <S> normally conveys John's positive desire not to leave early. <S> This phenomenon has been referred to as Neg -raising <S> (??, 19??) <S> and as negative absorption (Klima, 1964). <A> First off, you write because or 'cause instead of cause. <S> Both are correct. <S> However, the first sentence with 'they didn't think' is preferable. <S> According to Cambridge English grammar, when we use think to express uncertainty about something, we usually put not with think rather than in the clause that comes afterwards <A> The two phrases "did not think I would" and "thought I wouldn't" are strictly synonymous, because negating the first verb ( did not think to thought ) is followed by negating the second ( would to wouldn't ). <S> Similarly you can say, "I did not believe that it was true" or <S> "I believed that it was false" . <S> The rest of the sentence just adjusts to finish out the idea: <S> "I thought you were joking!" <S> vs <S> "I didn't think you meant it!" <S> "I thought I knew what was going on." <S> vs <S> "I didn't think I was confused." <S> "I wanted to take him with me." <S> vs "I didn't want to leave him behind."
| It's simply a matter of whether you want to emphasize the positive form of the verb (I thought ), or the negated form (I did not think ).
|
How to say "I hurt when she is laugh"? Once upon she's laugh, that times I hurt. Is that sentence right for describe: "I hurt when she is laugh" ? <Q> Once upon she's laugh, that times I hurt <S> That sentence is not grammatical, and it is quite difficult to understand what you are trying to say, there are several possibilities. <S> When we tell a funny or sad story that happened in the past we might say <S> [Did I tell you about the time] <S> she once laughed so hard, she hurt herself [?] <S> She once laughed so hard, she was bent double . <S> She laughed so much, her stomach hurt . <S> Sentences 1, 2 and 3 express a moment of hilarity, a time when someone said something so funny that they laughed, and laughed until tears were streaming down their face, or they couldn't catch their breath. <S> If both of you were laughing then say <S> She said something funny that made me laugh <S> so hard it hurt . <S> We laughed so hard it hurt . <S> We were laughing so hard, our stomachs ached <S> But if you want to say her laughter hurt your feelings then say <S> She hurt my feelings when she laughed (at me). <S> My feelings were hurt when she laughed (at me) <A> Once upon she's laugh, that times I hurt. <S> This is not grammatical. <S> The correct phrase is “once upon a time”, not “once upon”. <S> This phrase means a long time in the past. <S> You use this phrase when you begin telling a story. <S> For example: “Once upon a time there was a king.” <S> Second, when you use the word laugh as a verb, you don't use a helping verb <S> (is, are, am, was, were, etc.) <S> before the first form of a verb ( laugh in this case). <S> Also, you should add an ‘s’ to laugh because the subject (she) is a third person singular pronoun. <S> As far as I understand, you want to say as follows: <S> I hurt her when she laughs. <S> (in the present simple) <S> I hurt her when she laughed (in the past simple). <S> If you want to put emphasis on the time she laughs or laughed, you can say: I hurt her whenever she laughs. <S> I hurt her whenever she laughed. <S> However, if her laughing hurts your feelings, You should say: <S> It hurts me when she laughs. <S> It hurt me when she laughed. <A> Not even close. <S> What you want to say is: <S> I hurt when she laughs. <S> or: <S> If you wanted to use the verb is , you could say: I hurt when she is laughing. <S> Or: <S> Whenever she’s laughing, it hurts me. <A> I hurt has another meaning which is <S> I caused a physical injury to her or to myself . <S> I was hurt when she laughed at me <S> means that you were emotionally hurt when she laughed at you, but still this sentence is unnatural too. <S> It hurt me <S> when she laughed at me, is acceptable and natural or native-like sentence. <S> Once upon a time is used in the beginning of a story, . <S> Generally, the time used in stories is the past tense . <S> Once upon a time , It hurt me when she laughed at me. <S> In fact, this sentence does not fit as a beginning of a story since it is a description of an event that may happen daily to anyone. <S> You can say instead`: <S> At that time, when she laughed at me, it hurt me. <S> or My feelings were hurt when she laughed at me at that time. <S> You should specify the time of the event.
| Whenever she laughs, I hurt.
|
Standalone ɴᴏʀ: "neither this nor that" versus "not this nor that"? Is one of these correct two versions and the other incorrect, or are they both correct? Those on the bottom had neither the ability nor the opportunity to get to the top. Those on the bottom did not have the ability nor the opportunity to get to the top. Are they both grammatically correct, or can you never use nor without having neither next to it? Is “not this nor that” a grammatical construction in English, or must it only ever be “neither this nor that” or else “not this or that” ? When can you use nor ? <Q> (I suspect this is not actually a case of double-negation — nor one of negative-concord , either. <S> Maybe.) <S> It might sound a little bit old-fashioned or formal, but yes, your second sentence is certainly allowed. <S> See here . <S> I might well use your sentence, at least in writing or formal, crafted speech. <S> It’s a pernicious myth that nor cannot be used without having been preceded by *neither. <S> It’s up to the writer and their preferred style for that sentence, not some imagined rule grammar: <S> Those on the bottom had neither the ability nor the opportunity to get to the top. <S> Those on the bottom did not have the ability, nor the opportunity, to get to the top. <S> Those on the bottom did not have the ability or the opportunity to get to the top. <S> Those on the bottom did not have the ability or opportunity to get to the top. <S> Those on the bottom hadn’t the ability or opportunity to get to the top. <S> Those on the bottom had no ability nor opportunity to get to the top. <S> Those on the bottom had no ability to get to the top, nor the opportunity. <S> Those on the bottom had no ability to get to the top, nor had they any opportunity to do so. <S> I have seen broken software try to tell you that only one or two of those are allowed, but that’s just a bug in the limited experience with real English by the misdesigner of that software. <A> Many people in current times try to make an easy rule that the word "nor" must be used only after using the word "neither." <S> The history of good use of the English language doesn't make such a strict rule. <A> Agree with 1 alternatives to 5."Neither...nor" is preferable. <S> I disagree with dropping the "the" (ability) in alternatives 6.7. <S> and 8. <S> Dropping the "the" changes the meaning. <S> The meaning is not that they have no ability (at all) , but do not have the (required) ability. <S> Two "not"s <S> is correct but would be clumsy, as it would require alternatives two distinct phrases: " <S> Those on the bottom did not have the ability and (moreover) they did <S> not have the opportunity to..."
| In the original instance, either sentence is fine and its style has been applied many times in the English language.
|
What is the difference between 'at Christmas' and 'on Christmas'? I saw the sentence like 'I will go on a vacation at Christmas'. Could I substitute this sentence with 'I will go on a vacation on Christmas' If so, What is the difference between 'at Christmas' and 'on Christmas'? I'd like to know the difference. <Q> For me (British), I would never say "on Christmas", because 'on' is used with a day, not a period. <S> I would say "on Christmas Day", or "on New Year's Day", or "On Easter Sunday" but "at Christmas" or "at Easter". <A> Christmas can be understood to be a particular day (December 25) or a seasonal celebration similar to Yule . <S> Hence, the different prepositions, on for the day, at for the seasonal celebration. <S> In my experience, the phrase is usually "on Christmas day ". <S> She is visiting her family on Christmas day, and then she's leaving with her friends to go on a ski trip. <S> He plans to propose to her, but he wasn't sure it would be a good idea to do so at Christmas or to wait until spring. <A> on In English the preposition on is normally used for days of the week, dates, and holidays which fall on specific dates, e.g., Independence Day (Fourth of July) <S> I'm going away on Friday <S> We're flying to Philadelphia on December 23rd <S> We'll be opening our gifts on Christmas Day. <S> They will be flying back on New Year's Day In American English, on is used before the expression weekend <S> Things to do in Philadelphia on the weekend at <S> In English, the preposition at is normally used for the time of day, festive periods; and in British English before the word weekend . <S> The Christmas Season (also called Happy Holidays ) basically covers a period of three days: <S> Christmas Eve (24th December), Christmas Day (25th December), and St Stephen's Day (26th December). <S> Likewise, Easter is celebrated over three days in Anglophone countries: <S> Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Easter Monday. <S> When speaking about the Christmas or Easter holidays/period, the preposition at is preferred. <S> At nine o'clock in the morning, we arrive in Philadelphia. <S> We're visiting friends and relatives at Christmas (the holiday period) <S> This year, Christmas falls at the weekend. <S> UPDATE <S> From the website English Club <S> However, I would not use this particular structure in a formal setting, or if one had to sit an English language exam. <S> It is nevertheless a very interesting observation, and something I would have thought not possible until today. <A> You use "at Christmas" when saying that something happens during the* Christmas holiday period. <S> For example: I'll see you at Christmas. <S> You say "on Christmas Day" when saying that something happens on December, 25th. <S> For example: I have to work on Christmas Day. <S> (LONGMAN DICTIONARY).
| it appears that in some English dialects, the expression on Christmas , is commonly used.
|
He is kind for now! "He is kind." This means that he is always kind and it's part of his identity. What should I say when I want to say that he is kind just for now or just today? "He is being kind." "He is getting kind." He is becoming kind." Which is correct? <Q> He is being kind. <S> Or He is being nice. <S> Both of these are fine, when talking about someone who might be a bit inconsistent. <A> "He is kind" is a statement about character: he is kind by nature. <S> " <S> He is being kind" is a statement about current behavior with an implication that it's unusual. <S> "He is getting kind" is an unusual phrasing. <S> Grammatically it's fine, but I can't imagine a native speaker saying it that way. <S> For some reason, we don't usually use the absolute form "kind" as the end state of "getting" or "becoming". <S> You will almost always hear only the comparative "becoming/getting kinder". <S> But we don't need the comparative in other cases: <S> "He's getting/becoming old/rich/bald/decrepit". <S> To talk about the state change, e.g. from not-kind to kind, most people would insert a mention of the previous state: <S> "He used to be nasty, but lately he seems to be becoming kind". <A> Try this: "For the present moment he is kind enough." <S> This give the impression that one is kind at the present moment, but that he may or may not always or have been always kind.
| "He is acting/behaving in a kind way" suggests that his current behavior is kind, but his usual behavior is either different or not known.
|
"also has been" vs "has also been" Split infinitives are considered no-no's to boldly go where no man has gone before being one of the more famous examples. In the sentences He also has been a poet. He has also been a poet. both are understandable with similar meaning, but would the second, "has also been", be considered the equivalent (whatever that would be) of a split infinitive in this situation? <Q> If the acceptability of the both is taken for granted, I think that the place of also in a sentence will depend upon the context, that is whether it means "like someone already mentioned" <S> (He also has been a poet) or "in addition to being something else"(He has also been a poet). <A> I'm going to say "no" on this one - <S> if only because applying the same rule to other adverbs makes you unable to form a grammatically correct sentence. <S> I have not been to Spain. <S> *I have been not to Spain. <S> *I not have been to Spain. <S> *I have been to Spain not. <A> This would be called split verb rule . <S> According to this rule. <S> An adverb must not be placed between an auxiliary and the following verb <S> But this so-called theory is violated by many elite writers. <S> Also good read here :
| It's not a split infinitive (since "have been" is obviously not an infinitive), and it's not incorrect simply because you have no other choice but to use it.
|
Meaning of "Sue me" I came across a dialog between two people struggling on a cutting the line situation. Here is the dialogue: A: Hey man, the end of the line is over there. B: Yeah... A: No seriously, I was here first, and you can’t cut in the line like this. B: Says who? A: I do! B: So sue me! A: Alright...that’s it.... (and here they start to punch each other!!!) When I looked it up in my dictionary, it says that the meaning of sue is to make a legal claim against someone because they have harmed you in some way. But I'm pretty sure that the sue me expression has a different meaning in this context. Please help me out! <Q> It's kind of "fighting words" that imply the speaker does not apologize for his actions, and the only option the other guy has is to take him to court. <S> Which is silly, of course, because you can't sue someone for cutting into a line (or, as the British say, a queue ). <S> So in your example the offended person takes the next more extreme available option, which is to start a fight. <S> "Sue me" is actually relatively polite. <S> There are many less polite options: <S> Kiss my ass! <S> Go to hell! <S> Piss off! <S> And the list goes downhill from there. <A> Much of the humour of the English language is based in absurdity - we make statements that are extreme to show how absurd a situation is. <S> "So sue me!" <S> falls into this category, in my opinion at least. <S> It's a defiant challenge to being called out on doing something wrong, and rather than showing remorse for this, the person being held accountable is being confrontational. <S> An example would be cutting the line at a supermarket register. <S> If another customer challenged the person on their actions, their response might be "so sue me!" <S> The point they are trying to make being "what are you going to do about it?? <S> " They are using the extreme "so sue me" (which would realistically never come to fruition) to highlight the futility of challenging their actions. <S> In the greater scheme of things, it's less being humorous, and more being an ass. <A> A literal expansion of the idiom would be something like, "You are technically correct, but I don't believe you'll be willing to take the actions necessary to enforce your point, so I don't care." <A> Except I have heard of one time when it might have been said helpfully. <S> In the landmark case of Standing Bear vs Crook in 1879 Standing Bear and his group of Ponca Indians sued General George Crook to stay in their old homeland in Nebraska instead of being sent back to Indian Territory by the army at the orders of the Indian Department. <S> According to some accounts Thomas Tibbles who led the effort to keep the Poncas from being sent to Indian Territory said that the idea for the lawsuit came from General Crook himself. <S> And thus it is possible that once in history "so sue me" or words to that effect might have been said seriously and helpfully. <A> The literal meaning is, as you say, a challenge to the listener that he take the speaker to court. <S> The actual meaning is clearly sarcastic ("a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain"). <S> It is ironic because it is a "use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning". <S> Indeed, the speaker expresses the opposite, namely "you cannot take me to court over this". <S> There is no punishable offense, and even if there was one, the listener would not engage in a court case. <S> The pain intended by the sarcasm, using the pedagogical effect irony can have, is to demonstrate to the listener that he is essentially helpless. <S> It is another way of saying "you cannot do a thing about it", but the listener has to come to this realization by himself. <S> He does so only when he recognizes the irony, which is probably a somewhat painful moment. <S> If you want you can see a mundane little glimpse of the Socratic method here. <S> The listener, I take it, didn't like the Socratic birthing pain of truth and wanted to share it with the speaker. <A> In my experience, 'so sue me' is more often used when there is, at least in the speaker's mind, some reason to believe they are in the right. <S> How logical that is, like real lawsuits, depends on the individual. <S> Say a supplier of wire gets a 1000 foot order from a customer, and has a roll 999 ft long, and they know the customer's just going to cut lengths off the spool anyway. <S> They might say to a third party, "I shipped the wire and didn't say anything. <S> So sue me." <S> In this example, "so sue me" means "my conduct is within reasonable bounds, if not perfect. <S> It'd be unreasonable to take action against me" (like filing a lawsuit, which would be unreasonably expensive and time consuming over a trifle like being shorted a foot of wire). <S> It's part of a general pattern of hyperbole in idiomatic English: I did so . <S> "I turned without using my signal. <S> So throw me in jail. <S> ""I'm 5 minutes late one day a year. <S> So fire me." and a variation <S> "I'm 5 minutes late. <S> Think they'll fire me?"
| I've often heard it used as an acknowledgement that the speaker's conduct isn't strictly ethical, but it would be unreasonably difficult to be so, and that they're taking the reasonable course. "So sue me" is always said sarcastically, defiantly, or humorously. Actually "sue me" means exactly what your dictionary says.
|
Word that means "to change color"? I checked the Reverso Dictionary but found nothing .Searching for synonyms for change didn't yield any results, either. Any suggestions? Example sentence: The sky ___ from red to maroon and from maroon to black. <Q> Turn is the verb commonly used to indicate a change in state, conditions of someone or something: [ L, I or T usually + <S> adv/prep ] to (cause to) become, change into, or come to be something: <S> The weather has suddenly turned cold. <S> When I refused to pay, he turned nasty. <S> She turned pale and started to shiver. <S> By the end of September, the leaves have started to turn (= become brown). <S> Cambridge Dictionary Russian river turned red by metallurgical waste, Norilsk Nickel says. <S> From: CNN.com <A> In your sentence, it's its color that the sun changes (in the way how it's perceived by the observers) from red into maroon. <A> The sky moved from red to maroon and from maroon to black. <S> The sky transitioned from red to maroon and from maroon to black. <S> The sky transformed from red to maroon and from maroon to black. <S> The sky faded from red to maroon and from maroon to black.(normally darker) <S> The sky faded from red to maroon and from maroon to black. <S> The sky brightened from red to maroon and from maroon to black. <S> (normally lighter) <S> The sky went from red to maroon and from maroon to black.
| One of the meanings of the expression "to change into something" is to transform from one state to some other .
|
Word for things that can become outdated I can think of "perishable". However I do not know if I can use it in context of programming. I want to say that the code or a program is replaced when there is a new and better technology. Edit: I mean code will someday be replaced someday in the future. It is not obsolete right now. <Q> How about transient ? <S> not lasting, enduring, or permanent; transitory. <S> lasting only a short time; existing briefly; temporary: transient authority. <S> staying only a short time: the transient guests at a hotel. <S> Or temporal : <S> enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory <S> Both definitions from dictionary.com. <A> If you just want to say that it is possible for the code to be replaced by something new/faster/better, you could use the adjective supersedable , which means basically "able to be replaced or made obsolete". <S> 1 <S> A more casual, modern way to say the same thing is that the code is not future-proof. <S> 2 <S> If you want to talk about how long it will probably be before the code is superseded, then I would use half-life . <S> The term half-life refers to how long it takes for something to undergo some process. <S> It might be most familiar in relation to radioactive decay or drug metabolization. <S> In the realm of technology it can be used to refer to how long it will be before some new technology makes a product obsolete. <S> 3 <S> 1 <S> From Dictionary.com : <S> supersede verb (used with object), superseded, superseding . <S> to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc., as by another person or thing. <S> to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, usually in favor of something mentioned; make obsolete: <S> They superseded the old statute with a new one. <S> 2 <S> From Techopedia : <S> Definition - What does Future Proof mean? <S> Future proof is a buzzword that describes a product, service or technological system that will not need to be significantly updated as technology advances. <S> In reality, very few things are truly future proof. <S> In any field that depends heavily on technology, a regular cycle of replacing and updating appears to be the norm. <S> 3 <S> For example: [W]hat is the half life of your technology devices these days? <S> By that I mean, at what point are you already starting to think about upgrading your devices — from the moment you purchased the last one? <S> Half-life is the moment when you could continue to use your device <S> but it is either so far behind the functionality of other devices or — because of performance issues — it is increasingly unusable. <S> Both points used to take three to five years, but are now more likely to be only one or two years. <S> — "Why is the half-life of technology getting shorter?" <S> Global Telecoms Business , 2012. <A> Consider fleeting : passing swiftly; vanishing quickly; transient; transitory:fleeting beauty; a fleeting glance. <S> I would prefer not to use such a fleeting technology on this long-term project. <S> Saying something like the above would convey that you suspect the technology in question is merely a fad, or not yet mature/stable enough, to consider using it as a long-term solution to a problem. <A> The software can become obsolete ; When the software is obsolete, it will be superseded by the new technology. <S> Depending on the context, though, you may not even need to say any of this; software is assumed to be ephemeral and temporary, given the speed of change in the software industry. <A> You could say the program will be deprecated (Wikipedia explanation) . <A> Obsolescent means becoming obsolete. <S> It describes something that is in current use, or can be used now, but which is expected to be obsolete in the future. <S> See also here <A> You could say that the program or software becomes obsolete . <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete Obsolete: no longer used because something newer exists : replaced by something newer <S> Although it is a general term that can be used to describe a broad spectrum of things that are outdated, it is commonly used to describe technology or software that is outdated. <S> In fact, some software has built-in or planned obsolescence , where it is purposely designed to have a limited useful lifespan, in order to bring back repeat business by forcing users to upgrade to a newer version. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#In_software
| So if the code you're talking about will probably be obsolete soon , you could say it has a short half-life .
|
"I have him deliver the letters"/"I have him delivering the letters" "I have him deliver the letters." "I have him delivering the letters." Is there a difference between the two? And what exactly does "have somebody do" mean? Does it mean "let" or "get somebody to do something" or "make somebody do something" ? Its never clear to me when seeing sentences with this "have somebody do" construction. <Q> have somebody <S> do something <S> means that you arrange for somebody to do something. <S> Here are some examples. <S> I will have the gardener trim the hedge next week. <S> You need to have somebody fix that step- <S> it's dangerous! <S> I could have my husband drop by with your prescription if you like. <S> It does not imply <S> let or make . <S> get somebody to do something <S> generally means persuade somebody to do something: <S> How can I get my kids to eat vegetables? <S> get somebody in to... has a roughly equivalent meaning, but could only be used when employing somebody, most likely on a short term basis, for example a builder: <S> You need to get somebody in to fix that step- <S> it's dangerous! <S> Regarding your two sentences, the first one suggests that you normally or habitually arrange for him to deliver the letters, or you have arranged that he will normally or habitually deliver the letters. <S> For example you might be talking about a member of staff who is responsible for delivering all of the mail on a daily basis. <S> The second one means that you recently arranged for him to deliver a particular collection of letters, and he is doing it right now. <A> "I have him deliver" is a way of saying "I assign the task of delivering to him" What does Bob do when he first arrives at the office? <S> I have him deliver the letters. <S> "I have him delivering" is similar, but indicates that the task is currently underway. <S> Where's Bob right now? <S> I have him delivering the letters. <S> However, in some contexts, "I have him delivering <S> " can mean that you think he performs or performed the task, but aren't sure. <S> For example, in a police drama: <S> So where was Bob when the murder took place? <S> I have him delivering the letters, but the security camera footage has gaps, so we need to investigate him some more. <A> The second can mean two things, and the second meaning is rather subtle: <S> He's delivering the letters right now , i.e. as we speak. <S> You need to deliver the letters, and you have him deliver them, but you would prefer to deliver the letters yourself or get someone else to deliver them. <S> The second meaning would usually only appear in spoken English, where you could infer the meaning from context; in written English you would probably make the italicized portion explicit: <S> I have him delivering the letters, <S> but I'd do it myself if I had time.
| The first one means that you have some kind of ongoing need to deliver the letters, and you have specifically assigned him to perform that task, now and in the future.
|
how and when to use a preposition for the verb ' make it '? Considering the use of this verb meaning in : 'manage to arrive' . How and when do I use the preposition 'to' ? Please take a look at the following sentences and explain which one makes sense in both examples to mean in the mentioned definition. Sorry, I can't make it home for dinner tonight, I've got my hands full with a bunch of work. Sorry, I can't make it to home for dinner tonight, I've got my hands full with a bunch of work. Here is another one : There was heavy traffic but I finally made it to work . There was heavy traffic but I finally made it work . <Q> I can't make it home <S> CORRECT <S> This means you are unable to reach this destination. <S> Home could refer to the building, or the area where you live; e.g., village, city, country. <S> When used as an adverb of place, home requires no preposition <S> An Australian holidaymaker: <S> I can't wait to get back home <S> (home = <S> Melbourne, Australia) <S> I can't make it to home <S> UNLIKELY but not impossible <S> In this sentence we have to identify what home might be referring to. <S> It could be short for home base <S> (think of a baseball player running to home base ) or the home plate With the Yankees prepared for the long play <S> , Taylor instead bunts, allowing Hayes to make it to home safely and win the game. <S> There was heavy traffic <S> but I finally made it to work <S> CORRECT <S> This means the speaker managed to arrive at his or her workplace despite the traffic. <S> Work and workplace are nouns, and the preposition to is used to express motion or a direction toward a point or thing. <S> There was heavy traffic <S> but I finally made it work <S> INCORRECT <S> This sentence is grammatical but it has a completely different meaning. <S> It means that the speaker managed to make something <S> work <S> i.e function despite the heavy traffic. <S> In other words, the speaker repaired something that was broken or not functioning properly. <S> And in the sentence, work is used a verb My watch is broken, can you make it work again? <S> His phone doesn't work unless he goes to a high point <A> Make it (informal) is an idiomatic expression with different connotations. <S> It is also used with the meaning: to manage to arrive at a place or go to an event . <S> She made it to the airport just in time to catch her plane. <S> We're having a party on Saturday - <S> can you make it? <S> (Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms) <S> The preposition "to" is generally used. <S> It is not used in " make it home" as " home " is not preceded by the preposition to as in "I'm going home". <A> When make it is used to mean "attend an event" or "reach a place or destination" <S> I can't make it to the party . <S> I can't make it to the office . <S> I can't make it to work . <S> I can't make it onto the plane|boat|raft|solid <S> ice|steep bank|diving board|gangplank|elevator|A-list... <S> I can't make it home . <S> I can't make it there . <S> I can't make it over . <S> I can't make it out . <S> I can't make it up . <S> I can't make it down . <S> I can't make it across . <S> I can't make it through . <S> you will notice that the complement sometimes is a prepositional phrase and sometimes a simple locative. <S> I suppose a modern grammarian would call the simple locative an intransitive preposition or intransitive adposition. <S> It used to be called an adverb. <S> It establishes the location in space or the nature of the movement through space. <S> However, whether the preposition to is required or not has nothing to do with the verb make it .
| The prepositional phrases are governed by their own grammatical rules independent of the verb.
|
Superman & superwoman: countable or uncountable? I suppose you know you can turn into superwoman or superman in an emergency. Mrs Pam Weldon reported that her baby nearly slipped under the wheels of a car. Mrs Weldon weighs only 50 kilos, but she said she lifted the car to save her baby. Dr Murray Watson, a zoologist, wrote that he jumped nearly three metres into the air to grab the lowest branch of a tree when hyenas chased him in Kenya. Perhaps you wonder if you can perform such feats. The chances are that you can. Doctors say that we can find great reserves of strength when we are afraid. It's well-known that adrenalin can turn us into superwomen or supermen! Source: Longman English grammar practice, L. G. Alexander, Page 11 I looked up both superman and superwoman in many dictionaries and they all know them as countable nouns. Shouldn't there be an a before superwoman in the first line: I suppose you know you can turn into a superwoman or superman in an emergency. <Q> Short answer: <S> The first usage of "superman" and "superwoman" should have been capitalized, because the author is almost certainly referring to the comic-book character Superman (and his female equivalent Super woman ) which are proper nouns (and should not be capitalized). <S> The second usage should also not be capitalized, because they are plural and so can't then be referring to a (singular) character name. <S> It's possible the editor thought that since the second usage is not capitalized, the first usage doesn't have to be. <S> Or perhaps the author was trying to make a connection between the first and last sentences of the paragraph. <S> Either way, it's kind of an "epic fail" in an English grammar study guide. <S> Side note: <S> There have been a number of short-term characters introduced by that name , but the female equivalent of Superman is Supergirl , who has had numerous appearances in the comics and a currently-running TV show . <S> Note also this isn't as sexist as it might sound because A) Supergirl is a teenager, and B) there have been various comics and shows titled Superboy , mostly about Clark Kent as a young man. <S> I know all that might be a bit nerdy, but it is useful context to know why the use of "Superwoman", as a proper name, might sound odd to some people. <A> My guess is that "superwoman" and "superman" here are an attribute (characteristic) of person. <S> The idiom "to turn into" here reflects the meaning of "To cause someone or something to take on some character, nature, identity, or appearance; change or transform someone or something into someone or something". <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Superman <S> - Here says that it can be countable and uncountable. <S> "I suppose you know you can turn into a Superwoman or a Superman in an emergency. <S> " <S> I would think of the heroes of the DC universe. <S> "I suppose you know you can turn into a superwoman or a superman in an emergency." <S> Is probably most correct <S> but I can't see reason why the original should be incorrect. <S> Yet, I think the best choice would be: <S> "I suppose you know you can turn into superwomen or supermen in an emergency." <S> Where 'you' isn't singular. <A> Shouldn't there be an a before superwoman/superman? <S> I'd say <S> , there may be, provided that you mean one single (super)man/woman of the category of super human beings. <S> But it seems that in the context you provided, the two nouns are used in their general sense (without giving attention to details), and <S> -man and -woman , being parts of superman and superwoman, are the nouns which can be used in a general sense without articles: <S> Man and woman were created equal. <S> The source: Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, Third edition, Page 63 <A> Basically, yes. <S> They are countable nouns, and countable nouns should generally have an article. <S> (As SovereignSun pointed out , Wiktionary says "Superman" can be uncountable, but I'm not sure I believe Wiktionary about this <S> --I don't think it can, or at least, no more than any countable noun can be informally <S> turned into an uncountable noun in an ad hoc way.) <S> So I agree that the original is incorrect. <S> However, there are two possible corrections: <S> Add an article ("a"), as you suggested. <S> Capitalise "Superwoman" and "Superman". <S> I believe the second is closer to what the author is intending to say, although the differences are very slight. <S> Being "a superwoman/superman" suggests that you are a member of a particular category; being "Superwoman/Superman" suggests that you are (or have a certain resemblance to) the fictional characters. <S> As categories, "superwomen/supermen" are not very well defined or widely talked about by the general public. <S> The characters are very well known, however, particularly for traits like super strength (which is what's being talked about here). <S> Incidentally, this isn't the only mistake I see in this passage. <S> In the last sentence, "well-known" should not be hyphenated. <S> (It should only be hyphenated when it's next to the noun <S> it's describing <S> : compare "a well-known fact" to "a fact that is well known".) <A> "Superman" is a concept much greater than a comic book character, and a term which predates the comic book hero by fifty years. <S> Friedrich Nietzsche describes an ubermensch as a superior person capable of doing things ordinary humans <S> cannot: <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch <S> It is the reason the infamous Leopold and Loeb thought they could get away with murder: <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb <S> And the ubermensch was a direct inspiration for George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman <S> This older definition of a superman may not have been the precise definition intended, but it's also impossible to disregard entirely. <S> I think this older definition sets a precedent and understanding in the English language that a "superman" is not a unique person. <S> The passage you cite should probably have used the article "a" before "superman" and "superwoman," especially considering they weren't capitalized.
| As far as I know there is no "official" comic character called "Superwoman".
|
What is an English word to block light? I am looking for a word to mean "make opaque". I'm thinking, perhaps "obscured" or "block", but neither sound right. Example: I put electrical tape over the LED lights to [your word] them. <Q> Both "block" and "obscure" can be used. <S> I blocked the LEDs by putting tape over them. <S> My view out the window was obscured by the ivy; I could see Mary but couldn't see who she was talking to. <S> Block <S> (verb definition 1d) to shut off from view <S> Obscure <S> (transitive verb definitions 1 and 2) to make dark, dim, or indistinct to conceal or hide by or as if by covering <A> In addition to other answers, another option is, simply, to cover . <S> You may also consider hide , though that to me implies they were bothersome/irrelevant/unsightly. <A> I would suggest that the word you're looking for would be the verb Opacify verb -fies, -fying or -fied to make or become opaque
| "Block" implies that you have eliminated 100% of the light; "obscure" doesn't necessarily imply 100%.
|
I want to ask a question about verbal noun Recently I have studied about the differences between a verbal noun with the -ing suffix and a gerund. I know that we can use the articles and the preposition "of" with a verbal noun but we can't use these both with a gerund. But I still have problem with using it. For example, are we allowed to use the -ing form of any verb along with the articles and the preposition "of"? For example, in the phrase "the abating of the storm" , is "abating" a gerund or a verbal noun? If it is a gerund, are we allowed to use all verbs in this form? <Q> If you can put a determiner in front of it, then it's a noun. <S> The running was hard on his body. <S> (verbal noun) <S> Him giving her the money made his mom mad. <S> (gerund) <S> His backtalking resulted in punishment. <S> (verbal noun) <A> Perhaps the following may help everyone here: <S> "A verbal noun is a noun that has no verb-like properties despite being derived from a verb. <S> This means that a verbal noun can be modified by adjectives, be pluralized (if the sense allows), and be followed by a prepositional phrase." <S> (Source: http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/verbal_nouns.htm ) <S> While... <S> "A verbal noun is different from a gerund. <S> For example, a gerund can be modified by an adverb and can take a direct object." <S> (Source: http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/verbal_nouns.htm ) <S> Please take a look at the source URL for more detailed information. <A> Gerund and verbal nouns are lookalikes. <S> If we consider their origins and functions they are identical twins with the only difference that verbal nouns appear commonly prefixed by ' the ' and followed by 'of'; but that's not the rule of thumb. <S> We are waiting for the abating of the storm.(VN) <S> He likes reading books {books for reading (G)}. <S> Better is it to say that Gerunds are double parts of speech (both verb and noun) <S> whereas Verbal nouns become absolute nouns and loses the verbal identity altogether. <S> It is better to put your -ing word to the acid test as suggested by LawrenceC hereinabove.
| A gerund is a noun that, having derived from a verb, retains a few verb-like properties.
|
What does "it gets old pretty fast" mean in these sentences? I have two sentences: What is your overall opinion of this school? The campus is beautiful in the snow but it gets old pretty fast . Most students tend to stay indoors for the long winter unless they are out at a mountain... Have you ever been to a party or gathering and been seated next to someone who just spends the whole night talking about themselves? It gets old pretty fast . What does "it gets old pretty fast" mean in these sentences? <Q> It means that you grow tired of it quite quickly. <S> In the example you have given, the person is saying that the campus looks beautiful in the snow, however when you have to deal with the negatives that come with it (harder to get from A to B, cold, wet feet, etc), the negatives outweigh the positives quite quickly. <A> It means you get tired of it pretty fast. <S> It seems "old" after a few days, because the time drags and seems to last longer and longer. <S> And you wonder how much longer it can last, and still there's more, and more, and more. <S> (After living through winters in Chicago and Massachusetts, believe me, I can tell you it <S> does get old. <S> See the picture below for an example. <S> And there were another six or eight weeks of winter left! <S> ) <A> "Gets old fast" Think about a pair of shoes or jeans. <S> If they're not made well they literally get old fast/quickly. <S> In the same way a situation can be judged as getting old. <S> Meaning it's not as good as it was in the beginning. <S> At least it's perceived that way. <S> I'm no longer happy with it. <S> It no longer satisfies me. <S> So I say it's old. <S> To get old fast means I expected it to be good for a long time <S> but it wasn't that way. <S> It feels like it quickly(fast) got worse for me. <S> So it got old fast. <A> 'Old' in this context means that you are bored of it; it's not new. <S> So you might have a new hat that reminds your friend of a carton character, for example, and they call you by that character's name . <S> It might be amusing to start with but soon got annoying "Yeah, it was funny at first but that joke got old pretty fast". <S> If you've every watched the TV comedy show 'Blackadder', specifically series 4, then in interviews the writers have said that they were concerned that calling General Melchet's assistant 'Darling' would have been a joke that gold old pretty fast. <S> "come here Darling!" <S> etc. <S> Fortunately it didn't. <S> Using it with respect to the image of the campus in the snow though sounds very odd - in British English, you don;t usually refer to a view as 'getting old' - a more usual phrase would be to say that the "attraction wears off quickly/soon".
| Meaning they wear out and maybe can't be used anymore.
|
What preposition should be used with "reminder" in this phrase? Every time I write this phrase I have the same doubt. This is a reminder about/ on the meeting we'll have next Friday. Which of the prepositions is the correct one? <Q> One person reminds another about something, therefore definitely "about." <A> Based on the specific example you have used I personally would not use ' on ', try to picture the sentence in a different way. <S> I know sometimes that small exercises like this can clear up problems with prepositions. <S> Imagine if the sentence was thus: This email is to remind you about the meeting next Friday <S> you could also use the word of in place of the word about , but if you use the word on <S> This is an email to remind you on the meeting next Friday <S> The sentence not only ceases to make sense, it also sounds awful. <S> Thus the sentence... <S> This is a reminder about the meeting we'll have next Friday. <S> ... <S> is what I would suggest using in future. <A> First of all, I am not a native speaker. <S> However, looking into some reliable tools for the English language the answer seems quite "tricky". <S> The Oxford Dictionary (UK English) does report only usages of "reminder of", neglecting "about" or "on". <S> The Merriam-Webster (USA English) instead provides two usages of the word and one of them is with "about": <S> She wrote a reminder about the meeting in her calendar. <S> But yet again, the results from the Google NGrams show an irrelevant number of occurrences of "reminder about" or "reminder on" compared to the widespread "reminder of". <S> Based on those results, I would say that when it comes to written language "reminder of" might be definitely the safe and good option, although "reminder about" could be used in spoken English, especially the American one. <S> Hope someone could validate this interpretation.
| My feeling is that prepositions should match those of the verb the noun draws its meaning from to remind someone of something or about something (see definition here) .
|
grateful to someone for something? I want to express my appreciation to someone who helped me, Can I say: I feel grateful to this person for his help on the project? (I don't want to use thank) <Q> For example - I am extremely grateful to all the teachers for their help. <S> Personally I would say "I am grateful to...." - for me it seems more natural, but that really comes down to personal choice. <A> I really appreciate your help on the project. <S> Or I am really grateful to you for your help on the project. <A> Yes, you can. <S> I'm so grateful (to you) for all your help on the project. <S> BTW, I'll go for "I really appreciate all the help you gave me on the project"; the use of the appreciate is far more common and idiomatic.
| Your usage of 'grateful' is grammatically correct - an acceptable usage is grateful (to somebody) (for something)
|
Is there any particular term to mention the small ditches on the road? Is there any particular term to mention the small ditches on the road ? <Q> Are you asking about a pothole ? <A> Small "ditches" in the road are called potholes <S> (source: huffpost.com ) <S> This picture is still considered to be a "pothole" even though a "ditch" tends to have length and a "hole" is round. <S> (source: roadex.org ) <A> You may mean gutters -- specifically, street gutters . <S> Not all street gutters have gratings that lead to underground sewers. <S> Many appear as very shallow ditches. <S> Their purpose is to control rain runoff. <S> Gutters are normally parallel to the street, but at intersections (especially intersections with a downhill slope or grade) <S> these shallow depressions for controlling rain runoff may continue downhill across the intersection, perpendicular to the other road. <S> Driving across them is like driving across very shallow ditches.
| "Ditches" tend to occur alongside a road, not in a road, often for drainage purposes
|
finished, have finished, be finished, be done, ,have done, did, I'd like to know the exact difference of those. I finished my homework. I am finished with my homework. I have finished my homework. I did my homework. I am done with my homework. I have done my homework. Do they have different meanings?You might say those are slitely the same, but what if the objects are replaced with other things. <Q> I finished my homework. <S> This sentence uses past simple. <S> Your homework was completed in the past. <S> I am finished with my homework. <S> In this sentence, finished is an adjective. <S> Just like the word "done", it means that you are not requiring any work at it. <S> I have finished my homework. <S> This is present perfect tense. <S> Your work is completed. <S> But the consequence probably exists in presence as the current state. <S> But sometimes, done can be meant to be tired. <S> For example, I'm done with your excuses <S> means <S> I'm tired with your excuses . <A> The first three mean the same thing. <S> "I did my homework" means only that you have worked on your homework, but maybe not completed (finished) it. <S> Maybe you still have some left. <S> Note however that when most people say "I did my homework" they will often mean that they finished it. <S> Again, it doesn't necessarily mean you finished all your homework, although it is more finalising that "I did my homework." <S> "I have done my homework" means, like the first three, that you have finished it. <A> Actually, while here below we are discussing “those”, you were above asking about “these”. <S> Does that make sense? <S> Either way the examples do have broadly similar meanings but there are significant differences, including these below: <S> I finished my homework. <S> I completed my homework at some time in the past. <S> I might have started the work previously and set it aside, but during the session in question, I completed the work. <S> I am finished with my homework. <S> I completed whatever homework I had <S> and I do not expect any more; not in the immediate future and not impossibly, never. <S> I have finished my homework. <S> I have just now completed my homework, seconds or at most minutes ago. <S> I did my homework. <S> Very much the same as “I finished my homework. <S> ”Some might say "did" could as easily mean "finished" or simply "worked on". <S> Some might say “finished” could indicate a session resumed and “did”, completion in a single session. <S> I am done with my homework. <S> Not just similar; probably identical to “I am finished with my homework. <S> I have done my homework. <S> Very much the same as “I have finished my homework” but rather less immediate. <S> “Done” is more likely than “finished” to imply “ <S> I did it yesterday”. <S> Further, “I am done / finished with my (anything)” are anchored within the same range of meaning only by that possessive “my”. <S> With the possessive “my” the sentence is a specific, factual report about the fate of a concrete and measurable thing. <S> Without the possessive “my” it would become instead a generic philosophical statement of intent about an abstract and unmeasurable subject.
| "I am done with my homework" means that you have had enough of doing your homework and will not continue doing it at this moment. For more information, please read The Pragmatic Meaning of the Perfect Finished and Done are interchangeable here, there is no significant difference.
|
Are "Arc" and "Arch" interchangeable? I've checked the dictionaries and both words have a common meaning: arc - a shape or structure resembling an arc. arch - a curved symmetrical structure spanning an opening and typically supporting the weight of a bridge, roof, or wall above it. Can both these words be interchangeable? We went through the arc. We went through the arch. <Q> Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition for arc that you referred to: arc noun 1A part of a curve, especially a part of the circumference of a circle: the point where a tangential line touches the arc of a circle 1.1 A shape or structure resembling an arc: the huge arc of the sky <S> Note that, although definition 1.1 refers to a structure , the word arc in the following example (and in all of the other examples quoted) if followed by of . <S> arc is not an actual structure: it serves only to define the shape of the real structure (the sky). <S> The definition in the Oxford dictionary would be better written as the shape of a structure resembling an arc. <S> Here are the definitions from the Cambridge dictionary: as you can see, there is no (STRUCTURE) meaning for arc . <S> arc <S> noun [ C ] (CURVE) <S> the shape of part of a circle, or other curved line. <S> arch noun [ C ] <S> (CURVED STRUCTURE) <S> a structure, consisting of a curved top on two supports, that holds the weight of something above it. <S> noun [ C ] (SHAPE) something that has the shape of an arch, often used for decoration: <A> No. <S> An arc (noun) can be free-floating. <A> I am a native French speaker, and a translator. <S> I'd like to make a short terminology comparison. <S> In English, for architecture, use arch, as in "pointed arch", in all cases. <S> For geometry, use arc, or bow, like in bow-window. <S> In French, arc's first meaning is "bow" (cf. <S> archer).Arche (Fr) is used to describe a large, primarily bow structure, typically in a bridge or a large space. <S> But Arc (Fr) is just generic or for smaller construction elements. <S> Pointed arch <S> e.g. is said Arc Brisé (and not Arche). <S> And for geometry as well it is Arc. <S> Exception:On Paris' Champs Élysees, you have the Arc de Triomphe, Rome has the Arc de Titus, which both are rather Arches (Fr) really by their dimensions, but for that kind of monument Arc is the traditionally used terminology. <S> London has the Marble Arch. <S> And finally rainbow is said Arc-en-ciel (litt. <S> a bow in the sky). <S> How nice is that ! <S> I hope this can somehow help & that no one will be upset this little linguistic invasion of mine.
| An arch (noun) suggests something that is connected to the ground, like the underside of a bridge or a tunnel.
|
the last week or the final week Which one is correct? This week is the final week of my staying in this city. This week is the last week of my staying in this city. <Q> They can be used interchangeably most of the time. <S> But it doesn't mean that both of these words imply the same meaning in all contexts. <S> The context plays a vital role on whether to use Final or Last in a sentence. <S> The word 'Final' implies the only being remaining or ultimate . <S> So, "the final week of staying in this city" suggests that there will be no more weeks for staying in this city or it is the only being remaining week for staying in this city. <S> On the other hand, the word "Last" means coming at the end of a series . <S> " <S> Furthermore, the word 'Final' is more formal than 'Last'. <S> To cut the long story short, Final means 'Last' according to http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/final ,Therefore, the former statement implies the letter statement without having much difference between them. <A> They are both correct. <S> You can also emphasize your emotion like:This is the final week of my staying in this city, I am glad it is over. <S> Or:This is the last week of my staying in this city, I wish it could have been a longer stay <A> Others have pointed out the lack of difference in the use of final/last for this particular pair of sentences, but I think it should be pointed out that there is a difference in other contexts. <S> For example, there's a very common use of "last week" which cannot be replaced by "final week": <S> Last week I stayed in the city. <S> or <S> In the last week, I stayed in three hotels. <S> Here, "last" is being used to mean "previous". <S> In these contexts, last and final are not interchangeable, as "final" has an absolute sense, and these sentence do not imply anything about what will happen next week. <S> (e.g. You could continue to stay in the city, or stay in additional hotels.) <S> The usage can be highly context dependent, as it's somewhat easy to change the sense between the two. <S> For example, adding "of my journey" to the second sentence changes things from a relative to an absolute sense, meaning that "final" can now be substituted: <S> In the last week of my journey, I stayed in three hotels. <S> In the final week of my journey, I stayed in three hotels. <S> As was pointed out in the comments even the phrase <S> "In the last week, I stayed in three hotels." can differ in whether "final" is an appropriate substitution, depending on the precise context. <S> If it's interpreted as "In the seven days leading up to now, I stayed in three hotels", then "last" and "final" are not interchangeable. <S> However, if the context is something like "I spent four weeks in Europe. <S> In the first three weeks I stayed with a friend, and then for the remainder I stayed in three hotels. <S> ", then "last" and "final" are interchangeable.
| The words Final and Last are synonyms. The last week for staying in this city" simply means that this week is the last week of all other previous weeks for staying in this city.
|
How to distinguish between American Indians and Indian Indians in native English (language) parlance? How to distinguish between American Indians and Indian Indians in native English (language) parlance? Can I say Indian Indian to say Indian from Asia compared to the Native Americans? <Q> "Native Americans" is the preferred term. <S> These days it's less common to refer to them as "American Indians" or "Indians". <S> However that isn't to say that they don't refer to themselves as "Indian" or use their own, tribal name (like Lakota, Sioux, etc.). <S> A full discussion of this is probably too much, but you can see this article for an alternate point of view. <S> Or this one for another perspective. <S> Apparently "Indigenous" is also acceptable. <S> Nevertheless, I suggest you use "Native American" when referring to people from that ethnic group, and "Indian" when referring to people from India (although, sometimes we are forced to say "Indian from India" to clearly distinguish what we mean). <S> If this sounds confusing, it is. <S> In the multicultural mix that is the United States, it's often difficult to know the exact term to use that <S> won't cause offense to any particular group. <A> If your meaning of "Indian" is clear from context, you can use "Indian". <S> "American Indian" can also be used as an adjective. <S> The ancestors of the Aleuts and Eskimos arrived in North America long after the ancestors of the American Indians arrived.) <S> "West Indian" (A person from the West Indies -- the Bahamas and the islands along the north and east edges of the Caribbean Sea. <S> "West Indian" can also be used as an adjective.) <S> "East Indian" (A person from the Indian subcontinent. <S> "East Indian" can also be used as an adjective.) <S> If you need to be more specific, you can. <S> For example: Utes, Cherokee, and Mohawks are just a few tribes of American Indians. <S> Cubans, Jamaicans, and Puerto Ricans are just a few groups of West Indians. <S> Punjabis, Gujaratis, and Bengalis are just a few groups of East Indians. <A> There are a couple of ways to do this with varying degrees of political correctness. <S> Saying " India Indian" to clarify, is one of them. <S> Note, "India", not "Indian" as in your question. <S> I've certainly used this before. <S> This is probably between the following two on the "appropriateness" scale. <S> It's less formal than the second option and more than the last. <S> You could also refer to the part of the globe, typically "South Asia", so you could say "South Asian Indian". <S> This would be a very correct and proper way of saying it and doesn't have the repetitive nature of the previous version. <S> If you're less interested in "proper" and you say it with a smile, you can do what they did in Good <S> Will Hunting and say "Dot, not feathers". <S> This is questionably appropriate as it runs the risk of making you look bad but, personally, I find it amusing. <S> Not everyone may agree. <S> Regardless, this is very informal. <S> At some point in the future it may be more normal to be understood to mean "someone from India" when you say "Indian", but for now, there still tends to be confusion as we're transitioning away from "Indian" towards "Native American" or "First Nations". <A> This is actually a question native speakers (particularly in the USA) struggle with. <S> Often times, you have to rely on context. <S> There are some who say that you should use the term "Native American" instead. <S> Some of the people who will tell you that are Native American themselves. <S> However, Native Americans are divided on the subject (as Robusto mentioned in the comments). <S> Many quite proudly prefer the term "Indian". <S> For people from India, sometimes you will hear people say things like "dot, not feather" to disambiguate, but that's so informal <S> I wouldn't suggest being the first person in the conversation to do it (unless you are one of the two ethnicities in question). <S> The other term I've heard is "Asian Indian". <S> The third thing I've seen people do is contort the sentence to identify the person's heritage geographically, rather than ethnically. <S> eg: <S> "His parents are from India." or "of Indian extraction". <S> The best advice for what to call indigenous Americans I've seen is what my sister, Osage anthropologist Jean Dennison set down in the introduction of her book Colonial Entanglement <S> * . <S> I'll try to get an exact quote later, but IIRC her rule was basically: <S> Use the actual tribal name, if you can. <S> (Some Native American tribes are as unrelated to each other as Swedes are to Chinese). <S> Use Native American if talking in grand general terms, rather than about a single person. <S> Otherwise... <S> Use what they use themselves. <S> For Osages, her contention is that is "Indian". <S> (I'll add in my experience I agree, but I don't have an Anthropology degree to back me up). <S> * - shameless plug <A> This by no means an authoritative answer, just my personal experience: <S> It is clear to me that Native American is widely understood to mean descendant of the indigenous people of the Americas and doesn't have the confusing connotation with India. <S> So, where possible, I avoid using Indian for people from the Americas altogether. <S> But I have visited the USA and Canada several times in the last 2 years and had the opportunity to ask the locals in person which term they preferred. <S> Seems that both in the USA (Nevada, Utah, Arizona) and Canada (Vancouver Island, British Columbia area) <S> every single Native American I asked ( <S> and I asked at least 30 people) <S> preferred the term First Nation. <S> The term is also seen frequently in museums and tourist guides. <S> (Far more than Native American.) <S> I got the distinct impression that Native American might be politically correct, but not to the Native Americans themselves. <S> As I understand it it is mainly a sort of group-identity thing: the First Nations people consider "Native American" a designation foisted upon them by others, while they consider "First Nation" <S> (we were here first) as more their own designation for themselves.
| If you need to be more specific, you can use: "American Indian" (A descendant of the peoples who inhabited the American continents before 1492, but not including the Aleuts, Eskimos, and related tribes.
|
"Excuse me, which is the way to the post office?" "Sorry, I'm new here. Bad luck". Is this conversation weird? The question below is from my English exercise book. Select the most suitable response to fill in the blank. "Excuse me, which is the way to the post office?" "Sorry, I'm new here. _______" A. Not at all B. Bad luck C. That's true D. Thank you all the same For me, all four choices seem to be quite weird. However, I choose option B (Bad luck) because I feel it is the least weird reply in this conversation. Is my understanding correct? Or should I contact the book's author to change the question and options? P/S: After seeing Andrew and choster's comments, I have searched the original question on the Internet and it should be like this: [Speaker A:] "Excuse me, which is the way to the post office?" [Speaker B:] "Sorry, I'm new here." [Speaker A:] "_______" Source: http://m.mofangge.com/html/qDetail/03/c1/201006/58mlc10383009.html <Q> As written, the asker asks, then we are asked to complete the response from the answer. <S> If that is that case: <S> " It offers a general comment on the situation. <S> To unpack: <S> "I sympathize that you had the bad luck of asking for directions from myself, a person who doesn't know." <S> "Bad luck" is clear enough in meaning -- it is part of a family of phrases that make a general comment on the situation: "Tough break!" <S> "Good show!" <S> "Oh, bad luck!" <S> However, I am not familiar with "bad luck" as a common statement of sympathy in that context. <S> I would expect it as an exclamation after hearing someone describe a misfortune: <S> "I caught the bus, but then it broke down." <S> " <S> Oh, bad luck!" <S> Perhaps it is more idiomatic in another region ... or era? <A> The most appropriate answer is D. <S> Thank you all the same. <S> Because speaker B was polite, and apologized for not being a local resident, speaker A acknowledges his/her kindness by responding politely, too. <A> "Bad luck" is probably best but it is weird. <S> Many grammar exams like this are written by non native english speakers and contain material that is dated or incorrect. <S> My own opinion is that new learners should learn conversation, perhaps via multimedia, the way kids learn to speak, then learn the grammar later, after they speak in a natural style.
| Your understanding looks correct to me -- the best answer is probably "Bad luck.
|
Is using "you" to refer to anyone, not the person you're talking to, a known, specific grammar form? I was discussing a certain road driving conditions with a friend. I said: You shouldn't be driving faster than 50 mph on that road! I didn't mean him or anybody in particular. I meant anybody driving on that road. His reaction was: why are you telling that to me? I never drive 50 mph on that road. How can I explain him that he misunderstood me, without saying 'no, no, I didn't mean you'? Assume that I am talking to an educated person. <Q> Yep. <S> In the sentence that you mentioned, you is used as a generic pronoun . <S> In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic you , impersonal you or indefinite you is the pronoun you in its use in referring to an unspecified person, as opposed to its use as the second person pronoun. <S> The generic you is primarily used as a colloquial or less formal substitute for one . <S> For instance, "Brushing one's teeth is healthy." can be expressed less formally as <S> "Brushing your teeth is healthy." <S> Source: Wikipedia <S> This article explains more about the usage of generic you. <S> You could probably clear the misunderstanding by saying I meant to say, " One shouldn't be driving faster than 50 mph on that road!" <A> I agree with Aishwarya <S> A R <S> that 'you' is a generic pronoun, but part of the issue here may also be the use of the Present Perfect Continuous tense, because it is used to show that something started in the past and has continued up until now. <S> In other words it is more specific in its timeline (now) and can therefore seem more accusatory. <S> Simple Present on the other hand, can be used to express the idea that an action is repeated or usual, and is therefore less specific in its timeframe (it's not necessarily referring to now, at this very moment in time.) <S> You shouldn't be driving faster than 50 mph on that road! <S> You shouldn't drive faster than 50 mph on that road. <S> This is of course, somewhat open to interpretation, but to me at least, the difference between the two sentences might be subtle, but it is significant. <A> I generally find both an impersonal " you " and " one " potentially problematic. <S> In Britain, in my experience, most people believe that " one " can mean "I", in very formal upper class English. <S> To tell the truth, I have <S> never heard anyone use " one " in this way, except humourously, whatever their background. <S> Despite that fact, I have been misunderstood at times, however, when using "one" impersonally. <S> So generally, I just avoid both of them, and say something like: <S> People shouldn't drive faster than 50 in that road. <S> or It's not safe to drive faster than 50 on that road.
| As you have pointed out, " you " can be taken as a direct reference to the person you are speaking to, perhaps even taken as an accusation.
|
Is it okay to use "very Good morning" instead of 'Good morning' while on cold call, is it okay to wish "a very good morning" instead of 'good morning', followed by your name and introduction? Or is it that we may wish "a very Good morning" to only those who are known to us?in professional cold calling, shall we just stick to 'good morning"? <Q> Peter is right - although it should really be "A very good morning to you… "; otherwise, what he said applies in any other context. <S> In the context of cold calling it's not a question of grammar. <S> "Good morning" might be formally polite enough to overcome the fact that the caller is intruding into the callee's day… Anything more, whether it be "A very good morning to you…" or "How are you?" or anything <S> but that basic "good morning" or the - usually omitted - "Is this a convenient time for me to call you?" is at best patronising. <S> If you must cold call, please don't try to deceive people into thinking of you as a friend. <A> <A> Grammatically it may be wrong, but what the one who says that phrase feels and wishes to express is something that is beyond just what a simple 'Good Morning' conveys. <S> In any formal sentences or conversations, it is best to avoid it. <S> But for someone special to you, if it conveys atleast some of the feelings that you express, it is worth it.
| A very good morning is an acceptable salutation here , it might be considered similar to Top 'o the mornin' where both would usually be said in a happy voice with a big smile.
|
'The' English language or just English language In the sentence: Nothing drove me harder than my passion for the English language. Is it correct to say 'the English language' instead of 'Englsih language'?What if I said 'passion for English language'? Is that weird or how does thatchange the meaning? <Q> Both are valid in this context, but have different meanings. <S> If you refer to the English Language , you are referring to the language itself, as spoken by millions of people all over the world. <S> If you refer to English Language , you would probably be referring to the academic subject that you can study as a GCSE subject in England. <A> Use zero article with languages: <S> "They can speak English." <S> An exception is made when the word 'language' is used and you refer to the language itself, as spoken by millions of people all over the world: "The English language is spoken in New Zealand." <S> No article is used before school or academic subjects. <S> This rule applies, of course, if the subject is a language: “I am studying three subjects in the morning: Chemistry, English and French.” <S> “English Language at Aston is ranked Top 25 in the UK for Graduate Prospects. <S> “ <A> It's "the English language" in that context. <S> Claiming to have "passion for English language" would be unnatural. <A> I was tempted to agree first with deadrat and then with JavaLatte <S> but after all, it's more subtle than that.. <S> and I now think that more importantly “the English Language” refers to the tongue as a particular example of the concept of language in the abstract, while without the article, “English Language” more likely deals with specific, concrete details. <S> A not-very-good - nay, a rather poor analogy might be to leave “the English Language” to describe a concept and to use just “English Language” when referring to either poetry or prose, depending on context, but not the whole shebang.
| Yes, “the English Language” refers to the tongue spoken by billions all over the world
|
A possibility vs the possibility I found both expressions. There is a possibility that he will come. There is the possibility that it was deliberate. What's the difference? <Q> Using 'a' indicates you are talking about one of several potential things (such as possibilities). <S> The two words have similar but not identical meanings in your example sentences. <S> For example, picking 'a coin' out of a pile of coins means any single coin you happen to pick out of the pile of coins, while picking 'the coin' out of the same pile <S> means you have picked a specific coin out of that pile. <S> Below, I will expand your example sentences and include new sentences with close or equivalent meaning to the example sentences to help you understand the difference between using 'a' or 'the' in them: 1) <S> There is a possibility that he will come. <S> He may come or he may not come. <S> 2) <S> There is the possibility that he will come. <S> He may or may not come, but his coming is important to whatever we are discussing. <S> 3) <S> There is a possibility that it was deliberate. <S> It may have been deliberate, but that is just one of several possibilities. <S> 4) <S> There is the possibility that it was deliberate. <S> It may have been deliberate, and if it was deliberate that fact is important somehow. <A> Here is a simple way to think about it: If you use 'a', it means that you're talking about any given instance of an object or event. <S> E.g, 'I saw a cow'. <S> It sounds like you're passively commenting on an event for the first time. <S> If you use 'the', it means that you're talking about a SPECIFIC instance of an object/event, and the specific object is relevant to whatever's going on. <S> E.g. 'I saw the cow'. <S> It sounds like this cow has already been mentioned somewhere in context, and so is significant to the situation, and the listener in question already knew about the cow. <A> 'The' is used in one of 3 contexts: 1) <S> When there is only one of a thing in a given context. <S> E.g. <S> On a ship there is normally one captain, the captain. <S> Or, "Within the universe there are many stars. <S> " <S> 2) <S> When you're mentioning something for the 2nd time. <S> E.g. <S> "I was watching a bird eat. <S> Then the bird started to fly." <S> 3) <S> When the context implies that you're talking about something specifically. <S> E.g. <S> "Please press the button to open the doors." <S> Using <S> the with the concepts 'possibility', 'chance', et cetera <S> , makes the phrase somewhat more definite and specific.' <S> The ' perhaps implies it's a bigger deal, as in the only possibility, or that it's been discussed for some time.
| Using 'the' indicates you are talking about a specific thing (or possibility). Usually if there is no difference between coins, 'a coin' is sufficient, while if you use 'the coin' it implies 'the coin' is different in some way (and often more important) than all the other coins.
|
"Butterflies have interested me" or "Butterflies had interested me" - which is correct? Is this correct? Butterflies _____ interested me for a long time. Which do you use, have or had? <Q> If you use "have", it means your interest in butterflies began in the past and continues to the present time. <S> You would use "had" to indicate that your interest began before another event in the past (and may or may not continue to the present time). <S> For example: Butterflies had interested me for a long time when I was chosen to lead the expedition to follow the monarch migration in 2013. <A> If you are still interested in butterflies (present tense), you would say: Butterflies have interested me for a long time. <S> Hope <S> this helps :) <A> In the absence of additional context, the answer is simple: have Butterflies <S> have interested me for a long time.
| It depends if butterflies used to interest you (past tense), in this case you would say: Butterflies had interested me for a long time.
|
What does "where" mean in the sentence "Where does Brexit leave Britain" I cannot understand the meaning of the sentence: "Where does Brexit leave Britain" According to Wikipedia Brexit (like its early variant, Brixit)[3] is a portmanteau of "Britain" and "exit". The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. In this case it sounds like: "Where does The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union leave Britain" ...which makes no sense at all! <Q> You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of to leave . <S> It means: to cause or allow to be or remain in a specified condition <S> Therefore, the sentence could be understood as meaning: <S> Where (In what position, good/bad/awkward/terrible, etc) does Brexit (what you described in the question) <S> leave <S> (cause to be or remain) <S> Britain (object of to leave )? <S> [Merriam-Webster] <A> The idiomatic use of the word leave is problematic, to be sure! <S> Moreover, the sentence in question is, at best, poorly stated! <S> Perhaps an illustration would help. <S> Let's say two guys are bemoaning not having a suit to wear to a special occasion to which they've both been invited. <S> One guy says, "I may not have a suit to wear, but I have a cousin who does, and we're almost exactly the same size. <S> I think I'll ask to borrow his suit!" <S> The other guy says, "But where does that leave me?" <S> In other words, the "other guy" is feeling as though he's been left (past tense of leave!) <S> out in the cold without a suit to wear. <S> Getting back to "Brexit" . <S> . <S> .. <S> The question being asked is "Where, or in what condition, does Britain's exit from the EU leave her?" <S> The word where has nothing to do with a literal, physical location; rather, where means "in what condition." <S> So, where is Britain, having left the EU? <S> out in the cold? <S> isolated? <S> in danger of losing allies? <S> in some other condition, either good, bad, or indifferent? <S> Some other illustrative sentences: <S> Your plan is all well and good for you, but where does it leave me? <S> Hey, my friend, we're both broke, but you have good credit <S> and I have bad credit. <S> You can go to a bank to get a loan to tide you over, but where does that leave me? <S> Jim, I hear you found a date at the last minute for the party tomorrow. <S> That's great, but where does that leave me? <A> The sentence is intended to be read as, "In what state does Britain's leaving the EU leave it?" <S> That is, where does Britain go after making such a decision? <S> Is Britain better or worse off having decided this way or the other? <S> What options are available to Britain now that it's made this decision? <A> Normally in English, "where" type questions are referencing the relationship between 2 or more physical items and their relative location to each other. <S> To answer a "where" question, one normally has to provide a second item to serve as a reference point for the location of the first item. <S> For example: Where is my TV? <S> Answers: <S> On the table. <S> In my house. <S> In Texas. <S> In the US. <S> On planet earth. <S> All of the above answers are correct to differing degrees of accuracy. <S> I think most people's definition of "where" in the above context is easily grasped. <S> However native English speakers, having fun with our language, will also use "where" to denote the status of non-physical relationships between non-physical "things". <S> In the case you mention, Britain while being a physical landmass, is also an non-physical idea, specifically a political organization of people (a nation) who happen to mostly live on the previously mentioned landmass. <S> The original question being posed is referencing this non-physical idea (the British nation) and is asking in relation to the EU (another non-physical idea, specifically a political alliance of nations) where will the British "stand". <S> The "standing" is not a physical location, but rather an ideological "location". <S> Ultimately what is being asked by this question is, will Britain continue to have a constructive relationship with the EU after it ceases to be an active State in the political entity known as the EU. <S> Other examples that you might commonly see in the English speaking press that conflates physical location and ideological standing: What nations will fall into the Russian orbit? <S> Nations won't physically orbit Russia, but if they come under the political influence of the Russian government they will often be referred to as being in the Russian "orbit". <S> Will the UK and US become closer when the next president takes office? <S> Again, physically their distance from each other will not change, but if the political goals of each nation become more aligned, then we use the word closer, which is normally related to physical distance, to denote a non-physical comparison in the status of our relationship. <S> Hope this helps and hope I didn't add to your confusion. <A> This is very similar to the rhetorical question, "Where do we go from here? <S> " <S> The newspaper is not asking for a location or making travel plans, but rather, it is pondering what will happen to Britain after a majority of its voters chose to leave the EU.
| Britain "leaving" the EU has no semantic connection to exiting; rather, the leaving has to do with a condition Britain might be left in, having exited the EU.
|
Correct sense of the word "authentic" I want to express that people respect each others' beliefs as well as uphold their own beliefs and systems. Tolerant means respecting others' beliefs, but what word stands for "uphold their own beliefs"? Does "authentic" convey this meaning clearly in the following sentence? What are the other alternatives? Authentic person generally means one who is not fake. People are tolerant and authentic. Does "traditional" work here? Does it have any negative connotations? <Q> I'm not sure that 'authentic' means that people respect each others' beliefs. <S> To me it means that they are open with their own beliefs, and stay true to their own beliefs, but doesn't necessarily imply that they respect the beliefs of others. <S> I'm open to correction on that though. <S> The expression that immediately springs to mind is open-minded . <S> An open minded person is an unprejudiced person who is receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others, and is always willing to listen to and hear an opposing or contradictory view. <A> When applied to a person (or someone's personality) <S> authentic means that they are "true to themselves" -- that their words and deeds accurately reflect the real person. <S> For example, Bernie Sanders <S> (US Senator and presidential candidate) is often considered to be authentic because his speeches and campaign promises are a reflection of the things he has supported and promoted his entire political career. <S> However, authentic does not in any way imply tolerance or open-mindedness. <S> You could very easily call someone "an authentic asshole" if you thought it appropriate, meaning that they are honestly as much a jerk on the outside as they are on the inside. <S> You may be looking for sincere , or one of its many synonyms . <A> Someone who has integrity has 1. <S> firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values 3. <S> the quality or state of being complete or undivided <S> They have beliefs they adhere to. <S> They are "undivided": their actions are not opposed to their beliefs. <A> It sounds like you might be looking for honorable or one of its synonyms, such as upstanding , ethical , or conscientious . <S> Given the emphasis on having and upholding a personal set of beliefs, I think principled might work well for you. <S> From Cambridge Dictionaries : <S> adjective US /ˈprɪn·sə·pəld/ <S> based on principles, or (of a person) having good personal standards of behavior: <S> She was known among her colleagues as a principled professional. <A> There are various descriptors for people who strongly believe in whatever <S> "their belief system" is true believer <S> fundamentalist - maintains core beliefs <S> advocate - promotes a belief gate keeper - maintains the standards of a belief dyed-in-the-wool - can not change their belief some of these may also have religious overtones, and have no explicit meaning in terms of "open mindedness", though usually if one has a very strong belief in something <S> it may limit inclusion of other belief systems. <S> In your examples a traditionalist is someone who believes in the "tradition" of "how things were or have been". <S> Where as authentic means "genuine" without regard to the strength of belief. <S> Usually, additional context is necessary to bring together the disparate sides of "strong belief" and "inclusion" inclusive open mindedness <S> sympathetic <S> He is a true believer in the free market system but still sympathetic to the social safety net <S> They advocate democracy while still respecting the monarch. <S> She is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat while still wanting tax breaks.
| So People [who respect each others' beliefs as well as uphold their own beliefs and systems] are tolerant and principled .
|
What should I use after "2 hours" to say it was consecutive? I want to say something " I can work 2 hours [?] without having to reboot ", and want to emphasise the two hours are not a total of several occasions I worked. My initial thought was " 2 hours in a row ", but I'm not convinced. What about : 2 hours in one sitting 2 consecutive hours (sounds a little heavy and formal) 2 hours at once 2 full hours Which one are correct and why ? <Q> As an American speaker, I would use the phrase "two hours straight" for this meaning. <S> "Two full hours" or "two whole hours" would work too, but they are just a little bit more ambiguous. <S> "Consecutive" would work, but it sounds too formal. <S> I think "in one sitting" usually refers to what you are doing, so like, "I ate two pies in one sitting" <S> not <S> "I ate pies for two hours in one sitting". <S> And as mentioned in the comments, "two hours at once" is pretty much impossible. <A> And options 3 and 4 don't really convey the idea of working for two hours without interruption without rebooting. <S> Suggested alternatives would be: <S> "I can work 2 hours continuously without having to reboot" "I can work 2 hours nonstop without having to reboot" <A> You could say something like, " I can work 2 hours at a go " or " I can work 2 straight hours without rest ".
| "2 consecutive hours" would probably be the best choice from that list, in my opinion, and yes, it would be a formal way of getting the point across.
|
What tense of the word sing completes the sentence below appropriately? Which of the verb tenses of the word 'sing' appropriately completes the sentence: She said that she heard Esther ______. In my study of the concept of reported speech I got to understand that a statement of this nature, when reported, carries past tense of the verb. But still after checking with online grammar software I am tempted to believe that the verb tenses 'sing', 'sang' and 'sung' can all appropriately complete the sentence. This of course is the root of my confusion. <Q> This is complicated because it depends how you interpret heard . <S> In the examples below, each line shows what the original speaker said -> how it was reported. <S> It could be hear meaning listen to <S> I heard Esther sing -> <S> She said she heard Esther sing <S> I heard Esther singing -> <S> She said she heard Esther singing <S> Or it could be hear meaning somebody told me <S> I hear [that] Esther sings -> <S> She said that she heard [that] Esther sings <S> I hear [that] <S> Esther sang - <S> She said that she heard [that] Esther sang <S> There are further possibilities but they would lead to a reported sentence that includes a surplus had : <S> I heard [that] Esther sings -> <S> She said that she had heard [that] Esther sings <S> I heard [that] Esther sang -> <S> She said that she had heard [that <S> ] Esther sang <S> The correct answers could therefore be sing , singing , <S> sings and sang <A> She said that she heard Esther sing. <S> Or: She said that she heard Esther singing. <S> So at some point in the past, Esther was singing, and "she" heard Esther's voice. <S> "Sing" is not in the past tense because the singing was happening at the same time as the hearing. <S> The only case in which it could be sang or sung is if Esther had already sung before she heard about it . <S> However, that would sound very, very awkward, so it would be better to express that meaning like this: <S> She said that she heard that Esther sang. <A> Only sing or singing are correct. <S> Sung and sang are not, because the past tense here is on the verb to hear, not to sing.
| The correct choice is sing or singing .
|
How do you describe a chilly/fresh smell of water? The good smell that you experience once you get out of the car at a beach in wintertime. Would "the chilly smell of the sea" work? Or fresh / odor / some other words? <Q> I'm not sure if this works with the smell so much <S> but it's quite common to hear people refer to " Bracing sea air". <S> This emphasizes the coldness and add a bit of a harsh but refreshing or energizing feeling. <S> (of weather) cold and perhaps windy; (of an activity) making you feel full of energy because it is done outside when the weather is cold and perhaps windy: <S> We enjoyed a bracing walk on the beach. <S> Sea air is generally referred to smelling " briny " - which relates to the saltiness of it. <S> "Cold" doesn't have a smell. <A> A lot of times the phrases "salt air" or "sea air" are used to describe the smell of the sea. <S> So I would suggest using one of those phrases with another adjective that describes the coldness of the air: like "crisp salt air" or "icy sea air". <A> Consider ' bracing ' <S> (MW) giving strength, vigor, or freshness "a bracing breeze" <A> There is a whole book about sea air: sea-air and sea-bathing . <S> It describes sea air in many ways, including briny and bracing , but my favourite is salutiferous .
| I don't know that we'd generally refer to a smell as "cold" in English.
|
refrain/ restrain or abstain from physical activity? I need help with this sentence: "Based on the above condition the patient should restrain/ refrain or abstain from physical activity"? Which verb is the best choice? <Q> According to Cambridge. <S> Abstain - to not do something, especially something enjoyable that you think might be bad. <S> Restrain - to control the actions or behaviour of someone by force, especially in order to stop them from doing something, or to limit the growth or force of something As you can see, the best choice is "refrain" . <A> To my non-native ears: abstain from works better for situations potentially tempting , or typically/basically necessary : abstained from altercation to maintain his calm within or from time to time, abstains from food for a week, as a spiritual practice <S> refrain from fits better, cases where one has the discretion to opt for or against an act, like: refrained from giving a clear answer and restrict [oneself] from <S> sits well primarily in contexts where one is forced into a(n undesirable) situation, such as: restrict oneself from yawning in a morning class. <S> As for your case, I think restrict himself/herself from physical activity is out, according to the above argument. <S> Refrain from sounds more natural, I guess, unless the patient is so into physical exercising that they will find it difficult to stop doing it for a while; if this is the case,or one along these lines, you may use abstain from . <A> It is correct that "refrain" is the best choice, but it should also be noted that "refrain" is a verb that requires both a preposition and a gerund (an "ing" verb). <S> So a better expression than "refrain from physical activity" is "refrain from engaging (that's the gerund) in physical activity. <S> "One refrains "from doing" something. <S> We refrain from eating the whole cake; we refrain from shouting in a library; we refrain from laughing when someone falls down (or at least we try to refrain from doing so).
| Refrain - to avoid doing or stop yourself from doing something.
|
Meaning of "outweigh (our dreams)" When our memories outweigh our dreams, it is then that we become old. What's the meaning of "outweigh" here? Does it mean that our brains cannot dream anymore, or that we cannot make dreams into real anymore? <Q> The phrase uses the metaphor of a scale, the "weight" of memories versus the "weight" of dreams. <S> A "dream" is a hope for the future (as well as a mental state when one is asleep). <S> When our memories outnumber our dreams, they weigh more than our dreams. <S> Here, the weights are equal: MEMORIES <S> DREAMS------------------------------------ <S> ^ <S> And here, memories "outweigh" dreams: <S> DREAMS MEMORIESMEMORIES <S> ^ <A> In the literal sense, "outweigh" means "to be heavier than". <S> In the metaphorical sense, "outweigh" means that it's more significant and carries more "weight" - so your sentence would mean: <S> When we care more about our memories than about our dreams, it is then that we become old. <A> When we are young, we are full of vigor and ideals and we think about our dreams and ambitions there are also fewer things to look back on (our memories), but as we get older, or memories start to accumulate and begin to weigh more (metaphorically). <S> We have also experienced life, which is not easy, and our memories may be happier than out future prospects. <S> We may begin to yearn for the good old days <S> What the sentence is saying is that our motivation to "make things happen" diminish as we get older <S> Eight years ago I was a young man, full of idealism and vigor, and look at me now. <S> I'm grey, grizzled. <S> Just counting down the days to my death panel <S> this may be because we no longer want to dream anymore, not necessarily because we can't . <S> This can be referred to as "cynicism". <S> A person can always dream at any age, but what they do with those dreams is a different story.
| Something which is heavier than another thing is said to "outweigh" it.
|
"How do you like your bread made/done" How do you like your bread made? How do your like your bread done? Does the first sentence have any meaning? I'm confused what is better to go with the reply "Medium", "Well done”, etc. Sometimes I hear that "How do you like your bread is made", is that my mishearing? Can I say “How do you like your food is made?" (as street cooks in my country, who cook for customers as what they order) <Q> It depends on the food being made, and what the options are. <S> Meat is generally cooked on a scale of “rare” to “medium” to “well-done”; eggs can be made in a number of ways ( poached, scrambled, over easy , etc.); if I’m ordering a salad, someone might ask what kind of dressing I want. <S> I can’t think of a general question a vendor would ask that would apply to all kinds of food, such as, “ <S> How would you like your food made?” <S> Instead, the cook would ask a specific question, such as: <S> How would you like your meat cooked? <S> How do you want your eggs? <S> What kind of dressing do you want? <S> What kind of bread do you want? <S> [for a sandwich, or for toast] Do you want that dish deep fried, or sautéed? <S> Do you want rice or beans with that? <S> What do you want on your pizza? <S> Incidentally, my father likes his English muffins well-toasted. <S> When he is eating breakfast at a restaurant, he’ll often tell the waiter, “Make sure those English muffins are well-done. <S> I want them extra crisp.” <S> So it is possible to use a term like “well done” with something toasted, but that’s an unusual case. <S> And if he liked his English muffins lightly toasted, I don’t think he’d use the word “rare”. <A> The instruction booklet for my bread maker offers three settings for how well-done <S> the bread is: the options offered are light , medium and dark . <S> I think that the best way to phrase the question without risk of misunderstanding would be <S> How well done <S> do you want your bread? <A> Both example sentences are valid but have a slightly different meaning. <S> The question "How do your like your bread done?" may also refer to making bread, or it may refer instead to some later part of food preparation, such as making a sandwich or toast with the bread. <S> The sentence "How do you like your bread is made" is not correct grammatically. <S> You can either remove the 'is' to make "how do you like your bread made" or replace ' <S> is' with 'to be' to make "How do you like your bread to be made?" <S> If you are asking about making bread into toast, you might ask "how well done <S> do you want your toast" or "how dark do you want your toast". <S> Unfortunately, using the answers light, dark, raw or rare, medium, or well done to a question like this is situational; you will probably need to experiment with a given vendor or restaurant to determine what they think well done is unless they are able to point to an example and say this bread/toast/meat is well done so you can see what they mean when they say "this is well done".
| Using the word 'made' implies the actual making of a loaf of bread, from making the dough through baking it.
|
famous is to infamous as impressive is to what? I'm looking for the word that would describe something that's impressive but in a negative way. At first I was thinking "ridiculous" but it doesn't necessarily invite ridicule. <Q> This is a really challenging analogy. <S> Infamous isn't the opposite of famous, but rather it means "famous for bad deeds or wickedness". <S> So we're looking for a word that means "impressive, but for something bad". <S> The closest I can get is "monstrous", particularly with the nuance of a "monstrosity". <S> For example, an enormous building that has impressively awful architecture, like what many think about the "Walkie Talkie Tower" in London <A> If fear is part of the reason for negativity then perhaps, Terrifying causing terror or apprehension of a formidable nature If something causes terror, it makes a distinctly negative impression, although negative in a specific way. <A> If impressive is something which stands out from the rest <S> These do not stand out normal <S> ordinary <S> everyday <S> regular <S> The snowfall last night was impressive . <S> It's normal for this time of year. <S> The driving skills of cabbies in Mumbai is impressive . <S> It's quite ordinary , <S> they do it all the time. <S> The rush hour traffic in LA is quite impressive . <S> Not really, it happens everyday . <S> To get a negative, usually more than one word is necessary impressively bad <S> exceedingly bad and the context of what is meant by "bad" needs to be clarified.
| Other possibilities: grotesque, egregious, freakish, outrageous.
|
Word that includes "food, alcoholic drinks, and non-alcoholic drinks"? I searched Thesaurus but found nothing . Example sentence: The __ were top quality, just like the restaurant review assured. <Q> Fare as described at <S> dictonary.com (and english.se ) is a slightly older word, but you will still find it at many restaurants. <S> Note that fare is a singular, collective noun. <S> The phrase would read: <S> The fare was top quality, just like the restaurant review assured. <A> The words comestibles , victuals , provisions and foodstuffs are occasionally used in a generic sense to mean "things providing nourishment", including both food and drink. <S> They certainly aren't common words though, and probably aren't perfect for your sentence. <S> If you absolutely have to use a single word, the first two are in my opinion most suitable, although they may be considered rather old-fashioned and pretentious. <A> There isn't really a single word in regular usage that covers food and drink combined. <S> Food and beverages is probably the most common term in the hotel trade, however outside the trade <S> the expression food and drink is much more widely used: see this NGram . <S> Note that, when used in this expression, drink is normally considered as a collective term, so it is not plural. <S> The plural can also be used, but it is less common. <A> Offerings is a commercial term occasionally seen in marketing verbiage. <S> Dictionary.com defines offerings as "something presented for inspection or sale." <S> The offerings were top quality, just like the restaurant review assured. <S> Using any other food or meal term simply feels forced and over encompassing. <A> <A> For the sentence and context in the question, I'd simply go with meal or food . <S> The "drink" part of a restaurant meal is usually secondary unless you're a bit of a wine connoisseur. <A> Although it doesn't always refer to food and drink, I think the most natural word to insert in your example sentence is "selections": <S> The selections were top quality, just like the restaurant review assured. <S> Although it would probably be better to use "selection" and change "were" to "was": <S> The selection was top quality, just like the restaurant review assured. <S> It's obviously food, because we're talking about a restaurant. <S> From Dictionary.com : <S> an aggregate of things displayed for choice, purchase, use, etc.; a group from which a choice may be made: <S> The store had a wide selection of bracelets.
| If the food and drink isn't the primary reason for being where they are served, you could say refreshments .
|
What is the specific name of the heater which works by hot water & attached to walls? What is the specific name of the heater which works with hot water and always attached to the walls? In my language we call it something which is translated to "central heating" (I could find a lot of pictures on Google when I wrote it), but I don't know - even in my language - what is the name of the device rather than the system. Can I call it simply "heater" or it has a specific name? <Q> It can be either hot water or steam (I don't believe the oil-filled radiators are very common in the US, but they may be in some areas) and it can also be a device just along the baseboards like the picture below. <S> However, the baseboard heaters aren't what people think of first when they read or hear 'radiator', even though it is the same sort of heating. <S> They will think first of the type of device in the pictures in the question. <S> If the pipes are installed under the floor or in the walls so that the building is heated instead of the air in the building being heated, it's called "radiant heating". <S> Radiator is also a general term for a device that transfers heat between two mediums, for example water and air. <S> The purpose of the transfer can be either for heating, like the radiators in your pictures where the water is heated by a boiler to heat the air around the radiator, or for cooling, like the radiator in a car that transfers heat from the engine to the air forced across the radiator as the car moves by using special fluid flowing through the radiator. <S> We can tell the difference by the context, or by adding an attributive, like "car radiator" or "hot water radiator" or "baseboard radiator". <A> Those are known as radiators or hot water radiators <A> In Russia we have several English names for this: A heating radiator. <S> Note: There can exist cooling radiators that's why we add the word 'heating'. <S> Still some use the short form "radiator". <S> A heater. <S> If we speak in general. <S> A (hot) water radiator. <S> A cast iron household radiator - Is a term for those old-style radiators that we often see in-door. <A> Hydronic wall mounted panel heater.
| The heater in the pictures is called a radiator in the US and UK.
|
Saying for "people who are in a similar situation and understand each other"? I'm pretty sure there's a saying for "people who are in a similar situation and understand each other". Unfortunately, I can't even come up with it in my native language (Spanish). Example: A: You broke up with your boyfriend. B: What? How do you know? A: Because I broke up with my partner too. [The saying goes here]. <Q> The closest that I can think of is not a saying but an idiomatic expression <S> I know what it's like... <S> I know what it's like to be out of work... <S> I was on the dole for three years <S> I know what it's like when you break up... <S> John and I split up three months ago <S> and I'm still not over it. <A> I'm not sure if this is what you want <S> but: To be on the same wavelength <S> - People who think in a similar way and understand each other well. <S> - <S> If we are talking about feeling the same way! To be in the same boat - to be in the same unpleasant situation as other people. <A> Being empathetic means one understands what another may be feeling in a situation.
| Empathy - the power of understanding and imaginatively entering into another person's feelings.
|
How do you say to two people that it is/not their mistake? We say "It is his mistake." "It is Alex's mistake." But if you want to say to two people that it is their mistake or it is not their mistake, do we not use the possessive form and say the following instead? A. It is the mistake of both of you. B. It is not the mistake of either of you. I know that you can say "It is/not your mistake" and refer to two or more people, but what if I wanted to emphasize the two people I am speaking to and wanted to add "both" or "either"? <Q> A. <S> It is the mistake of both of you. <S> B. <S> It is not the mistake of either of you. <S> Neither sound particularly natural to me, and in day to day English, would probably use different words to express my feelings on the matter. <S> Both of you are responsible. <S> Both of you are to blame. <S> Both of you are at fault. <S> Or if not assigning blame: Neither of you are responsible. <S> Neither of you are to blame. <S> Neither of you are at fault. <S> Having said that, if you are really tied to the word 'mistake' in your response, then the following conveys that more than one party is at fault/not at fault. <S> Both of you made a mistake. <S> Neither of you made a mistake. <A> Try " were mistaken . <S> " <S> The concept [is the mistake] [of you] can be concisely rendered either: <S> you made a mistake <S> you were mistaken <S> Your first example: <S> A. <S> A. <S> You both made that mistake. <S> A. <S> Both of you were mistaken. <S> A. <S> You were both mistaken. <S> To clarify even further that we are discussing two people acting together (rather than separately) on a single decision, add " together ": A. <S> Both of you made that mistake together. <S> Your second example: <S> B. Neither of you made that mistake. <S> B. Neither of you was mistaken. <S> To clarify that this was a single collective decision, do not use neither (not either). <S> Instead, use " you two ... not" or "both of you ... not" <S> B. You two didn't make that mistake. <S> B. You two were not mistaken. <S> You might also change from talking about who made the mistake and instead talk about who is responsible for or to blame for the mistake. <S> Neither of you was responsible for that mistake. <S> You two were both to blame for that mistake. <A> To attribute blame to both, one might say <S> It's both of yours mistake. <S> You are both to blame. <S> It's either of yours fault. <S> If one wanted to absolve both of them, one might say It's neither of yours mistake. <S> Neither of you are to blame. <S> It's neither of yours fault.
| Both of you made that mistake.
|
how to say that this question or issue is understood by me and I am good now? If someone asks for particular issue pointing to me: do you want add some thing, is it understood then how to reply with a good short sentence? Or what is the best way to say yes, it is understood by me and I am now good for this issue or questions (analyst speaking over call)? <Q> In casual American English, we like to say "Got it" to mean, I understand, go ahead. <A> <A> Seeing some clues in your question, I assume a few things: (a) <S> Your discussion is technical, and it may have several topics/issues/problems, one after another. <S> (b) You do this over a phone call. <S> (c) <S> You're not comfortable with saying complicated sentences in English, especially when you want to make your points clear. <S> Basically, I assume that you're in my shoes when I started working abroad. <S> (Yes, I'm a non-native speaker.) <S> If someone asked me, "Is there any question? <S> Would you like to add anything?" <S> to conclude one of the topics/issues/problems, and I were in your shoes (i.e., (a), (b), and (c) are true), I might reply: (No.) <S> It's good <S> /okay (now). <S> (Let's move on (to the next topic/issue/problem).) <S> The parenthesized parts can be omitted. <S> The slashes (i.e., those / signs) indicate possible alternatives. <S> (So, you have about 2*2 <S> *2*(1+(1+3)) <S> = <S> 40 alternatives. <S> ;-) <S> I think it's likeliest that I'd reply <S> "It's good now. <S> Let's move on." <S> or maybe <S> "It's good now. <S> Let's move on to the next issue." <S> when I think just move on may not be clear enough, to the listener(s). <S> This is clear and concise and easy to pronounce, in my opinion. <S> Hope it can help you a little. :-) <A> If someone asks "do you want to add something?" <S> but you do <S> n't you can say: "No, I'm good. <S> ""Sounds <S> good to me. <S> ""No, I'll buy [into] that."
| Colloquially (in every day language) we say something like, "O.K./okay," "alright," "got it," or "sure/sure thing."
|
What does "put on one's hat" mean? Putting on my detective's hat, I proceeded to ask him some questions. What does "putting my detective's hat" mean? Can it be paraphrased as "when I put on my detective's hat"? Am I a real detective or do I pretend to be a detective? <Q> In English, the idiom "wears many hats" means to have many roles or responsibilities. <S> For example, She wears many hats: she's a doctor, a musician, and a writer. <S> means that this person has many roles in life (a doctor, a musician, and a writer). <S> The 'hat' is synonymous with 'job' in such expressions. <S> Therefore, "Putting on my detective's hat" means that the person stepped into the role of detective. <S> That's not to say that the person is a real detective - that depends on the context of the passage - but it means the person started asking questions, as a detective would. <A> This seems to be an example of idiom . <S> To "put on one's X" in this context means to put yourself in a particular frame of mind. <S> So "put on one's detective hat" means to put oneself in an inquisitive frame of mind, regardless of whether one is a real detective or not. <S> Similar constructions are "put on one's thinking cap" and "put on one's dancing shoes". <A> I've seen examples of the kind where "face" was instead of "hat". <S> He put on a smiling face and left the room.
| Depending on the context it could either mean - the person put's on a real detective's hat or - the person imagings that he's a detective (might be an idiom).
|
Why is used "it" in "Who is it" Is referring to people as "it" considered rude? I asked this question. I looked this comment : The use of Singular they is very common I guess. Then, Why is used "it" in "Who is it"? ”Who is it” is commonly used on the phone. I think i should use "Who are they" . <Q> In this construction, "it" does not refer to a person: it doesn't refer at all. <S> It is a purely grammatical place-holder, like the "presentative" ' <S> it' in phrases like "It seems that... " or "It can't be ... ", or "It must have been years ago", or "It doesn't make any difference", or thousands of other similar expressions. <S> There's no answer to " <S> what does 'it' refer to?" <S> in these, because it doesn't refer to anything. <A> You're not going to find many "rules" in English without exceptions. <S> This is one of them. <S> This is probably the only time you can get away with using it to refer to a person. <S> Who are they While third person plural pronouns are often used as a "gender neutral" singular pronoun, it doesn't work here. <S> This will always sound like you are trying to talk to multiple people. <S> Stick with who is it? . <A> Whenever it's possible it's better to avoid calling a person 'it' . <S> Look at this example: <S> John, there's somebody at the door! <S> Who is it? <S> I don't know. <S> Tell them to wait, I'm coming. <S> When somebody knocks at our door we often say, "Who is it?" <S> or, "Who'sthere? <S> " . <S> Both aren't considered rude and are practically used everywhere. <S> If someone calls you on the phone <S> and you ask "Who is it? <S> " <S> , "Who's this?" <S> it will be considered quite rude. <S> "Who is this?" is considered to be an idiomatic way to ask, "Who is on the other end of this phone conversation?" <S> (or, much more stiltedly, "With whom am I speaking?") <S> Yet, I personally consider it to be rude too. <S> It is better to say: <S> Who's calling? <S> Who's speaking? <S> Or if in a more formal way <S> then: <S> May I ask who's calling? <S> Could you please introduce yourself? <S> But it wouldn't be considered rude if somebody afterwards asks you "Who was it?" or asks you while you are speaking <S> "Who is it?" <S> In most circumstances, you could say that 'this' is used as a way of 'pointing', either with your finger or just verbally. '
| It' is used when there is no need to point because it has already been established what thing or person is being talked about.
|
A student takes a quiz (exam), a professor [verb]s a quiz, exam, etc I cannot seem to find an appropriate verb to use for a professor when he holds an exam, quiz, etc. so that students take it and get evaluated. Can we say a professor takes an exam? I suppose this is for the student side, right? Then, what is the verb for a professor? <Q> The general term is administer . <S> This includes the entire process of scheduling, writing, and giving the exam. <S> My professor administered an exam in our class yesterday. <S> Are you going to administer <S> that exam today? <S> Dr. Thompson is administering an exam in Room 212; please be quiet! <S> Sometimes "administer" is also used to refer to the actual process of giving the exam, but technically, the correct term for this is proctor . <S> This would describe what the teacher is doing while the students are sitting and taking the exam. <S> When I proctor exams, I always display a clock at the front of the room. <S> Although Dr. Smith was supposed to be proctoring the chemistry exam, he was surfing the web instead! <S> In colloquial speech, you inevitably hear give . <S> This works fine, and everyone will know what you are saying, but it is not quite as descriptive. <S> I have to give an exam this afternoon to my Biology class. <S> Dr. Brown is giving an exam this period, so he won't be able to have lunch with us. <S> When the exam is given , will it include essay questions? <S> When will we get grades for the exam that you gave last Thursday? <A> There is no direct correlating verb for what a professor is doing whilst the students are taking the exam. <S> If the professor is overseeing the exam, making sure that the exam is being conducted properly <S> , then he/she could be said to be invigilating at the exam; he/she is an invigilator . <S> She/he may be invigiliating at an exam that she/he has set and that his/her students are taking . <A> A professor sets an exam, then his students take the exam. <S> So the verb you were looking for is set .
| A professor administers an exam to her students.
|
Could a verb 'to suggest' mean 'to say' or 'to express an opinion'? Syria Envoy Suggests Donald Trump Has Limited Window to Work With Russia As I can see from the context in this sencence a verb 'to suggest' means 'to say' or 'to assert'. Am I right? <Q> I wouldn't say that in this context "suggest" means 'to say' or 'to assert' In fact it has the meaning of "put forward for consideration" <S> The word "suggest" has very many meanings and is used differently in different contexts. <A> When you suggest something to X, you are trying to let X come to a conclusion. <S> So it's not the same as asserting something - when you assert something you explicitly state the conclusion. <S> Also, when you say X, it's generally understood that you directly communicated X in some fashion. <S> not exactly what might have been concluded, therefore not really synonymous with saying. <A> I feel that will use "to suggest" for, when we have to recommend someone to do something which is very important. <S> Then we use to suggest or to recommend..etc but "to say" is just normal conversation when we would like to say just to do..either person will accept or not. <S> It means one kind of opinion.
| Suggesting is typically indirect - something might be said, but
|
Why is a guitar neck called a "neck"? Is there explanation for why a guitar neck is called a "neck"? I can understand why a guitar body is called a "body" but not the neck. <Q> The "neck" of a guitar is a body metaphor. <S> A guitar is like a flamingo, or a giraffe -- or a person. <S> In general see this definition neck : <S> "A narrow connecting or end part of something" (Oxford Dictionaries). <S> Thus: the neck of a bottle the neck of a waterway a neck of land with ocean on either side <S> "our neck of the woods," an idiom for "neighborhood"/"area" that emphasizes isolation, like a community along a long stretch (neck) of forest path. <S> the neck of a guitar or other instrument <S> Most stringed instruments have "necks" because of the design of the fretboard. <S> Examples of exceptions include the piano and the harpsichord. <S> Since they have necks as a family of objects, even very short and stocky stringed instruments (such as the hurdy-gurdy) can often be described as having a neck. <A> The top of the guitar is called the headstock , so logically the thing that connects the body to the head would be the neck . <S> A human neck is short, but necks can be long. <A> Anything that is thin compared to regions it is attached to can be called a neck. <S> The term is used a lot in materials science and various engineering disciplines. <S> In fact, you call it necking when pulling on something <S> makes it thin out as it stretches. <S> If the "thin connector" meaning is too much of a stretch (pun intended) from the anatomical meaning for you, just think of it as a word that has two meanings.
| The guitar has a "body" "neck" and "head" -- the thinner "neck" connects the smaller "head" to the larger "body," as in the human body and many animals.
|
Should the name of a lowercase Greek letter in a proper name also be capitalized when the lower case is important? Continuing Should the name of a capital Greek letter also be capitalized when the upper case is important? with the answer https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/109096/37810 , which did emphasize the importance of the capitalization of proper names, should we still write Little Omega (alternatively, Little-Omega for the the hyphenized variant) when speaking about ω: (ℕ→ℕ)→(ℕ→ℕ), f ↦ { g : ℕ→ℕ | ∀ c ∈ℕ ∃ n ∈ℕ ∀ m ∈ℕ: m ≥ n ⇒ g ( m ) > c f ( m ) } ? By the way, this definition of ω is fixed for the whole complexity theory. Or, perhaps, be satisfied with Little omega (alternatively, Little-omega for the the hyphenized variant)? <Q> Just because you are describing a lower-case letter doesn't mean that you have to express the name in lower case. <S> If I was writing about upper-case letters, I would write it like I just did there, in lower case. <S> I wouldn't write, "Let us now discuss UPPER CASE LETTERS" just because the letters being discussed are upper case. <S> The name of a thing isn't normally expected to be an example of that thing. <S> It's perfectly reasonable to say that "diminutive" means "small", even though the word is long. <S> Or to say, "He spoke in German" and to use the English word for German and not the German word for German. <S> If you are discussing a name in some technical context, like computers, case may be critical. <S> HTML entity names, for example, use case to express whether the character represented is upper or lower case: "á" is a small "a" with an acute accent <S> while "Á" is a capital "A" with an acute accent. <S> But that's a special case. <S> It's not that way because of grammar: it's that way because the inventors of the name thought it would be easier to use and remember that way. <A> My opinion (i.e., I'm not an authority, and my opinion is not backed by references), I would say that the same rules for capitalization apply to both Big Omega and Little Omega. <S> The reason you choose to capitalize or not capitalize the expression is not based on the case of the item you are referencing. <S> You are choosing to capitalize or not capitalize because it is the title of a thing, and the context indicates whether the title of a thing should capitalized. <S> So anywhere you would type "Big Omega" <S> you should type "Little Omega", and anywhere you would type "big omega" you would type "little omega". <A> The noun gamma for the (capital) letter gamma and the noun gamma for the (minuscule) letter gamma are nouns of the same class, so formally they should be either both capitalised or not in running text. <S> Of course if you are talking about both of them in context it is somewhat helpful for the reader to refer to them as Gamma and gamma respectively, even if that is not correct. <S> You can justify either choice if needed. <S> (Speaking with no authority at all, not even as a speaker of proper English.)
| The capitalization of the omega character itself is irrelevant.
|
Past tense - did pay or did paid Please let me know which sentence is correct? Upon checking, you are indeed correct. You did pay the balance on your credit card. We will refund you the amount in your next pay check. Or Upon checking, you are indeed correct. You did paid the balance on your credit card. We will refund you the amount in your next pay check. <Q> Simple past : you paid the balance on your credit card. <S> the use of emphatic helping verb = helping verb + notional form of the vert: - You did pay the balance on your credit card. <S> - He does speak English. <S> - <S> She <S> does like to play tennis. <S> Please note: the emphatic helping verb can be: do/does, did, will or have. <S> [I have not given examples of every use of it]. <A> The correct one is: I did pay my bills. <S> :) <S> The incorrect one: I did paid my bills. :( <S> You are using the auxiliary 'do' in the past tense, so there is no need to change the verb pay into past tense. <A> With do you need to use the infinitive (i.e. dictionary version) of the complement verb, in this case "pay". <A> You did pay the balance. <S> You did paid the balance. <S> "Pay" is a main verb, and "did" (the past of do and does) is an auxiliary verb. <S> All these forms of the auxiliary are always used with a an infinitive without to whether you form an interrogative, negative, or emphatic sentence. <S> So the first sentence that is in the past is grammatical, whereas the second one is not correct. <S> You have used the "did" to give extra force or emphasis to the verb "pay". <S> Furthermore, you stress do, does, and did when these are used to emphasize a verb.
| So your first sentence with " did pay " is the correct one.
|
They played "averagely" today? I am wondering if this adverb is ever used or if you would restructure to "Their performance today was average." or something similar. Which adverb could I use in the above sentence? <Q> I think you could use <S> okay <S> adverbially there <S> : They played okay today. <S> According to M-W.com , okay as an adjective or adverb can mean "fairly good : not very good or very bad", which to me encompasses the "average" (especially as in "unremarkable", "normal") sense that I think you're looking for. <A> As FumbleFingers mentions in his comment, "averagely" is a word, but it's not one people seem to use. <S> There are many other words you can use in this context, "adequately", "unremarkably", "unexceptionally", "competently", "blandly", "tolerably", "passably" and so on. <S> All of these are probably better used as an adjective, as in: <S> or before the noun: <S> They gave an unremarkable performance today (but still managed to beat the other team). <A> Another alternative would be so <S> -so : <S> They played so-so today. <S> M-W.com defines <S> so-so <S> as "neither very good nor very bad : fair or average" and allows its use as an adverb. <S> (They also provide a few synonyms, such as "middling" and "tolerably".)
| Their performance today was unexceptional/ acceptable/ adequate/ etc.
|
What is the meaning of "unfurling" in the context? I was checking the definition of the word " tenebrous " that I saw this example: The crew bunks in a decaying hotel with infinitely unfurling tenebrous corridors What does unfurling mean in that sentence? Why does the author use that word? I mean I know the definiton of the verb "unfurl", but I cannot get the exact and intended meaning of the sentence. <Q> <A> A rolled up parchment can be unfurled, or a tarpaulin. <S> The sail of a ship is furled and unfurled. <S> When something is unfurled it is unrolled or rolled out. <S> Each corridor extends out in front of the viewer like something that has been unrolled. <S> The corridors keep unfurling, one after the other. <S> Since the example speaks of a crew <S> the word may have been chosen to evoke a maritime context. <A> Given the definition of tenebrous from your link ("Dark; shadowy or obscure"), there's an implication that the crew can't see the ends of the corridors when they start down them. <S> Thus as they walk along a hallway it seems to "unfurl" before them as more of it becomes visible to them through the gloom. <S> The imagery is much like a long carpet runner being unrolled, seemingly endlessly. <S> (The creepiness of the setting is increased by the fact that the corridor would be furling up behind them as their starting point is lost in the shadows.) <A> I agree on the contextual usage of the verb unfurl as spread out suggested by the previous answerer; although I can't see where "in an untidy, disorderly fashion" comes from other than that the hotel was decaying - it might not be that. <S> To picture how the verb to unfurl works in your sentence, I suggest the image of quickly unfurling flowers to be compared with that of "unfurling corridors". <S> The other common nouns collocating with "unfurl" (in its literal meaning synonymous to unroll ) are a flag, sail, wing, umbrella, letter and so on.
| In this context, "unfurl" is used figuratively , in the sense of sprawling or spreading out in an untidy, disorderly fashion. So "infintely unfurling corridors" evokes images of a seemingly unnavigable and never-ending web of corridors, like one might see in an old hotel, country house or other large building.
|
Is the word "there" an adjective in this sentence CONTEXT: I can't find my ring. Oh, there it is. Is the word "there" an adjective in the sentence above? or is it a pronoun? For me it looks like the word "it" is the pronoun, but I'm not completely sure. <Q> "There" is an adverb in your sentence - specifically a locative adverb or adverb of place . <S> Example sentences include: <S> I need to go back to the office because I left my wallet there . <S> I've heard Switzerland is lovely, but I've never been there . <S> "Where is Bobby? <S> There <S> he is. <S> See the top definition here for more details. <A> "It" is indeed the pronoun. <S> "There" in that construction is an exclamatory preposition rather than an adjective, though I agree that it feels as though it has some "adjective flavor". <A> There has its ordinary use as a locative, equivalent to the preposition phrase in/at that place . <S> The canonical structure of the sentence is "It is there". <S> Ordinarily when a constituent in the predicate is "fronted" to the beginning of the sentence the verb is kept in the second position and the subject moves after it; this puts the subject in the "new information" position, and it receives the primary emphasis: <S> On the shelf were two candles . <S> Here comes the train . <S> There goes John . <S> But when the subject is a personal pronoun it is almost by definition "old information"—it has already been introduced into the discourse. <S> The subject and verb remain in place. <S> Here it comes. <S> There he goes. <S> There it is! <S> THe fronted constituent in this construction is almost always here or there . <S> The construction is typically used to announce an expected or sought-for event. <S> If the verb is BE , as in your example, the fronted constituent gets the primary emphasis, and the sentence announces that the expected event has finally occurred: <S> There <S> it is! = <S> I've found it (at last) or <S> It's arrived (at last) . <S> With other verbs the primary emphasis usually falls on the verb, and the sentence announces that the expected event is finally in progress: <S> Here it comes . <S> = <S> At last! <S> It's coming! <S> There he goes . <S> = <S> He's departing, as we expected or, figuratively <S> And now he's doing just what we expected .
| Also, you are correct that "it" is the pronoun in your sentence.
|
The meaning of "mat" in "of fortune lying on the mat" in the poem "Memories of the Mine" by Roger Woddis Memories of the Mine, Roger Woddis: The call of England, home and beauty Led him to labour underground; Young as he was, he did his duty, Unsung, unhonoured and uncrowned. No bugle summoned him to glory, Nor did he hear the cannon's roar; The hero of a different story, He fought another kind of war. Today the memory still lingers Of fortune lying on the mat , The day that fate put forth her fingers And drew his number from the hat. And then, beyond the weeks of training, The pit-cage dropping like a stone, The ache, with nerve and muscle straining, That penetrated to the bone. Though forty years have left him older, There's no forgetting even now When danger hovered at his shoulder And there was sweat upon his brow. What could be the meaning of mat here? A decorative floor covering? A floor pad to protect an athlete? I can't imagine what it is here. Why would "fortune lie on the mat"? Is that some idiomatic expression? "A big amount of money lying on a decorative floor covering" looks nice but odd. <Q> The subject of the poem was most likely a Bevin Boy - young British men conscripted to work in the coal mines of the UK during and after WWII, to compensate for the coal miners who had been conscripted into the armed forces. <S> Around 48,000 young men, who would otherwise have been conscripted into the armed forces, were sent underground between 1943 and 1948. <S> Bevin Boys are often known as the "Forgotten Conscripts", which fits with the opening verse of the poem, describing a young man who served his country, even though he wasn't on the front lines. <S> As does the selection process - to make the process random, one of Bevin's secretaries each week, from 14 December 1943, pulled a digit from a hat containing all ten digits, 0–9, and all men liable for call-up that week whose National Service registration number ended in that digit were directed to work in the mines, with the exception of any selected for highly skilled war work such as flying planes and in submarines, and men found physically unfit for mining. <S> This selection process seems to be described quite literally in the next lines of the poem. <S> Today the memory still lingers Of fortune lying on the mat, <S> The day that fate put forth her fingers And drew his number from the hat. <S> "Fortune lying on the mat" most likely describes the day his conscription notice was mailed out to him, the envelope lying on the mat inside the front door. <A> A doormat. <S> In context, "fortune" is probably a figure of speech, referring to a letter containing a job offer (working in a mine). <S> The letter itself is not "fortune", but it represents the man's good fortune to have received a job. <A> Being conscripted to work in a coal mine (instead of being conscripted into the army, or instead of not being conscripted at all) might be seen as a stroke of bad fortune. <S> Therefore, an alternative interpretation is that mat refers to a figurative boxing ring , in which Fate has defeated Fortune. <S> The Wikipedia article doesn't say so, but the surface of a boxing ring is commonly referred to as a "mat".
| The mat in this case is a doormat, and fortune refers to the boy's fate or luck, rather than 'a big amount of money'.
|
Is there anything wrong with the phrase "to climb down a tree"? One can mount a horse and dismount (from) it, ascend a mountain and descend from it, go up and down a ladder. But once someone climbed (up) a tree, would it be correct to ask him to climb down (from) it? Or should "come down" be used instead, since the meaning of the verb climb is to go up, or to go towards the top of something ? Here's the source with the answer "yes", and here's the one with the answer "no". Are there any alternatives to stay on the safe side? <Q> There is nothing wrong with climb down , especially since it's commonly used. <S> As you have found, it is common enough that it has dictionary entries. <S> Here is another for climb : <S> climb <S> 3. <S> : to go about or down usually by grasping or holding with the hands < climb down the ladder <S> > <S> Presently, this is how the verb climb <S> can also be used. <S> Contrary to what your source says, there is nothing imprecise or ambiguous about climb down . <S> Choosing to use it or not use it is a matter of taste, as he admits. <S> Just like go up and go down the ladder, <S> climb up the ladder can also be used. <S> This is not incorrect and not necessarily redundant. <S> I glanced through the thesaurus and the only close alternative I found <S> was descend . <S> If you tell a kid "Descend from the tree!", it would sound strange and out-dated (if people ever really spoke like that). <S> I think come down is a good alternative, as you have suggested. <S> You can also use get down , as in "Get down from there!" <A> I understand your confusion. <S> That's because you are only considering definitions <S> that imply the sense of upward which means towards a higher place, point, or level or the sense of ascend and for this reason you are wondering: can someone ascend down ? <S> Obviously this would be a contradiction of the terms used. <S> But you neglect the definition #1. <S> b : <S> b. <S> To move in a specified direction by using the hands and feet: climbed down the ladder <S> This said, although you can't ascend down , you certainly can climb down . <A> To climb down is an idiomatic expression that means: to descend, especially by using both hands and feet. <S> Dictionary.com <S> It is common usage and would not be misunderstood. <A> "Climb down a tree" is perfectly acceptable and I think it's the most common way to state this sentence. <S> If you use the word "climb" as a verb, one of its meanings is 'to go up'. <S> For example, you could say "The airplane climbed to 10,000 feet." <S> However, that's only one of its definitions, and it's not the correct definition in the context of "Climb down a tree". <S> In "Climb down a tree", the word climb refers to the physical action of climbing, moving yourself by using your hands and feet. <S> When using this definition of the word "climb", it is often followed by a preposition that indicates where you are climbing or what location you are climbing to. <S> Example sentences: " <S> Climb over the wall"; " <S> Climb across the bridge"; "Climb down from there." <S> If you want a word that specifically means 'to go down', you can use the word 'descend', but this would sound too formal in most situations. <S> You could say "descend the tree" or "descend from the tree", and it would convey the same meaning as the original sentence, but it would sound very weird in everyday conversation. <A> is both sensible and idiomatic. <S> I want to address your hypothetical situation: <S> [O]nce someone climbed (up) <S> a tree, would it be correct to ask him to climb down (from) it? <S> Or should "come down" be used instead . <S> . . ? <S> In this specific situation, climb down might well be the best option. <S> With a literal-minded tree climber (I have one of these), any command other than climb down, including come down , get down , and descend immediately! <S> would license jumping out of the tree or just dropping like a stone. <S> Climb down has the (for me) very strong benefit of including instructions about how the arboreal miscreant should descend; specifically, by using hands and feet*. <S> * <S> The only alternative I can think of for this is clamber down which appears to derive from climb (see etymonline ) but is a much less common and familiar word. <S> It also has connotations of clumsy climbing (see Oxford Dictionaries ). <S> So my tree-climber wouldn't have recognized it when he was younger, and would probably be offended now (he's a teenager, and still climbing trees at inopportune moments). <A> I came here because a colleague made fun of me for saying "You could climb under your desk". <S> I didn't think about it when I said it <S> , it's just an expression I have always known. <S> His commenting on it made me think about it though, so I did some research and it turns out to be a common expression. <S> It is rather odd though as "climbing" under a desk is often more just crouching and crawling, with no need to hold the desk at all. <S> I realise this is not the same as "climb down" <S> but I think it's relevant enough to mention it here.
| The other answers are correct— climb down
|
Is "earn" different from "be paid"? I had an English test at my school and there was an English composition question.And the answer was "Kate doesn't earn as much as her husband", but I answered as "Kate isn't paid as much as her husband".Though I think it's correct, my teacher said "earn" is different from "be paid". What do you think? Are they the same or different? Could you explain how. <Q> I think that the teacher may have been nitpicking. <S> It is a colloquial usage. <S> Many people use earn as paid in everyday language. <S> "Kate doesn't earn as much as her husband", but I answered as "Kate isn't paid as much as her husband." <S> I'd be interested in what the teacher said was the correct answer. <S> If you are an English speaking college level student, I agree with the teacher. <S> If you are learning English or are in elementary/primary school, I think he or she is being too persnickety. <S> To earn something means we've put some work into it. <S> Examples: <S> I earned my paycheque by working forty hours week at my job. <S> I am paid an amount from my trust fund. <S> I did nothing to earn the trust fund money. <S> I was born into a wealthy family. <S> English is a peculiar language. <S> Many of us commonly use it incorrectly but we are understood perfectly in spite of it. <S> It would be great to see the actual test question and the 'correct' answer. <A> This is particularly true when comparing wages or salaries. <S> There can be subtle differences in meaning between the two, but in general, they are synonymous. <S> For example, if I am asked what salary I make, I could reply " <S> I earn $100,000 per year." <S> This is synonymous with <S> "I am paid $100,000 per year." <S> This does not mean that the terms "earn" and "paid" <S> are synonymous - indeed they are not. <S> However, the answer you gave is technically correct, assuming that the question was about Kate and her husband's relative wages. <S> If, however, I am discussing my employer shorting me on my paycheck (a very special context indeed), I might say "I earned $100 last pay period, but I was only paid $80." <S> Really, though, to use "earn" here muddles things up a bit. <S> It would be better to say <S> "I was supposed to be paid $100 last pay period, but I was only paid $80. <S> " <S> If the question was about how much interest Kate earns on a loan as compared to her husband, then the answer "Kate isn't paid as much as her husband. <S> " <S> would no longer be accurate, because in the context of investments, it is possible to earn interest without taking a payment. <S> This context seems unlikely in your case, though. <A> Earn would refer to a activity over time, paid an instance of financial transaction. <S> Over a week, I earn 100. <S> At the end of the week I am paid 100 for the work I did. <S> In reference to your teacher, the context would refer to a continuous process, rather than one off instance, but a little nick picky imho. <S> Paid can also refer to transfer of money for something. <S> I was paid 100 for my old bike.
| In the context of financial compensation, to "earn" and to "be paid" are essentially synonymous.
|
I go to school on foot every day or I go to school every day on foot Could I write: I go to school every day on foot or should "every day" be at the end of the sentence? How about: go to school by bike go to school by my bike Are both of them okay? <Q> Could I write: " I go to school every day on foot" or "every day" should be at the end of the sentence. <S> How about: Go to school by bike Go to school by my bike <S> Are both of them ok? <S> These are correct: Every day I go to school on foot. <S> I go on foot to school every day. <S> However, a native speaker would be most likely to say: I walk to school every day. <S> In my opinion, "by my bike" would be better put: I go to school everyday on my bike. <S> Or: I use my bike to get to school every day. <A> I agree with Willow on the preference for "walk" rather than "go on foot". <S> Apropos <S> the bike, I'd say "I cycle to school [every day]". <S> "I bike to school" would also be okay, as would "I ride my bike to school". <S> Willow's are good, too, though possibly a little more formal. <S> The word "bike" has become a bit ambiguous, with the increase in numbers of motorbikes. <S> Most motorcyclists refer to their machine as simply their "bike", without mentioning that it's not a push-bike. <S> Which is why I choose to use the verb "cycle", which (so far!) hasn't been co-opted by motorbike riders. <A> I go to school every day on foot. <S> I go to school on foot every day. <S> Besides, the use of the verb "walk" is more usual than the phrase "go on foot" <S> I walk to school every day. <S> As for: I go to school by bike. <S> I go to school by my bike. <S> Both are grammatical, but the former is far more common. <A> I go to school on foot everyday <S> ( emphasis on " on foot)Ex: <S> How to you go to school <S> every day?I go to school on foot every day. <S> I go to school everyday on foot. <S> ( Emphasis on " everyday)Ex: How often do you go to school on foot?I go to school on foot every day.
| Or: Every day I go to school on my bike. Both are grammatical, but the use of every day at the end of the sentence is more common.
|
Are we to use any with plurals or singulars? Does he have any cars that are black in color? Does he have any car that is black in color? Are both the sentences grammatically correct?Are there any differences in their meaning? <Q> Both are correct. <S> However, the second ("any" + singular) <S> is less commonly used nowadays, and so it sounds somewhat old-fashioned. <S> As for difference in meaning, in theory , the first is asking if he has multiple black cars, while the second is asking if he has at least one black car. <S> In practice, though, the first is used regardless of whether you expect him to have one black car or more than one, and you would expect "yes" to be the answer even if he has only one. <S> Note: <S> I speak Australian English, and I can't promise that my impressions of what is "old-fashioned" will be valid for other dialects. <A> Does he have any cars that are black in color? <S> which means "Are any of his cars black? <S> ". <S> However, your second sentence should readDoes <S> he have a car that is black in color? <S> which means "Is at least one of his cars black? <S> " <S> Both questions are asking if "he" has any black cars. <A> "Any" is mostly used with uncountable and plural nouns, however, when we want to emphasize that "any" means "of any kind" , it is quite natural to use "any" with singular uncountable nouns. <S> Only the first sentence is correct . <S> Does he have any cars <S> that are black in color? <S> Which means <S> "Are any of his cars black?" as Peter answered. <S> Does he have any car <S> that is black in color? <S> Would sound like <S> "Does he have any kind of car that is black in color?" <S> which I find strange, except if you are trying to narrow the choice, however, if it were: "Does he have any car I can borrow? <S> " <S> - it would be correct. <S> As BBC states: <S> We would normally require "a/an" before a singular countable noun. <S> So the second sentence should be: <S> Does he have a car <S> that is black in color?
| Your first sentence is correct
|
When person is ill because of cold, then he "caught cold" or "got cold"? When a person is ill because of cold, then we can say about him that "He caught cold" (in 1st p.: "I caught cold" or in modal "you can catch cold if you will not dress properly") or "He got cold"? (in 1st p.: "I got cold" or in modal "you can get cold if you will not dress properly") Normally I've used "got cold" but someone wrote me that she caught cold (she's not Native English speaker) and that's what brought me to ask my question here. In addition, I would love to know about the usage of these phrases or corresponding phrases in in the main English speaking countries such as: US, Britain, Canada and Australia (AmE, BrE, CaE, AuE). <Q> To "get cold" means to have your body temperature (or at least your perception of it) become enough lower that you feel somewhat uncomfortable. <S> "Get/become cold" implies a lower temperature than "get/become chilly". <S> You can substitute either <S> "catch cold" OR "catch a cold", <S> the "catch" implying that it was accidental, whereas "get a cold" is just the raw information. <S> And the "if" part should be "...if you do not dress properly". <S> Dress in this case is a reflexive idiom meaning "clothe yourself", so you can substitute "...if you do not clothe yourself properly/suitably/appropriately" or "... <S> if you do not wear the proper/suitable/appropriate clothing". <A> As it happens, I watched the (British) movie <S> It Always Rains on Sunday (1947) last night, where I was struck by the fact that the warning <S> You'll catch cold! <S> occurred at least three times. <S> At the time, I never particularly noticed the fact that there's no article in that particular version (to me <S> that's syntactically totally normal, but I think I know that Getting cold or wet won’t give you a cold ). <S> As this chart shows... ... <S> we don't usually include the article in that particular "set phrase", but if we look at other versions ... ... <S> it's different. <S> I can't see much of a US/UK usage split here, but there might be some suggestion that AmE has moved further towards standardising on catch/caught <S> a cold in all contexts. <S> There's also this related earlier ELL question , but it's primarily concerned with a (spurious) semantic distinction between catch <S> a cold and get a cold (where the latter is distinct from <S> get cold , which means become cold by losing body heat ). <A> There are some good answers already describing the finer pointsof usage regarding "catch cold", "catch a cold", and "get cold". <S> But there is a lurking misunderstanding in the question: <S> When someone is ill because of cold, <S> A native speaker would infer that exposure to low temperatures were partof some set of circumstances that caused the person ("someone") to become ill. <S> The nature of the illness itself is not specified;the illness <S> could be what we call "a cold" (caused by a virus),it could be pneumonia (caused by a virus or bacterium andusually much more serious than a cold), or it could be one ofseveral other illnesses. <S> Note that mere exposure to a virus, without exposure to cold temperatures,can often cause someone to catch a cold. <S> I hope I am not belaboring the point too much, but I wanted it to beclear that <S> neither of your two proposed phrases ("caught cold"or "got cold") <S> truly means "became ill because of cold. <S> "The phrase "caught cold" is neither a general way to describe anillness caused by cold nor does it imply that cold temperaturescaused the illness, while the phrase "got cold" does not indicate an illness at all.
| To "get a cold" means to become sick with a certain type of usually-minor illness, characterised by some or all of: coughing, sneezing, runny nose, headache, sore throat, etc.
|
Is "Not being a cat none of them could catch the mouse" grammatical? Not being a cat none of them could catch the mouse. Is the sentence above grammatical? Or is it a double negation? Then how to reformulate it? <Q> In this case your seeming "double negation" is actually required for the meaning you wish. <S> Let's look at the sentence in a more standard format. <S> They could not catch the mouse because they are not cats . <S> As you can see, both the "none of them" and the "not" are necessary. <S> Without one of them, the sentence is odd. <S> This is because the negations are referring to two different things. <S> They could not catch the mouse because they are cats. <S> In this case, it makes little sense. <S> Cats are well-known to be good at catching mice, so we are a bit confused. <S> They could catch the mouse because they are not cats. <S> Now they have managed to catch the mouse, despite not being cats! <S> Well, sure, many creatures other than cats can catch mice, so this isn't too strange but it implies that cats can't catch mice and that the only reason they were able to do so is because they are not cats. <S> So, the correct form must have both of the negatives. <S> Now that we know the negation is correct, let's look at the form of your sentence. <S> Not being a cat none of them could catch the mouse. <S> This is actually a fun form that is used in literature quite often. <S> It's not necessarily an everyday form <S> but it's perfectly valid and understandable. <S> That being said, I recommend a couple of alterations. <S> First, "a cat" doesn't match "none of them". <S> So that needs to change. <S> Also, I recommend adding a comma after the introductory phrase. <S> Not being cats, none of them could catch the mouse. <S> Not being a cat, he couldn't catch the mouse. <S> Double negatives are an important thing to look out for but you need to pay attention to what is being negated. <A> It is grammatically well formed, but could be better punctuated, and the slight stress between the singular in the first phrase and the plural in the main clause can be eliminated: Not being cats, none of them could catch the mouse. <S> The meaning is "None of them could catch the mouse because they were not cats." <S> A double negative is when a single verb is used with two negative forms "He doesn't dislike fish". <S> Note that, as in this example, there is nothing wrong with all double negatives. <S> They are sometimes poor style, but are part of English grammar. <A> This sentence is much more readable with the addition of a single comma: <S> Not being a cat, none of them could catch the mouse. <S> The clause "Not being a cat" applies to the subject of the sentence, which is "none". <S> However, the pronoun "none" can mean either "not one" or "not any". <S> If it means "not one", it's singular. <S> If it means "not any", it's plural. <S> The only way to know which is to look at the prepositional phrase "of them" which describes "none". <S> Because "them" is plural, "none of them" is also plural and can be read as "not any of them". <S> Not being a cat, not any of them could catch the mouse. <S> The sentence should be written: Not being cats, none of them could catch the mouse. <S> As for the negatives, the "not" of the first clause must match the "none" of the main sentence. <S> The alternatives make no sense: <S> Being cats, none of the could catch the mouse. <S> Not being cats, any of them could catch the mouse. <S> So in this sense the sentence is correct as written. <A> What's a "cat none?" <S> Yes, that sentence is "grammatical," but I think you mean to ask if it's grammatically correct, and it is not. <S> First, a comma is required between "cat" and "none" to make the meaning clear. <S> "Not being a cat, none of them could catch the mouse." <S> There is no double negative, there are two separate single negatives, which is fine. <S> Not cats, can not catch -- perfectly clear. <S> Some here say that you need plural "cats" to match plural "them," but that does not preserve the meaning of the sentence. <S> As it is, the sentence means because not a single one of them is a cat, they could not catch the mouse. <S> With the plural "not being cats" it means because they aren't a group of cats, they could not catch the mouse. <S> There is no need for agreement. <S> Because not a single one of us is a fish [singular], we [plural] should be able to understand that. <S> If you want to be slavish about grammatical accuracy, you could say, "Because not a single one of them was a cat, they could not catch the mouse," but that breaks the grammar rule of not making sentences sound like ass. <S> And the cat thing does not explain why the mouse can't be caught. <S> Beings that are not cats catch mice all the time. <S> This sentence is meant to be poetical or frivolous, and if it's meant to be poetic, then I suggest the following: "Not one of them a cat, they could not catch the mouse." <A> It takes a cat to catch a mouse. <S> By saying it this way, you signal four important things all at once: there is a mouse likely still on the loose <S> only cats catch mice <S> when this particular mouse was present, there were no cats nearby all those who were present, were not cats.
| The subject of the clause "Not being a cat" should agree with the plural subject "not any of them", and so is not grammatically correct. There is no double negative; there are two clauses, each with a negative.
|
what's the meaning of "hard copy folders"? The sentence is "Instruct staff assistant to create hard copy folders of employment files"what does the "hard copy folders" here mean? I don't understand "hard" at all.Does it mean the duplicate documents from copier? <Q> A "hard copy folder" is a retronym phrase for a paper folder of printed material. <S> Other examples of retronyms include "cloth diaper" (once diapers were assumed to be cloth), acoustic guitar (before the electric guitar), et cetera. <S> Just as "acoustic guitar" anticipates the fact that a "guitar" may now be electric, a "hard copy folder" anticipates the fact that a "folder" may now be digital. <S> Once "hard copy folder" would have been redundant. <S> Then the word "folder" was adopted in computing as part of the " desktop metaphor ," beginning with work at Xerox PARC in the 1970s. <S> When desktop user interfaces became popularized in the 1980s and 1990s words like "desktop," "trash," "file," and "folder" also came to mean digital data and digital user interfaces, not just objects of wood and paper. <S> These digital forms are all virtual "software." <S> By contrast with the "soft" digital copy, the physical paper copy is described as the " hard copy ." <S> Returning to the example: <S> "Instruct staff assistant to create hard copy folders of employment files" This states that the "folders" are paper, and also implies that, by contrast, the "employment files" that are being copied are digital files, not paper files. <S> Once we guess that the employment files are digital we know that "create" means "print out with a printer" and not "duplicate with a copy machine." <A> "Hard copy" is a phrase used mostly in relation to computers. <S> Hard Copy <S> A printed version on paper of data held in computer. <A> Instruct staff assistant to create hard copy folders of employment files <S> A "hard copy" is as @QuokMoon <S> says a printed or physical version of a computer file. <S> The person telling you this is probably assuming you know that they keep a scan or PDF of various documents on a computer, and they want you to make a folder to also to put printouts of these. <S> Now, it's also possible that "file" can mean "packet or set of all employment documents that need to be kept together". <S> In that case what this person likely means is for you to print out all that information, make a folder for it, and put everything in the folder. <S> Basically make one folder for each person's set of documents. <S> You should ask the person telling you this for clarification as either thing could be meant.
| This probably means make a folder to contain hard copies of employment files.
|
What does "fostering inclusion" refer to, or mean? India’s unique identification programme Aadhaar is a “critical” step in enabling fairer access to government services and has “tremendous potential” for fostering inclusion , according to a United Nations report. Here I didn't understand what the author is trying to convey but I know the meaning of foster means to support something to develop or to promote but I didn't understand what "fostering inclusion" means, what they are supporting to include? Can anyone explain it to me clearly? <Q> India’s <S> unique identification programme Aadhaar is a “critical” step in enabling fairer access to government services and has “tremendous potential” for fostering inclusion in regards to access to government services , according to a United Nations report. <S> The words in bold are the actual words taken from the original text if they had been written out instead of just implied. <A> They are supporting the inclusion of more people in receiving government services. <S> We assume from the context that those people were previously excluded from receiving government services. <S> By the way - I would say that the word 'foster' has a more active sense than the word 'support'. <S> To support it means you approve of a certain thing or situation but <S> might or might not take an active role in bringing it about. <A> It's shorthand for saying that they're trying to make sure that government services feel welcoming to members of all subgroups and that they're trying to avoid not just discrimination and oppression of those groups, but even the appearance or impression of discrimination or oppression. <S> When discussing these issues, there are certain phrases like "fostering inclusion" and "encouraging diversity" that have become shorthand for a lot of complex issues being addressed. <A> Broadly Fostering inclusion <S> there means encouraging people to join in . <S> Is it true that most people believe British is the first and US American the next authority in English? <S> Why, though? <S> If English is a prescriptive language, that might be true but huge numbers - prolly the majority - of scholars insist all rules should be descriptive. <S> If they’re correct then clearly, Chinese and Indian variants outvote any other dialect or idiom. <S> Please also recognise that here, all before potential contributed only distraction, at best. <S> What, specifically, might potential for fostering inclusion leave out, please?
| To foster something means that you've made a decision to actively change or promote something.
|
Is the child that is not adopted your 'blood child'? We have two kids -- one is adopted and the other is not. He's our blood child . Is it correct to say so? For real parents we say birth parents. For real children of your own, we say what? <Q> Yuri, I would say my biological child and my adopted or chosen child, but only if it was important to make that distinction. <S> Normally, none of us should care. <S> They are both/all your children and I would assumed equally wanted and loved. <S> Natural works but might lead to your other child to beg the question <S> , "Am I un natural?" <S> Blood child might possibly be used in another place, but not in North America by English-speakers. <S> Sometimes people want information. <S> That's fine, but we are under no obligation to assuage their curiosity. <S> If the doctor needs to know, or a child is having a problem that makes telling the school the situation, then <S> 'step-child' or adopted child is still the way to discuss or label them. <S> A stepchild is a child from your spouse's former union whom you have not adopted. <A> "Child by blood" might be correct ("blood child" sounds much more sinister, like something out of a horror movie). <S> However it's not a common expression, and in some contexts it might be weird, or at least impolite. <S> "Natural" child is a better expression. <S> See for example <S> this article Do parents favor natural children over adopted ones? <S> In families that might be made of children from different parents (like the Brady Bunch , you can distinguish your "children by blood" from your "children by marriage", although again this might seem weird to some people. <S> "Stepchildren" is the proper term; however due to negative associations (like Cinderella 's evil stepmother) some people don't like the whole "step- <S> " prefix and prefer to say something like, "She's my wife's daughter," which automatically implies that she is not your own natural daughter. <A> Blood relatives is commonly used to refer broadly to a family of biologically related individuals. <S> Blood brothers can refer, confusingly enough, to unrelated men who have sworn a blood oath, signified by literally cutting themselves and pressing the wounds together. <S> When the distinction matters for children, widely accepted as the sensitive way to express it is biological child . <S> Contrariwise, someone who was adopted as an infant or newborn may as an adult seek out his birth mother or biological mother, with the latter sometimes shortened to biomom. <S> I have never heard “biochild” used. <S> Simultaneously less sensitive or more dated ways to state <S> it are non-adopted child natural child , natural-born child , or real child (using informal synonyms or euphemisms for biological) <S> mine or my child (emphasizing the possessive to imply biology) <S> had him or her the old fashioned way <S> The last refers to procreation, which makes it crude. <S> Emphasizing the adoption or labeling biological children as “natural” or “real” others 1 an adopted child. <S> As parents must remind our children — step-, adopted, and biological — even though something is true, saying it may not be polite. <S> Less common ways to express it are flesh and blood , by blood , flesh and bone , or according to the flesh 2 , as in “he is my flesh and bone” or “she is my flesh-and-blood child” to emphasize the biological connection. <S> 1 <S> I find that usage as a verb grating, but Merriam-Webster defines it as “to treat or consider (a person or a group of people) as alien to oneself or one's group (as because of different racial, sexual, or cultural characteristics).” <S> 2 Reflects similar usage in English translations of the Christian Bible <S> (Genesis 2:23, Romans 9:8, Galatians 4:29).
| Using blood child may confuse the other person, but I believe your intended meaning would be understandable. If you adopt them, they are your child and all the adoptive words would apply
|
One should love everyone's wife. Is it right grammatically? I want to know whether the sentence one should love everyone's wife is correct grammatically or not. I think it's grammatically correct but meaning differs from the sentence One should love one's wife . My friend has been arguing with me that you shouldn't use everyone's in the sentence and you have to use only one's . I said the former sentence means a person should love everyone's wife whereas the latter sentence means a person should love his own wife and both are grammatical. I can't see anything wrong with the sentence grammatically . Can you please tell me if I'm right or not? <Q> one should love everyone's wife <S> Well ... it is grammatically correct. <S> However it does not mean what you think it should mean. <S> What this says is that you (or someone) should love everyone else's wives. <S> I'm sure Cassanova , Don Juan , or Donald Trump would agree, but most other people would not. <S> If you want to say that every person should love his own wife, then you could say: Everyone should love his wife. <S> The challenge with this is that it is not gender-neutral, and nowadays in many places it's possible for same-sex couples to be married. <S> Unfortunately this leads to some awkward grammar, something like: <S> Everyone should love their wife Not as elegant as we might like, but we do the best we can. <S> (Edit) <S> A better gender-neutral version would be: <S> Everyone should love their spouse . <S> This takes into account marriages where neither partner considers the other the "wife". <A> You are <S> right grammatically both sentences are correct but they differ in meaning. <S> Suppose there are three persons in the context : a , b , <S> c With the sentence <S> One should love one's wife , you are saying that a should love his own wife. <S> But by the other sentence one should love everyone's wife , you are implying that a should love his own wife as well as b 's and c 's wives. <A> (In light of the OP's recent edit) <S> Grammatically speaking, the sentence: <S> One should love everyone's wife is perfectly acceptable. <S> It means it is a good idea if "you" (one) love the wives of everybody . <S> The modal verb should is often used for suggesting ideas, and giving advice. <S> One could disagree with the assertion, but not with its grammar. <S> The OP's friend recommends the following solution <S> One should love one's wife <S> This is the better route to take, not only morally, but semantically too. <S> On the hand, it is also very formal, and distances the speaker from his or her listeners. <S> To paraphrase, you could say You should love your wife <S> As we know, in English, the determiner you is singular or plural, so this version works too. <S> Every husband should love his wife <S> OR <S> As suggested in the comments by @laurel <A> It's perfectly correct grammatically <S> but I don't think it means what you want it to mean. <S> Technically, and this exposes one of the relatively few shortcomings in the English language, to achieve the implied meaning in a grammatically sound way, one could say Everyone should love his or her wife. <S> Understandable <S> , though, that this isn't what arises when following the path of least resistance. <A> Coming in with a tl;dr response (apologies if similar to others): <S> One should love everyone's wife <S> is a one-to-many relationship. <S> While correct, this means one man should love every existing wife, and one should be very careful not to get caught. <S> One should love one's wife <S> is one-to-one. <S> Slightly less risky, yet still a decision not to be made lightly. <A> I would like to point out one issue that most seem to miss. <S> The phrase "One should love everyone's wife" implies that there is one wife shared by everyone. <S> Compare to the example from Fowler <S> [yeah, sorry]: "Everyone was [or <S> were] blowing their noses. <S> " <S> The example itself speaks to the use of "was" vs. "were", but in both cases "nose" is plural. <S> The ambiguity with number used in the verb causes ambiguity in the number for wives.
| Every married person should love his or her spouse Or using the singular "they" Everyone should love their spouse
|
Usage of 'much' as a noun Why can I use "much" in a sentence like: Much has changed here recently. I've seen a lot in the literature about "nothing/not much" being used, but not without negation or in interrogatives. <Q> "Much" is a degree determiner which typically occurs in NPs with non-count nouns, as in I don't have much money where "much" is determiner and "money" is head of the NP. <S> But in your example, it's a special kind of 'fused determiner-head' construction where fused-head "much" has an inanimate, abstract interpretation. <A> Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary, 'much' has many possible functions in a sentence. <S> In the usage in the question, it would be a pronoun - substituting a noun phrase. <S> One of its many definitions in the OED is C. 1a: <S> " A great deal, a great quantity " E.g. "Much is due to the prejudices of well-meaning but uncultured people." <S> or "Much has been done in the way of improving the Schizanthus" <S> So to answer the question: yes, you can use it as you do in that sentence. <S> However, both the OED and the experts from the Cambridge Dictionary state that it is used more in negative phrases. <A> I think this is an example of language changing by common usage. <S> " <S> Much has changed' is something I have heard, usually on TV. <S> It probably should be, "So much has changed. <S> " <S> It is similar to, "It's me. <S> " While I was growing up, a teacher would have refused this as incorrect and today, no one notices. <S> When was the last time you heard, "It is I."? <A> This usage is correct. <S> You have much to learn. <S> or as an adjective: <S> There was much fanfare for their arrival.
| Much can be used as a noun:
|
Furniture as a general term for curtain accessories Can the word "furniture" be used as a general term for accessories and fittings, for example, curtain accessories (hooks, brackets, rings)? Furniture: the small accessories or fittings that are required for a particular task or function ( source ) <Q> In the home, furniture means items like tables, chairs, beds, wardrobes, etc. <S> A more generic term is furnishings . <S> Curtains and cushions, etc, are called soft furnishings . <S> Sewing accessories are sometimes called notions by hobbyists, but it isn't a well-known usage. <S> furnishings <S> noun [plural] <S> <S> the furniture, curtains, and other decorations in a room or building: Bathroom furnishings are in the basement of the store. <S> Cambridge Dictionary <A> The general term for those things, among people who sell and install curtains, etc. , is 'hardware'. <S> When you move from one home to another, you would say: All the hardware for the living room curtains is in that box. <S> When you buy new curtains, you would ask: Will my existing hardware work, or do I need to buy new stuff? <S> When you paint a room, you would say: I'll have all the hardware down off the walls tomorrow morning. <S> Hardware <S> (MW, definitions 1 and 2) <S> ware (as fittings, cutlery, tools, utensils, or parts of machines) made of metal major items of equipment or their components used for a particular purpose <S> That's the specific sense of the word. <S> What's confusing about it is that a 'hardware store' sells a lot more than just hardware, including lumber, plumbing supplies, furniture, appliances, etc. <S> Some someone who is not an interior designer, carpenter, builder, or painter might refer to a piece of lumber as 'hardware', since they bought it at a 'hardware store'. <S> Some people also refer to those pieces as 'fixtures'. <S> Fixture <S> (MW definition 2a) <S> something that is fixed or attached (as to a building) as a permanent appendage or as a structural part <A> The source you provided gives an example of rifle fittings (rifle furniture) and I would give an example of door handles, locks and hinges, referred to as door furniture. <S> There is also street furniture such as street lighting, signs, benches and litter bins <A> What you have pointed to is a definition that explains how to understand a word when it is used in a certain way,but not when you can use the word in that way. <S> The term "furniture" has a well-known technical meaning in printing,for example. <S> It means certain pieces that are fit among or around thepieces of movable type in an old-style printing press. <S> But I think one would not use "furniture" to refer to other small accessoriesor fittings (such as a composing stick) that are used to assemble the typeor operate the press. <S> If you search the Web for "rifle furniture," you may find anumber of links to manufacturers or sellers advertising certain parts ofrifles. <S> (The word seems to correspond to the stock of a rifle orparts that serve the function of the stock.)A rifle has other accessory parts (such as sights) that appearnot to be "furniture." <S> A Web search for "Mac furniture" is not as successful. <S> That usage may have been intended to work by analogy, comparing the assignment of functions of graphical objectsin software interface to the placement of pieces of furniture within a room. <S> So the question is whether "furniture" would correctly be understood when used to denote things such as curtain hooks. <S> Unless you have observed multiple uses of the word in that wayby people whose business it is to deal with such things ascurtain hooks and rods, I would not advisetaking the risk of using it that way. <S> The risk of misunderstanding is large, sinceyou mean to speak of things that are part of thegeneral furnishings of a roombut are not among the things most people would think of as furniture. <A> No, you can't use "furniture" as a general term for any accessories or fittings. <S> household furniture like sofa, table, chairs, book shelves this kind of product referred as furniture. <S> If you are still confused check out this Wikipedia article FURNITURE
| The word furniture cannot be used for all accessories and fittings but can be used for some.
|
Difference between "raise" and "lift" Is there any difference between the phrases "I lifted my left hand" and "I raised my left hand"? <Q> This is commonly used in swearing oaths and when asking or answering questions in a classroom. <S> Raise your hand and repeat after me. <S> It doesn't imply any particular position other than higher than where it was. <S> Lift your hand off the table <S> so I can get the tablecloth out from under it. <A> Idiomatically, "raise" is used in schools. <S> When a teacher asks if any students know the answer to a question, he will say: <S> Raise your hand if you know how to multiply 12 by 9. <A> AFAIK, lift can only be used in a literal sense, i.e. in the physical context of an object going from point A to a higher point B. <S> In aeronautics, this is also the name of the force that makes a plane or helicopter stay aloft. <S> Raise, on the other hand, can also be used when talking about other things that may "go up", e.g. a salary raise . <S> More examples: <S> Please lift your feet, so I can sweep the rug! <S> Overjoyed to finally see his girlfriend back after missing her for so long <S> , he took her in his arms, lifted her up and spun around. <S> At the dinner table, she raised the issue of who was finally going to do the dishes once more. <S> The rollercoaster rises six times, the highest point being at 18 meters. <A> I have always thought that raise is meant to happen under the power of the subject. <S> Lift is meant to happen by the power of a third-party. <S> Both are in the same direction of up. <S> As far as hands go, A person can raise their hand as that hand is a part of them. <S> If speaking about a person's anatomy, "he lifted his hand" would be more appropriate. <S> Even given the above, they are used interchangeably in most cases. <S> Additionally, on Merriam Webster lift is used to define raise and vice-versa. <S> Raise 3-B , Lift 1
| When talking about hands, "raise" almost always refers to holding it in a position where the palm is facing forward at or above the height of your head. "Lift" has no standard usage with hands so saying "lift your hand" would simply mean, "pick it up off of whatever it's sitting on".
|
How do you pronounce "new" in British English? I'm playing the pronunciation over and over again but I cannot say it myself: Is the word new in British English and similar ones pronounced as [nyu], like the word meow , or is it pronounced like [ñu:] with the spanish ñ or Czech and Turmen ň? In other words, is the n pronounced with the mouth positioned like in the pronunciation of normal n (like in nail ) or is it positioned like in the pronunciation of y ? <Q> To an English-speaking ear, these two variants (consonant sequence ny versus palatalised ñ ) <S> sound identical. <S> In fact, your question is probably incomprehensible to most monolingual English speakers. <S> For myself (British English), I pronounce it as a palatalised ñ . <S> But either variant is fine, and nobody will notice the difference. <A> In BrE, new is pronounced with a /y/ sound: "nyew". <S> new <S> [adjective] uk <S> /njuː/ us <S> /nuː/ <S> Cambridge Dictionary <A> I want to add my 5 cents to the previous answers as this is the first result on this question from Google. <S> The right symbol there is /ɲ/ , see . <S> That's the sound for Czech/Slovak ň, Polish ń, Spanish ň, Italian gn, Rusian нь and so on. <S> According to the previous link, the sound is not present in English and you don't find it in a dictionary neither as far as I know. <S> Therefore, I wouldn't trust answer of English native speaker on this topic as they don't have ň, so they can't really tell difference between <S> n /n/ and ň /ɲ/ :-) <S> According to pronunciation of knew homophone Wiktionary Americans tends to say /n(j)uː/ , while Britons /ɲ(j)uː/ . <S> I think British pronunciation is actually result of relaxed pronunciation – when you try to pronounce /nju:/ <S> neglectfully, you actually merge n and j and result is /ɲuː/ . <S> note: Please, notice that ɲ symbol is actually combination of letter n and j, for an obvious reason.
| In AmE, it is "noo".
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.