source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What does "what can it buy us" mean? What does "what can it buy us" mean? When is it used? For example: We should try to understand, what for are these theories created, as Americans say, what can it buy us. <Q> The idiom " <S> What does that buy us?" means, "What do we get from this?" <S> or "What can we actually use these for?" <S> In the context of your example, the person asks what real-world benefit is gained from these academic theories, to refute the suggestion that they have no useful application. <S> It can be called an American expression because of this country's focus on money, so many think we only care about the financial value of things (and care little for pure academic progress). <S> This may or may not be true, of course, but nevertheless the stereotype exists. <S> A similar expression is "to get down to dollars and cents" which means to assess the real-world benefit from a particular expense. <S> In your example, you could say: We should try to understand, what for are these theories created -- if we get down to dollars and sense , what practical purpose do they serve? <A> So someone might say "We made five dollars today!" <S> and someone else might respond unenthusiastically "Sure, but what can it buy us ?", implying that five dollars is not going to be able to buy much. <A> It's definitely not a common phrase, as others have mentioned <S> I have heard this in the context of "what progress does this allow us to make", especially in regards to academic work. <S> Out of context I would expect this to be with regards to money, for example walking into a shop and asking "what would £5 buy us?" <S> but in context that's clearly not what's meant
| I'm not sure this is a commonly used phrase (only 6 results on Google, one of which is this question) with any meaning other than the literal.
|
Does "Excuse him." make sense? "Excuse me." is very often used in our daily conversation, and I learned the phrase "Excuse us." used when involving more than two persons. Then, how about "Excuse him / her / them."? For example, when you want your little kid to get out of the elevator ( which is packed with people and only your kid must leave ), can you say, "Excuse him." when it is a boy, and "Excuse her." when It is a girl? <Q> Yes, but ... Saying "excuse him" is usually patronizing, implying that the other person is not responsible or polite enough to make his own apologies. <S> If you're talking about a child, "Oh, please excuse my son, he doesn't know any better", well, we expect children to not be responsible. <S> But if you say it about someone else, "Please excuse Fred", that's almost certainly insulting to Fred. <S> It may be, of course, that your intent is to say that Fred is irresponsible or rude, in which case "excuse him" would be totally appropriate. <S> The one example I can think of where it would not be insulting would be if the person could not be expected to know that something he did was inappropriate. <S> Like, "Oh, please excuse Fred. <S> He's still learning English, he didn't mean that statement the way it sounded." <A> Yes, it is possible but not normally in that situation. <S> "Please excuse us " is what we would be more likely to say, even if you are not in the way, to imply that you need to stay together and the other person is keeping you apart. <S> On the other hand, if you want to make excuses for someone else's rudeness or conduct, you can say, "Please excuse his behavior". <S> More often you would simply apologize for whatever the other person did wrong, especially if you are responsible for them. <S> "I'm so sorry my son knocked down the Christmas tree, ate all the chocolates, and lit the dog on fire, he's such a naughty boy." <A> The phrase Please excuse someone gets used as a polite way of saying I'm about to do something impolite and am apologizing ahead of time <S> In your example, if your child is leaving the elevator alone you might say <S> Please excuse him/her . <S> since they may be too small to speak up for themselves. <S> If you are also exiting the elevator you would say <S> Please excuse us . <S> The phrase is a polite form with "I'm sorry" implied. <S> When the third person (him/her) is used, the phrase may also mean Please ignore/disregard <S> what someone has just done. <S> Please excuse him, he's not been the same since the accident. <A> Yes it does, but you need to be careful of the social context, as using this expression wrong will be taken as an insult. <S> If you are the parent of a child, you can absolutely say "excuse him/her", as you are responsible for them. <S> You would probably say "Please excuse him/her" to be even more polite. <S> However if the person you are trying to "excuse" is an adult who does not like you very much, it can be seen as an insult, like you're treating them as a child. <S> Say for example " <S> Excuse him, he's acting like a child" <S> Is something someone might say if they were unhappy with another person's behavior. <A> When requesting excusal, one is asking for forgiveness for acting outside the expected or norm. " <S> Excuse me" when you sneeze is asking forgiveness for the noise/matter you're expelling in the presence of others. <S> " <S> Excuse me" when trying to pass someone is asking forgiveness for requesting they move. " <S> Excuse me for ____" is asking forgiveness for a specific thing ("my lateness", "asking [a personal question]", etc). <S> When you ask for the excusal of someone else, the implication is that they cannot ask themselves. <S> In the absence of that person, it can be perfectly acceptable/polite ("Excuse him for missing our meeting, he missed his train", "Excuse his actions the other night, he feels very bad [and will apologize later]"). <S> However , if you ask for someone's excusal in their presence <S> the implication is that they are unable to ask for a reason , and often that reason is that they do not know/understand the expectation or norm they have violated. <S> This compounds in to the excusal entreaty the notion of ignorance. <S> They do not know is implied in the excusal of another one present, which can be seen as rude if the person is an adult and should know the norm or expectation. <S> It's not always rude, ignorance of a norm is sometimes expected such as when you are traveling: "Excuse him, he did not mean [ignore custom]". <S> Or if a child is loud and rambunctious, a parent may say "Excuse him, he gets cranky when he's away from home". <A> Yes, but generally in English, the phrase "Excuses Him/ <S> Her" is taken more literally , as in you actually wish for that person to be excused for their attitude or behaviour. <S> Also: you never hear people say "Excuse Him" as a sentance on it's own, it is always followed by an explanation. <S> Examples: <S> Excuse him for his outbursts, he's drunk <S> Excuse her <S> please, she just got out of prison <S> Most Common Variation: <S> You'll have to excuse him/her, [explanation goes here] <S> Whereas the phrase "Excuse Me" is more soft and for little things like nearly bumping into someone, accidentally burping out loud, not hearing what someone just said. <S> It's almost synnonymous with the word "sorry". <S> Likewise, when saying "Excuse Me", the phrase is often the whole sentence, as in there is no explanation that follows it.
| Summing up : Yes, "excuse him" makes perfect sense, just be careful of the implications wrapped up in the asking excusal on the behalf of others. Yes, and as others have said it is sometimes and perhaps often seen as rude -- but not always.
|
You earn money. You also steal or launder money. Do you also "grab" the money? Literally as in the title. You earn money, right? You earn money by working. You can also steal money from a bank. So do you also " grab " money to mean that you steal money? Although collocation dictionaries that I have looked up do not list "grab money", I have seen it in song titles. "Get the Girl, Grab the Money and Run" (A hip hop song) It sounds like having a strong negative connotation. So I looked up some pictures and here is one I have got: I think at this point to "grab the money" means the action of stealing it but I am really not sure. So to tidy up, my question is of two parts: What does this phrase "grab the money" specifically mean? The action that you do to steal money or the action itself or? If that were commonly used, why wasn't it on collocation dictionaries? Sorry for hot linking that image, purposeprosperityhappiness.com <Q> As with many idioms, much depends on context. <S> "Grab the money" means to get money by whatever means are most effective and expedient. <S> Sometimes this can be illegal, sometimes just unethical, and sometimes perfectly fine. <S> A musician might record a song, get as much money as possible for that song, and then get out of the business. <S> A software developer might make a killer app, sell it to investors for a lot of money, and get out to do something else. <S> Of course, a thief might try to get one big "score" -- a house with a lot of valuables, or a poorly-guarded bank -- in order to "grab the money" and get out. <S> An unethical person might set up a "pyramid scheme", "hook" a bunch of gullible investors, and disappear with their cash. <S> The common trait is intention -- if you are in something to "grab the money", you don't plan to spend a lot of time doing it. <S> You want a quick payout. <S> It's negative if you value people who work hard and stick to something, who like to see things through. <S> Other people, who like the idea of fast cash, might see it as a positive. <A> For example "she grabbed him by the shirt collar""he <S> made a grab for his gun" <S> However, in context , it can be used to describe the act of seizing money suddenly, and there's even a particular form of burglary - a smash and grab - that involves smashing a barrier, usually a display window in a shop or a showcase, grabbing valuables, and then making a quick getaway, without concern for setting off alarms or creating noise. <S> In the context of the song lyrics, I'm not so sure it is describing the act of stealing though. <S> Today's just another day for me to get paid. <S> Invade the stage, And retreat for the shade. <S> Find me a top bread freak to get laid. <S> Back when I'm masquerade. <S> I get basquerade <S> (???) <S> Direct from My spectrum To select from. <S> Sex them, <S> Neglect them, Then I'm on the the next one. <S> [CHORUS:] <S> " <S> Yeah. <S> Grab the money and run. <S> You gotta, get the girl, grab the money, and run. <S> You gotta, get the girl, grab the money, and run. <S> you gotta, get the girl, grab the money ' <S> grab the money and run' can also simply mean get paid, and get out which sounds more fitting of the lyrics above. <S> As to why it's not in the dictionary? <S> The word 'grab' has a broad scope - it can be used to describe the act of grasping anything . <S> An element of luck would be involved in finding a dictionary that contained the exact example of 'grab' that you are looking for. <A> "Grab the money" is perfectly understandable, the often used phrase is <S> take the money and run which has been used as a song and movie title. <S> grab the money <S> means to "seize" money, which may be in different forms. <S> It may literally mean "take a handful of money", it can also be used figuratively as in <S> Take the higher paying job even if it is less interesting and grab the money . <S> take the higher paying job and get the money while you can in the same way that one can "grab" an opportunity <S> Opportunity only knocks once, you have to grab it while you can. <S> The use of "grabbing" implies a quick action, similar to "snatching". <S> I grabbed a cup of coffee before heading for the bus. <S> We grabbed a quick lunch between meetings.
| To grab something simply means to 'grasp or seize suddenly and roughly', and it can be used in many different contexts.
|
Is this sentence 'I know him a teacher.' acceptable? I made the sentence like 'I know him a teacher.' I want to express the sentence containing the meaning of 'I know that he is a teacher.' Can I use the sentence 'I know him a teacher.' instead of 'I know that he is a teacher.'? I would like to know whether the sentence I made is right or not. <Q> We cannot omit to be there (in contemporary English). <S> However, it is in a formal register that few native speakers would use unless the occasion called for it. <S> An example of such a formal occasion might be when giving testimony in a court of law about a person's character: <S> I know him to be an upstanding member of the community. <S> or when vouching for someone in a situation where a tone of formality adds gravitas to the opinion: I know him to be a dedicated employee who always gives his best effort. <S> The locution would sound strange in situations that do not call for a personal attestation: <S> I know him to be a rugby fan. <S> marginal <S> I know these trousers to be a little tight around the waist. <S> jarring <A> The other answers have good information, but I think the best way to express what you want to say is: <S> I know he's a teacher. <S> To further clarify, saying: <S> I know him as a teacher. <S> Would be used in a certain situations to imply that your knowledge of him is limited in scope. <S> For example, someone asks you if John would be a good person to invite to join your World of Warcraft clan, you might reply: <S> I only know him as a teacher, I don't have any idea if he even plays World of Warcraft. <A> "I know him a teacher" doesn't seem like it can be right to me unless it's casual/conversational <S> and there's some explicit or implied punctuation, like: <S> "I know him – a teacher" (i.e. "I know him, he's a teacher") or " <S> I know him, a teacher?" <S> (i.e. "I know him, is he a teacher?"). <S> As has been suggested, something like: <S> "I know him as a teacher" or "I know him, he's a teacher" <S> seems more grammatically correct. <S> There could also be a difference between saying "I know him as a teacher" and "I know that he is a teacher", as the former is more likely to imply a relationship between yourself and the teacher - you are stating that this connection/relationship exists because he is a teacher (perhaps you know because he was your teacher once), whereas the latter could be used to describe someone who you have never even met or communicated with, you're just stating that you know they are a teacher, nothing more. <S> However, this is not strictly the case as you could be talking about someone who is well known in the world for being a singer and actress, which whom you have no personal relationship and still say "I know her as a singer" because that's how you first became aware of the person - because they are a singer. <A> From a (former) academic's perspective, I'd suggest that "I know him as a teacher" can be taken to imply that you are the teacher and that is how you know him. <S> This introduces ambiguity that "I know that he's a teacher" doesn't have.
| I know him to be a teacher is correct.
|
Do I need to add "the" into this sentence? The bases for growth in the real estate industry include sustainable economic growth, rapid urbanization due to expanded investment on the transportation and infrastructure system, high demand for property due to growth in per capita income, and increase in foreign investment. Assuming there is no context, just this sentence alone. I am not sure if this sentence is correct or there is any grammar problem in it. For example, I feel like it could have been "the high demand for" and "the increase in" but then, they don't sound right to me. Generally, I am quite confused with the usage of "the" as I am not sure when to use it and not to use it, especially in business writing. For example, I'm not sure whether it should be "Industry supply will increase to meet demand of new housing" or "Industry supply will increase to meet the demand of new housing." <Q> Let's start with your example. <S> Part of what would make it sound "wrong" to add "the" to any one of the things you list is that it would break parallel structure unless you added it to all of them. <S> Though this is a mistake that native speakers make frequently, it is not good style to say: My shopping cart includes vegetables, meat, the cookie, and ice cream. <S> because "the cookie" breaks parallel structure. <S> I could instead say: My shopping cart includes the carrot, the beef, the cookie, and the ice cream I needed. <S> A notable exception to this is that "the" can be used on the first item only, though it is implied that it applies to the others as well as in: <S> The Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are all stored in the National Archives in Washington DC <S> Where "the" is implied before "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights". <S> As for when to use "the" versus when not to, "the" is used to denote one and only one of something. <S> For example, if you were to say: the increase in foreign investment <S> you are talking about a specific increase. <S> It might sound more natural if you provide additional context, like saying: the increase in foreign investment that resulted from globalization. <S> or something similar. <S> When you omit "the", you are no longer referring to one and only one of something, typically you are instead referring to something in general. <S> To talk about housing markets in general . <S> High demand here is not referring to any particular period of high demand, just high demand in general. <S> If I say: The housing market in the United States benefited from the high demand due to the GI Bill, and the increase in foreign investment brought by expatriation from Europe. <S> It is clear that I am talking about particulars. <A> Most of Noah's answer is very informational and helpful. <S> The part of the answer remaining unaddressed, however, is how to fit "increase in foreign investment" into the rest of the listed items. <S> The issue is that increase, as it's written in your original post, presents itself as a verb which is trying to blend into a list of objects. <S> You have also correctly noted that using "the" or "a" with "increase" can clarify the sentence. <S> "Increase in foreign investment", without an article, refers to the action of something increasing investments in foreign business. <S> You still need a subject for that phrase to work. <S> "Apple will increase [their] foreign investment." <S> "The increase in foreign investment" refers to the actual increase itself, not the action of increasing. <S> It's a valid subject. <S> "The increase in foreign investment was quite large." <S> The solution is simple. <S> Change "increase" (defaulted to verb as it's written) to increases (can be read as a noun). <A> Your sentence is technically correct but is very hard to read. <S> Firstly I would recommend that you don't write sentences of this length (especially in business). <S> The word 'the' is used far too frequently in the English language and is mostly unnecessary. <S> It is very hard to grasp the full concept of it. <S> Therefore it is generally better to go with what you think sounds right. <S> Original Sentence - The bases for growth in the real estate industry include sustainable economic growth, rapid urbanization due to expanded investment on the transportation and infrastructure system, high demand for property due to growth in per capita income, and increase in foreign investment. <S> New Sentences - Bases for growth in the real estate industry include sustainable economic expansion, rapid urbanisation , high demand for property , and increase in foreign investment. <S> Rapid urbanisation is occurring due to the expanded investment on the transportation and infrastructure system, while demand for property because of increase in per capita income. <S> Also try to decrease the repeated words like investment (i don't know any synonyms) <S> Good page on the word 'the' - http://www.trussel.com/the.htm
| You have correctly identified an issue with that clause. You can say: Housing markets benefit from factors including high demand and increase in foreign investment.
|
Usage of "any" or "some" in "Would you like ..... wine?" I have got another test question: Would you like ..... wine? any some This test assumes that the only correct answer is 'some' and some people argue that the use of 'any' in this sentence is grammatically incorrect. I think that both 'some' and 'any' is possible there with a difference in the meaning that with 'some' we are expecting answer 'yes' and with 'any' we are not sure if the answer 'yes' or 'no' at all. I can imagine the following dialog: Q. Would you like some white wine?A. No, I don't like white wine.Q. Would you like some red wine instead?A. No, I don't like red wine too.Q. Would you like any wine? <Q> Interesting question. <S> Would you like any wine? <S> Yes, I would like some . <S> Would you like some wine? <S> Yes, I would like any some . <S> I can envision a stewardess walking down the aisle asking <S> Would you like any wine? <S> Would you like some wine? <S> then running back and delivering a glass of wine. <S> In the case of <S> Would you like some more wine? <S> it's implied you will continue with the same wine <S> Would you like any more wine? <S> can mean " <S> Would you like any sort of wine?" and that wine may be different, e.g. a dessert wine after having red wine with your meal. <A> You are pretty close, but I would make a couple of small changes: Q. <S> Would you like some white wine? <S> A. <S> No, I don't like white wine. <S> Q. <S> Would you like some red wine instead? <S> A. <S> No, I don't like red wine either . <S> Q. <S> Do <S> you like any kind of wine? <S> or for the last sentence: Q: <S> What <S> would you like? <S> To clarify, if you are offering, I would stick with Would---some? <S> "Do you like any kind of wine? <S> " is more of a question about their preferences <S> I'm not really sure if "Would you like any wine? <S> " is technically ungrammatical or not, but it is definitely non-standard, as Google's NGram Viewer shows. <S> It also just sounds wrong to my native ear. <A> Some X means part of/an amount of an existing X, but not all of X . <S> Any X just means pick an X <S> and I don't care where X is or pick an amount of X <S> and I don't care what that amount is . <S> So you can see how a lot of times they are interchangeable. <S> Some X would be inappropriate if it was not possible to split up X, and when you say some X with a solid object you are implying you will break or cut it up, or otherwise divide it. <S> You can also see how any is less positive than some <S> given that "no X" is a valid "return value" of any . <S> A <S> : I would like any money you have. <S> B: <S> Sorry, I don't have any. <S> (You can't be too disappointed because by using any <S> you accounted for the possibility that B didn't have any.) <S> A: I would like some money. <S> B: <S> Sorry, I don't have any <S> (You might be disappointed here because by saying some you were expecting B to have an amount of money greater than 0.)
| I think possibly the "strict" answer is to use "some", however "any" gets used so often that they are understandable and basically interchangeable.
|
What's the meaning of "farmer by trade"? In the National Geographic Society's Answer Book: Fast Facts about Our World (2010), edited by Kathryn Thornton, I found this line, but didn't understand the meaning of farmer by trade : "Wilson A. "Snowflake" Bentley was a farmer by trade , but from the snowy landscape of Vermont he drew inspiration for another calling: documenting the intricate and apparently nonrepretitive designs of snowflakes." <Q> It says a little bit more than that though. <S> I'm saying that my job is as a farmer, but with an implication that there's more to me than my job. <S> I might well say "I'm a farmer by trade, but really I love to paint" A similar construction which I sometimes use myself is "by training". <S> I'm a physicist by training (my degree is in physics), but a software engineer by trade ( I work as a software engineer) <A> A definition of someone's trade is what they do for a living, which is typically blue-collar physical labor, or something like carpentry, welding, etc. <S> versus a white-collar office-type "profession". <S> You may wonder why this wasn't written: <S> Wilson A. "Snowflake" Bentley was a farmer, but ... <S> Saying "I am X by trade" rather than just "I am an X", you are saying that you are willing to do X as a job for others money/livelihood, rather than do X because you need it yourself. <S> He did not only want to farm his own land, but considered it a job and did other things when he wasn't "at his job." <A> He was a banker by trade -- he works or worked in a bank. <S> The farmer by trade -- farms or farmed. <A> Firstly, trade means, according to Wiktionary , definition 6: <S> The skilled practice of a practical occupation. <S> And then by trade , also from Wiktionary : <S> Prepositional phrase. <S> by trade. <S> (idiomatic) <S> As a profession; professionally. <S> Although he was a gifted musician, he was a plumber by trade and never played music professionally. <S> As can also be seen from this example, the phrase by trade is generally used to show the contrast between the said person's outward work-appearance and the expected stereotypes as opposed to a particular detail which is somewhat unexpected, but happens to be the case here. <S> In your example, the farmer is more expected to be planning his crop rotation for the next few seasons than studying snowflake intricacies.
| 'by trade' means what his occupation or training is in. As others have stated, if I say "I'm a farmer by trade" I'm telling you that my job is farming.
|
Which is the correct way of writing this sentence? Which one is correct, and why? The Tourism Authority of Thailand has asked if the cabinet will increase its marketing budget this year. The Tourism Authority of Thailand has asked that the cabinet increase its marketing budget this year. <Q> But which to use depends on the context. <S> In the first question the authority asks about information, nothing more. <S> In the second question the authority is asking the cabinet to do something. <A> Both sentences are grammatically correct. <S> But they mean different things. <S> The Tourism Authority of Thailand has asked if the cabinet will increase its marketing budget this year. <S> This means that the Tourism Authority of Thailand is merely asking whether the cabinet will increase the budget. <S> As in, the Authority wants to know if it would be possible to allocate a higher budget. <S> The Tourism Authority of Thailand has asked that the cabinet increase its marketing budget this year. <S> Now, this means that the Tourism Authority is actually instructing the cabinet to increase the budget this year. <S> This sentence implies that the Tourism Authority has some authority in deciding the allocation of budget and is exercising that authority to tell the cabinet to increase the budget. <A> The two previous answers are correct, and these are indeed two different sentences with different meanings. <S> If you go with the second, subjunctive option, mind your audience: <S> The Tourism Authority of Thailand has asked that the cabinet increase its marketing budget this year. <S> This option is typical in the US. <S> -- <S> The Tourism Authority of Thailand has asked that the cabinet increases its marketing budget this year. <S> From following this site, I know at least some Brits would prefer this version. <A> Short answer: If this is about the subjunctive, I would go with number two. <S> Long answer: <S> The thing is, they're both correct. <S> It just depends on what you mean. <S> Who gets to decide if there can be an increase? <S> The Tourism Authority or the cabinet? <S> If the cabinet gets to decide on its own, go with number one. <S> If the Tourism Authority is deciding -- and is essentially "commanding" the cabinet to increase its marketing budget -- then, go with number two. <S> The difference lies in "asked if" and "asked that. <S> " See " 1: ask + if/whether " and " 2: ask + that ".
| They are both correct sentences.
|
The use of " inquire" Can I use "to inquire" with an indirect object and does its meaning change in this following sense, to ask information, whether I use "as to/ about" because the prepositions used with it change its meaning. I wonder if there is a difference between simply "to inquire" and " inquire about" in American English especially? The CEO inquired the account manager (as to/about) why there is a deficit in the annual budget at the end of the year. However, because he could not get a good answer, he appointed a committee in order to inquire into the records. or In case the product you bought have not arrive in a time that it should have so you tell your friend: I will inquire Amazon as to whether they will able send the products before new year. May I inquire ( as to ) why you need this information? I read an useful thread on ELU so I know prepositions used with it changes its meaning besides it can have different uses in different countries. <Q> If you want to use an indirect object, use 'query' instead. <S> The CEO queried the account manager (as to/about) <S> why there is a deficit in the annual budget at the end of the year. <S> However, because he could not get a good answer, he appointed a committee in order to inquire into the records. <S> I will query Amazon as to whether they will able send the products before new year. <S> Query <S> (MW transitive verb, definition 1) to ask questions of especially with a desire for authoritative information <A> The ELU question you link seems pretty comprehensive, so I'm not sure what else you'd like us to add. <S> I can mention that, in my experience (AmE), when asking someone (about something) rather than the naked inquire , the more common use is "to inquire of ": <S> The CEO inquired of the account manager <S> I will inquire of Amazon ... <S> On the other hand, "May I inquire why you need this information?" is perfectly fine. <S> Similarly if you say you are going to, "inquire of Amazon why your package is late," it can sound odd, since most people would just ask Amazon. <S> A friend might joke that it sounds like you are going to gather a subcommittee and launch a formal investigation. <S> Again, not wrong, and possibly perfectly reasonable in BrE. AmE tends to be less formal. <A> No. <S> Inquire is not used that way. <S> At least not anymore. <S> From Google's NGram Viewer , it appears that it used to be used that way. <S> However, it has fallen out of fashion and would definitely sound odd to a native speaker <A> Short answer: "Inquire", "inquire as to" and "inquire about" all have similar enough meanings to be used interchangeably. <S> Long answer: <S> But which one you use depends on the object. <S> See examples here . <S> Short answer: " <S> Inquire into" means something a little bit different, though. <S> Long answer: <S> See the example sentences for "inquire into" here .
| "Inquire into" is the action of inquiring about, inquiring as to, and inquiring. Keep in mind that while you can use "inquire" in many situations, sometimes it can sound overly formal (as in your example about the committee).
|
The female equivalent of "don't break my balls" We all know that someone who can never be quiet, who criticizes, moans and nags until your patience wears thin and snaps. Some men will intimidate the nagger by saying: Stop breaking my balls! I think this is a universal expression, it certainly exists in Italy and they have an even more explicit version. Although Wiktionary tells me about its meaning, it doesn't mention anything about gender. But I always feel silly when I use this vulgar expression myself. break someone's balls 1. (slang, vulgar) to seriously irritate or nag someone. 2. (slang, vulgar) to tease or ridicule someone; to take the piss out of someone On a small number of occasions, I have uttered, half-jokingly Don't break my uterus! However, on Google there was only one result Could the uterus version be used in the US, or in the UK? What would be a female equivalent? I would like an expression that cannot be appropriated by men, I want something that says: "I'm a woman, but don't mess around with me." <Q> I'm not sure there's a direct female equivalent, but there's a gender-neutral expression with a similar meaning and level of vulgarity: <S> Get off my ass! <S> That being said, I think it's much more common to hear a female speaker use the original "... breaking my balls," then for her to adapt it for female anatomy. <S> I know plenty of women who use the expression "suck my dick". <S> It takes a listener second or two to realize that "Don't break my uterus! <S> " is a play on the more common expression, which might detract from the impact. <S> In any case, slang is constantly evolving and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to coin your own phrase. <S> If you say "Don't break my uterus!" you'll probably be understood, and depending on your audience it might be appreciated as creative or as social commentary. <S> But you'll probably be the only person in the world saying it. <A> There are a lot of other options that don't refer to specific body parts, but I gather that you want something similarly <S> vulgar but referring to female anatomy. <S> It's not all that common, but if you said something like: <S> "Get off my tits!" <S> the meaning would be readily understood. <S> (Note: <S> the expression "off my tits" or "off her tits" can mean other things, like very drunk. <S> "Get off ..." is distinct enough that there shouldn't be any misunderstanding.) <S> That being said, in the appropriate situation, a woman using, "Stop breaking my balls!" <S> is both completely acceptable and pretty funny. <S> In the right context it can be the perfect comeback. <A> pretty regularly. <S> Also Don't get your panties in a bind! <S> from women as well as from men. <S> Probably not exactly what you're looking for but fun all the same. <S> You could also say Step off my clit ! <S> but that might be too vulgar for your taste. <S> The shock alone might make a few men stumble. <S> Source: I'm a mid 20s guy with pretty blunt friends. <A> Get off my case to stop criticizing and annoying someone <S> They think he was trying to cheat them, so they're not going to get off his case. <S> From thefreedictionary.com .
| I've heard Get off me!
|
Do I need "of" or not? "There are 2 words one of which I don't know the meaning." "There are 2 words one of which I don't know the meaning of ." Which one is correct and why? If one of them is at all correct. <Q> Only the first sentence is correct. <S> There are two words one of which I don't know the meaning. <S> The relative pronoun together with "of" heads the subordinate clause and sets the possessive relationship with antecedent, 'Words'. <S> "Of which" serves the function of " whose". <S> However, 'whose' cannot be used here because of the 'two' we like to highlight 'one' unknown. <S> There are two words one of which I don't know the meaning of. <S> If we are asked to split the sentence the last "of " is simply redundant. <S> I don't know the meaning of one of them. <S> Had we been a bit more idiotic <S> we have a chance to relegate "of" to the end point. <S> There are two words which I don't know the meaning of. <S> There are instances where in informal speech (even in literal use) we use relative pronoun and preposition separately and sometimes ellide the relative pronoun all together, but that's not the case here. <A> two words... the meaning of one of which ... <S> I do not know two words ... one of which... I do not know the meaning of . <S> There are two words. <S> I do not know the meaning <S> o f one of them. <S> P.S. <S> We can concatenate these attributive of-phrases. <S> the market price of <S> the catch of the day. <S> I do not know the market price of the catch of the day. <S> ... <S> the retail and wholesale prices of the catch of the day. <S> Two prices, one of which I do not know. <S> I know only the retail price. <A> You can use the following versions : 1) There are 2 words, one of which I don't know the meaning. <S> 2) There are 2 words. <S> One of that, I don't know the meaning. <S> Hope it helps :)
| Your first sentence is nearly correct because you have missed a "comma" before "one of which ".
|
What do you call this place where various goods are sold? What do you call the establishment where you buy things, like on the picture? Should I call it shop, store or market? I am in total confusion. I am asking for a generic term for a place where they sell things (maybe non-edible), not just a place where only food and drinks are sold. <Q> In American English, it would usually be called a convenience store. <S> A convenience store is a small retail business that stocks a range of everyday items such as groceries, snack foods, confectionery, soft drinks, tobacco products, over-the-counter drugs, toiletries, newspapers, and magazines. <A> Specifically, it looks like a "corner shop", so called because they are often sited on street corners in residential areas. <S> If you search for images of "corner shop" on Google you will get a lot more examples. <S> A "store" is the American English equivalent of "shop". <S> A "market" is a collection of independent stalls within a defined area. <S> In some cases this is within a large open indoor space, and in others it is out of doors. <S> Each stallholder rents a few square yards/meters from the owner of the space, and can then put up tables and awnings and display their goods. <S> The main distinction between "shop" and "stall" is that a shop is permanent whereas a stall is temporary. <S> Again, if you google for images of "market" you will get some good examples. <S> Note that "supermarket" is not the same as a "market". <S> A supermarket is just a very large shop offering a wide variety of goods. <S> It is not a "market" in the sense described above. <A> corner store, convenience store, if it also sold newspapers it would be a newsagent, if it sold hardware as well it would be a general store, if it sold booze it would an off licence - and if it was in Royston Vassey it would be a local shop for local people!
| In British English, this would be a shop; an establishment where goods are sold retail.
|
be killed in the war vs be killed by the war Please tell me the difference in nuance between the following two setences. A lot of people were killed in the war. A lot of people were killed by the war. <Q> For whatever reason people aren't usually killed by war. <S> They are killed (or wounded) in a war, often by enemy action. <S> I don't know why. <S> Possibly because war is the result of human action, and some human is ultimately responsible. <S> This as compared with accident or disease, for example: He was killed by typhoid while in a prisoner-of-war camp. <S> They were killed by flooding after the enemy bombed the dam. <S> Even though "the war" was indirectly responsible, for whatever reason we don't see war as the proximate cause . <S> As Mick points out, in some special cases you can say "he was killed by the war" to distinguish his death from happening in the war (as a result of battle). <S> But it's kind of a metaphorical use of the phrase, that implies war was directly responsible, when he was actually directly killed by something like grief or depression or malnutrition. <S> [Edit] <S> This holds true whether you are killed "by war" or "by the war". <S> The only difference is whether you are talking generally about "war" or about a specific, known war. <S> It's still an unusual expression, but again, certainly possible in the right context. <S> "How did she die?" <S> "She was killed by the war." <S> "You mean, she died in a battle?" <S> " <S> No, you see her husband was killed early on, and she just couldn't continue living without him. <S> So, in a way, the war killed her." <A> There is really nothing wrong with using by here. <S> It's really just a matter of emphasis. <S> which is shorthand for distancing the event and placing it in time, but the emphasis shifts suddenly when you say <S> He was killed by the war. <S> which suggests agency: the war is the cause of his death, and while it may not be the "proximate" cause it is undoubtedly the root <S> cause. <S> If there hadn't been a war there wouldn't have been a battle, say, where he took a bullet in the head. <S> This is entirely a literal statement. <S> To turn that into a metaphor the war would have to be at a conceptual remove. <S> Let's say someone drank himself to death after witnessing and participating in the horrors of war. <S> Then it would be a bona fide metaphorical usage to say: <S> A : It was his alcoholism that killed him, wasn't it? <S> B : <S> Actually, he was killed by the war. <S> He never drank before he went off to fight. <A> A lot of people were killed in the war. <S> A lot of people participated in the war and those people who participated were killed. <S> This would typically included combatants and those in contact with the combatants. <S> A lot of people were killed by the war. <S> This would more refer to people who weren't participating in the war, but maybe indirectly affected by it. <S> For example, if a battle blocked access to hospitals, and civilians died as a result of not being able to get there, those civilians could be said to be killed by the war. <S> In the war can also refer to within the timeframe the war was happening so it's not incorrect to say civiliians were killed in the war as well. <S> One may want to say a soldier was killed by the war in order to give the impression the soldier didn't necessarily want to be in the war, but had to go anyway, e.g. conscription. <A> To slightly mangle an NRA slogan, "wars don't kill people; people kill people." <S> A war may be reasonably defined as an event where two (or more) groups of people threaten (and often, with more or less success, try) to kill each other, unless the other group of people does what they want (which, on one side, may simply be "stop trying to kill us, damnit!"). <S> As such, people often do get killed in wars. <S> However, saying that someone was killed by the war is getting the cause and the effect backwards. <S> In a way, saying "he was killed by the war" is wrong for much the same reason as saying "the snow fell by <S> a blizzard" would be — it's not the blizzard that makes the snow fall, it's the snow falling that makes it a blizzard.
| We customarily say He was killed in the war. The fact that there was a war did not cause people to die (unless they got so depressed by the war that they drank themselves to death, as in Robusto's answer , or something like that); rather, the fact that people were killed is what made the situation into a war, as opposed to just a diplomatic conflict.
|
What's the correct term to describe baby food? I thought it could be described as grind food . But a native speaker told me it's ground food. However, what Google shows me is quite different . What's the correct term? <Q> Mush (or the adjective mushy ) is usually the first word that comes to my mind when I think of any baby food. <S> It's a slightly derogatory word that an older child or adult might say if he or she were served with some creamy but tasteless mass of food. <S> mush any thick, soft mass. <S> If the OP wants the correct descriptive term for baby food, there is only one choice. <S> It is purée or pureed , <S> it is the standard, and positive term that especially describes homemade baby food . <S> Puree (or spelled purée) is a French loanword that has been used in English for over three hundred years, long before the invention of the electric blender. <S> purée (noun) 1 . <S> a cooked food, especially a vegetable or fruit, that has been put through a sieve, blender, or the like. <S> verb (used with object), puréed , puréeing . <S> McGrady pureed organic fruits and veggies for William and Harry <S> Comparing pureed fruit (blue line), mashed fruit (red), sieved fruit (green), and ground fruit (yellow) <S> Ngram produces the following results. <A> "to Puree" is the technical term which describes the process of making a substance like baby food. <S> "Baby food is a Puree" is a true statement <S> no matter how you look at it, is not derogatory and is well know and widely used. <S> I wouldn't recommend using the word "pap" as I am a native speaker who has a girlfriend with kids <S> and I have never heard it. <S> Also if you were to google it, you might understand how it could be an embarrassing word to be misunderstood using while using it. <A> No, it's not mush (which applies to many things that are not baby food), and although it is definitely puréed or mashed , so are many other foods. <S> If you're looking for a word to describe it, that word is pap <S> n <S> 1. <S> Soft or semiliquid food, as for infants. <S> TFDO <A> However, if you want a word with a Germanic root, rather than a loan-word, then you could use mashed : <S> Baby food is normally mashed. <S> Older recipe books (printed before the advent of food processors) would probably use mashed instead of puréed , and the term mashed is still used in traditional British cooking. <S> For example: mashed potatoes , bangers and mash . <S> mash verb [WITH OBJECT] <S> Reduce (a food or other substance) to a pulpy mass by crushing it: ‘mash the beans to a paste’ ‘mashed banana’ Oxford Dictionaries
| As Mari-Lou has said, puréed is probably the best term, and the one most often used today: Baby food is normally puréed.
|
Do they have the same meaning? There was the book that he looked all over for. There was the book that he searched. Do they have the same meaning? <Q> No. <S> For most English speakers, the second sentence means that the book is the location where the person looked for something, but not the object the person wanted to find. <S> For example, "I searched the Internet" means I used the Internet to find something. <S> "I searched the Internet for an answer. <S> ""I searched the Internet <S> but I didn't find an answer. <S> " <S> "I searched the room for my keys, but I didn't search my car. <S> ""I didn't know if 'X' was a word, so I searched the dictionary. <S> ""The <S> police searched everywhere, but the killer was never found. <S> "Etc. <A> Both expressions are fine, although the second is missing a preposition at the end: <S> There was the book that he searched for . <S> A more natural expression would be to use the past perfect progressive tense to suggest he had been looking and looking for the book, and then he found it: <S> There was the book that he had been looking all over for. <S> There was the book that he had been searching for. <S> Of course you may also use the past perfect tense: <S> There was the book that he had looked for. <S> But, given this is one of the few situations where the past perfect progressive makes sense, you might as well take advantage. <S> "Look all over" implies a lot of activity, running around, checking everywhere, while "search" means just that, to look for something. <S> However, native speakers often exaggerate the degree of a search by using "look all over" even when they didn't really search hard at all. <S> For example, I can say to a friend: <S> Oh hey I've been looking all over for my glasses, where did you find them? <S> Even though all I did was check my pockets and look under some magazines. <S> It implies that I really tried to find them. <S> My friend might reply: They were on the table where you left them when you came in. <S> as a kind of rebuke, implying that I must not really have searched very hard for them. <A> Andrew's answer is correct that the second sentence would have the intended meaning if it used phrasal verb "searched for". <S> 2b. <S> There was the book that he searched for. <S> The second sentence would have the intended meaning if it used the irregular form "sought": 2c. <S> There was the book that he sought.
| Chris' answer is correct that the regular verb "searched" (without "for") means that "he searched" in the book.
|
"Just to clarify" vs "just For clarify" vs "just for clarification" I'd like to know what of the following phrases is appropriate in this scenario:I meet someone that talks to me about programming languages (computers) and based on that I think that he assume that I'm a programmer too. Then I have to choose one between the following: Just to clarify , I'm not a programmer. just for clarify , I'm not a programmer. just for clarification , I'm not a programmer. Which one is correct, if any? <Q> Point 2 is incorrect and never used in conversation. <S> However what is often said is "just for clarity ...", which is correct. <S> Point 3 is correct and sometimes used in conversation although not as common as point 1, or the phrasing "just for clarity". <A> Of your sentences Just to clarify , I'm not a programmer. <S> Just for clarification , I'm not a programmer. <S> are correct and appropriate. <S> In a legal situation, you might say To remove any doubt , I am not a programmer. <S> these all sound very formal. <S> However, If you want to be less formal and more light hearted, you could say You know , I'm not really a programmer. <S> Sorry, <S> but I'm not a programmer. <A> clarify is a verb. <S> In a context like this, you need to put an infinitive-marker to in front of it. <S> clarification is a noun. <S> You link extra nouns to a sentence with a preposition, for example for . <S> correct: you have to + verb. <S> incorrect: you have for _ verb. <S> orrect: you have for + noun.
| Point 1 is correct and is often used in regular conversation. If it is a very serious matter or very formal, you might also say Just to be clear , I'm not a programmer.
|
I'm living in a sharing apartment Currently I'm living in an apartment with some roommates. In this case how can I say when I'm asked about my room? I'm living in a sharing apartment. I'm sharing an apartment. Which one is better? Or is there more naturally expression for it? <Q> In the US you would say something like one of the following: <S> I'm sharing an apartment <S> I'm living with roommates. <S> I'm sharing an apartment with three roommates. <S> I have roommates. <S> I have three roommates. <S> I'm renting an apartment with my roommates <S> I'm renting an apartment with three other people. <S> I don't normally hear the expression "shared-apartment" -- but it's been a while <S> since I've been in that situation so it might be more common now. <S> Either way, it would be understood. <S> There might also be different expressions between places like New York City or San Francisco. <A> You can usually make two kinds of participle from a verb: active and passive . <S> In English, these functions are performed by the present participle -ing and the past participle -ed . <S> Here are two examples: sharing - active - what somebody is doing shared - passive - what is being done to something. <S> If the participle describes what you are doing, you use an active participle: <S> I am sharing an apartment <S> If the participle describes the apartment, you use a passive participle: <A> To say you are living with other people at the same location <S> I'm sharing an apartment/ <S> flat (with roommates) . <S> (Are/BrE) <S> I'm living in a shared apartment/flat. <S> (AmE/BrE) <S> I'm living in <S> shared accommodations. <S> (BrE) <S> I'm in a flat/apartment with some other people. <S> (BrE/AmE) apartment (AmE) = flat (BrE) <S> I'm living in a sharing apartment. <S> is not really said. <S> If you are staying at a friend's temporarily, you might say I'm sleeping on a friend's couch (until I can find my own place) .
| I am living in a shared apartment.
|
Have I had known about the lack of security Is it correct to say "have I had known"?Thank you all. <Q> The correct form is, "Had I known (about the lack of security), ...". <S> It requires the same tense as the if clause "If I had known (about the lack of security), ..." <S> This type of conditional structure is known as the third conditional or conditional III . <S> It is used to refer to a hypothetical situation that could have occurred in the past. <A> Had I had known (about it, I would not have done that) . <S> Had I known, (I would not have done that) . <S> If I had known (what would happen, I would not have done that) . <S> to show regret for something which might have been avoided. <A> No, your sentence is not correct. <S> The pattern in question here is: had I done something, something else <S> would or would not have happened. <S> This pattern is cast in stone and cannot be changed or manipulated in any way. <S> We use it to talk about situations that are not real and only exist in our imagination. <S> Oftentimes, this structure is employed when we want to talk about things we wish we had done in the past, but unfortunately the ship has sailed and there is nothing we can do about it now. <S> Example #1 (wish): <S> Had <S> I had a million dollars, I would have bought the best car in the world! <S> Example #2 (regret): <S> Had <S> I studied harder <S> , I would have passed the exam! <S> Example #3 (regret): <S> Had <S> I known <S> that earlier, I would not have made this stupid mistake!
| Your sentence is incorrect, it should be stated as
|
Do we lie ON the bed or IN the bed? When people take a rest in/on the bed, do they lie ON or IN the bed? (In my native language both are optional) <Q> If you get under the sheets, then you are in bed, and you can lie in bed, stay in bed, read in bed, sleep in bed, and do all those other lovely things "in bed" as you please. <A> on a bed on top of the bed and its bedding. <S> in a bed in bed <S> (source: mirror.co.uk ) surrounded but the bed and its bedding. <A> To lie on the bed. <S> To lie in bed. <S> To lie in the bed. <S> All the phrases are grammatical, with a difference in meaning. <S> You use the phrase "on the bed" when somebody is not covered with sheets or blankets. <S> For example: He lay on the bed (= <S> on top of the covers). <S> You use the phrase "in bed" when somebody is covered with sheets or blankets. <S> For example: He lay in bed (=under covers). <S> You use the phrase "in the bed" when you are referring to a particular bed. <S> For example: There was no one in the bed (Longman Dictionary).
| If you lie on top of the sheets, duvet, etc, then you are on the bed.
|
Is this sentence correct? "I'm working in a way that is unrelated to weekend and holidays." Mainly I'm working in my home with my laptop, so I take day-off when I need it. When I want to explain this, I say I'm working in a way that is unrelated to weekend and holidays. But I feel there is a more easy-to-understand expression. How would you say if you were me? <Q> I'm not a native speaker but I googled and found the word flextime . <S> Judging by the Wikipedia article , you can say I work flexible hours. <S> or I have a flexible working schedule. <S> If you want to somehow use the words "weekends" and "holidays" in the sentence, you might say I have no fixed weekends and holidays, and my working schedule is flexible. <S> It is me who decides when to have a weekend or a holiday. <S> If you just say I have no fixed weekends and holidays. <S> ... <S> the listener might misinterpret that as "I have a very demanding job, and cannot be sure that I'll be off-work on a particular weekend or holiday". <S> If you have no boss, that is, if you are self-employed, you might say just that to explain why you have no rigid work schedule: <S> I am self-employed, thus my working schedule is free and has no fixed weekends or holidays. <S> I'm a freelancer, thus the terms "weekends" and "holidays" do not apply to my work routine. <S> I work when I need to, and I take rest when I feel like it. <A> The sentence above is not grammatically incorrect although I agree it is not well constructed. <S> If I were writing in a fairly formal tone I’d probably write something along the lines of any of the following sentences: <S> “I work no set hours and I am therefore able to schedule my days off without regard to weekends or weekdays.” <S> “As I set my own work schedule, I am able to work or take days off without regard to a standard Monday to Friday working week.” <S> “The days on which I work are flexible and completely independent of whether it is a weekend or a weekday.” <S> * If I were writing to a friend or in a less formal way <S> I’d simply say: “I work or take a day off as it suits me, regardless of whether it’s a weekday or a weekend.” <A> If your work schedule can change, and is determined by your employer (like most jobs): <S> I have a floating schedule <S> If your schedule can change, and is determined by you : I have a flexible schedule <S> I work flexible hours
| “Weekends and weekdays have no impact on my work schedule as I am able to either work or take a day off at my own discretion.” If your schedule never changes: I have a set schedule
|
Meaning of a stanza of Stevie Wonder's song I've listened to the song " They Won't Go When I Go " of Stevie Wonder and I'm not sure that I understood the first stanza . I'd like to ensure that I understood it properly. Then this is the original stanza: No more lying friends Wanting tragic ends Though they do pretend They won't go when I go And this is my interpretation for this: No more lying friends = there is no more friends who are liars. Wanting tragic ends = these liars want tragic ends (because the lie) Though they do pretend They won't go when I go <Q> First of all, note this song is a gospel song, written as a kind of dirge . <S> So there is a religious context, and it's somewhat mournful , as if it is about death and dying. <S> The rest of the lyrics list various kinds of sinners -- friends who lie, who seek drama (or possibly divine retribution), who "mislead the pure", who "sin just for fun", and so on. <S> Wonder says "they won't go when I go" -- possibly meaning they won't go to Heaven. <S> But in that case it ought to be <S> "They won't go where I go", so your guess is as good as mine. <S> Although, in the final stanza, you have "The kingdom I will see". <S> "Kingdom" pretty much means "Heaven". <S> Anyway all of that is important to judging what Wonder means by the second of the two lines you quote. <S> The first is pretty obvious, but the second "wanting tragic ends" could mean "people consciously or unconsciously seeking death" or it could refer to judgmental people who want tragic death for other people. <S> Or it could just mean people who want things that will lead to general tragedy. <S> I don't think it much matters to the overall theme of the song, which again, seems to me a gospel tune about how the righteous will go to Heaven. <A> This interpretation, to me, fits with the overall theme of death and the beauty, tragedy and sorrow, which is so masterfully captured in this beautiful song. <S> I can't help but feel sorrow and at the same time overwhelming joy when I listen to the George Michael version. <A> My interpretation of the entire masterfully written song, particularly within the the first stanza, is a judgment against certain people in our lives or society—“who pretend to be friends” yet secretly wish for tragic outcomes <S> — i.e. they don’t really want to see you succeed in life but otherwise lie about their intentions. <S> Basically, a Devine way to describe haters... <A> I interpret it as :The friends are lying about wanting a tragic end, and though they are good at pretending that's what they want, they will live longer than Stevie Wonder.
| My interpretation of the first stanza is of friends who are lying to the dying person at the centre of the song, who suspects they are actually wanting to witness a tragic end, but are pretending that this is not the case.
|
Divisible by a prime number 2, or by the prime number 2 I want to state that "the integer 4 is divisible by a/the prime number 2." Which is correct a or the? Since 2 is a specific number, so "the" may be ok. But if I want to use "a prime number" as adjective, maybe "a" is ok. Also I would like to know whether "by prime 2" is correct or not. Please give me some advice. <Q> The way we would usually say it is <S> It is divisible by the prime number 2. <S> You use the definite article because it's a specific, known prime number. <S> "Prime" is the adjective modifying "number 2", the noun. <S> Means it is divisible by some unspecified prime number (or numbers). <S> "Prime 2" is not normally used (although it could be the name of a character in a science fiction movie). <A> The correct form is: <S> The integer 4 is divisible by the prime number 2. <S> This is because there is only one prime number with the value 2. <S> You can also say The integer 4 is divisible by a prime number. <S> This statement indicates that 4 is a multiple of a prime number without saying which one. <A> Because you are specifically mentioning the number " 2 <S> " it is Divisible by the prime number 2 . <S> divisible by the number 2
| It is divisible by a prime number.
|
There used to be, what is its interrogative form? I have had this question since I learned about there to be (which was a long time ago), and I know there used to be means something that used to exist, i.e, it no longer exists, for instance: There used to be a house across my apartment = One house used to exist, but no longer does, it's something that existed in the past, but not anymore. So, based on the facts that were mentioned, every there to be has a negative form and interrogative, therefore, what's there used to be 's ? My question has been identified as a possible duplicate of another one , but the one suggered isn't the same as mine, I'm talking about the verb there to be , the other question is about the verb "used to", both questions are different from each other. <Q> "Did there used to be (a house)? <S> " <S> is grammatically convoluted, but I think acceptable. <S> "Was there a house" tends to be simpler and more direct, but doesn't convey quite the same meaning. <S> Negative form: <S> Did there not use(d) to be ..? <S> is again, grammatical, but most people just say, "Wasn't there a house?" Just to check I went to Google and started typing, with these as my top three auto-complete suggestions: <S> Did there used to be life on Mars? <S> Did there used to be giants? <S> Did there used to be 51 states? <S> ( Note: <S> I corrected this based on this ELU article . <S> Apparently the negative form is "use to" not "used to".) <S> ( 2nd Note : <S> There is some conflict over what is "correct". <S> Lacking provenance or credentials, I'm going to let others figure it out.) <A> 1) There used to be a house here. <S> [simple past, in fact]. <S> 2) <S> They used to drive to school. <S> [simple past, in fact] <S> Therefore, the interrogative and negative follow the rules using DID + infinitive . <S> Past: <S> Did there use to be a house here ? <S> Negative: <S> There didn't use to be a house here . <S> Did they use to drive to school?They didn't use to drive to school. <S> http://beta.yt4school.jwrm.uk/watch.php?v=EvjdYDhyfv4 <S> And here is the British Council: <S> https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/quick-grammar/used-infinitive-and-beget-used <S> But the same is true in American English and Canadian English. <S> And this is not googleable or ngrammable. <S> It does not matter that /used to/ + verb is a defective form. <S> It still follows the regular English rule re negative and interrogative which is: <S> did + notional form of the verb. <A> You have to make use of the English language's reliance on do support to make the negative and interrogative forms of there used to be . <S> Negative form: <S> . . <S> Interrogative form: <S> Did there used to be . <S> . . ? <S> Note that the negative interrogative has the same meaning as the positive interrogative form: <S> Didn't there used to be . <S> . . ? <S> Here the questioner is asking if there was something at one time, but adds the nuance that the questioner suspects that the thing asked about really did exist as imagined.
| There didn't used to be .
|
What word to use here? To check the time/clock after short intervals of minutes /seconds? How to say it that when you look at the clock repeatedly as if you're waiting for something to happen quickly ? <Q> To look forward to (something/doing something) <S> is an idiomatic expression that can be used when you wish something to happen as soon as possible. <S> to feel pleased and excited about something that is going to happen: I'm really looking forward to my holiday. <S> [ + -ing verb ] <S> She was looking forward to seeing the grandchildren again. <S> I'm not looking forward to Christmas this year. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> Anxious - wishful, agitated, unquiet. <S> We were looking forward for the summer to begin. <S> We can't wait for the winter to begin. <S> I can't wait to play soccer. <S> When you are very anxious for something to happen, that you can't wait for it, and become very anxious, wishful. <A> Prodigy's answer correctly identifies the person as "anxious". <S> There are many things that could make a person anxious, including time delays. <S> This is more specific. <S> In addition to that, US English has two idioms ("watching the clock" and "counting the seconds") to refer to people who are anxious for time to pass. <S> E.g.: "Jim is eager to leave the office today. <S> He has been watching the clock all afternoon."
| You could also use "impatient", as it refers to someone who is upset by the need to wait.
|
What's the English word for something that given attention too much to What's the word to describe something like this : Adam : Tony's car is awesome, everybody is talking about it. Now say, I'm jealous to his car (presumably). I : Nah, his car is just ...? I know that the options for the word may depend on some situations, but for the specific situation for given example above how should I express it? The world itself would be formal. <Q> One word commonly used in this situation is overrated . <S> The verb form, overrate , means "to rate, value, or estimate too highly". <S> ( Merriam-Webster .) <S> The critics loved that movie, but I think it's seriously overrated. <S> On the other hand, overrated doesn't necessarily imply a large amount of attention. <S> A movie can be overrated by the critics even if only three critics saw it. <A> <A> One more variant: overhyped overhype to advertise or praise something more than it deserves in newspapers, on television, online, etc., in order to make people excited about it and want to buy, try it, invest in it, etc. <S> ( Cambridge Dictionary ) <S> Make exaggerated claims about (a product, idea, or event); publicize or promote excessively. <S> ( Oxford Dictionaries ) <A> Maybe not the best option to be directly applied to your intended phrase, but "ostentatious" may help if that's what you intend to imply. <S> His car is just ostentatious.
| The word that adds that sense of a lot of attention that is not necessarily implied by "overrated" is "overblown".
|
.. the present I made for you LAST DAY Are the following sentences grammatical?: I went to the cimema last day. I finished my reading my book last hour. The thing that is worrying me is the use of the phrases last hour and last day . Is this grammatical English? <Q> Last day is not idiomatic. <S> Use 'yesterday' <S> instead. <S> I hope he gave you the present I made for you yesterday. <S> ' <S> Last hour' as you've written it can be used in a few special situations (like a news broadcast), but it's not an everyday expression. <S> Normally we'd use the last hour, along with an appropriate preposition. <S> I hope you looked after my son while I was gone for the last hour. <S> I was at the doctor's office for the last 4 hours, so <S> I haven't seen the news. <S> After the last hour of studying, my brain is fried. <A> If the time expressions "last day" and "last hour" form a prepositional phrase they become idiomatic and ‘grammatical’. <S> I went to the cinema on the last day [of my vacation] <S> I finished <S> my reading my book within / at the last hour <S> And in the title ... <S> I hope he gave you the present I made <S> last day night for you. <S> Weirdly, we can say last night and the sentence is perfectly grammatical, but we can't send someone a gift we made last day , this day or next day . <S> The expression last night refers to the previous evening. <S> When we want to refer to the previous day i.e. the OP's ‘Last day’, in English we call it yesterday , ‘this day’ is called today while ‘next day’ is called tomorrow . <S> However, ‘day’ is used in prepositional phrases, or with a determiner because it is a noun , while ‘last’ and ‘next’ are adjectives. <S> * <S> I made him a present on the last day of our honeymoon <S> * <S> The next day <S> I bought a one-way ticket to Hong Kong. <S> How kind of you to be with me on this day. <S> ( ‘this’ is a determiner) <S> On the last day of Christmas, my friend sent to me a cosy plaid*. <A> It's possible <S> someone might use it in a sentence ... <S> but if you want to say "the previous day" there is the perfectly good word "yesterday" which works. <S> It is possible to say various phrases with (or related to) "last day", however: <S> This is the last day to purchase your special one-time-only upgrade! <S> I went to school on the last day of class, but all of the other students played hooky . <S> The last few days have been really difficult for me. <S> What's with all the famous people dying?
| "Last day" by itself is not really grammatical or idiomatic.
|
What's the common noun for "dareness"? I think dareness is not the word, since it doesn't appear in Thesaurus . What the common noun? Example sentence: The woman suddenly kissed the man. That put him into a __-induced stupor. <Q> <A> Something is daring if it's boldly assertive in nature. <S> A person can be daring, and a person's actions can be described as daring, but you can't say "X is affected by something being boldly assertive" with anything derived from dare . <S> By might save the day here, and while stupor induced by daring will not work (because it's not clear <S> whose daring), stupor induced by her daring would. <S> It will sound rather "deadpan" unless you can put an adjective in front of stupor : <S> The woman suddenly kissed the man. <S> That put him into a swooning stupor induced by her daring. <S> This would sound better: <S> The woman suddenly kissed the man, him then being induced to stupor by her daring. <A> It's not really clear if you intent the woman's kiss to make the man stronger (daring) or weaker (stupor)? <S> But, the word you may be looking for is embolden <S> The woman's sudden kiss emboldened him to kiss her back. <S> Unless you do really mean stupor <S> in which case The woman's sudden kiss caused him to melt and become weak-kneeded .
| Daringness (or just daring) would be the noun forms you're looking for, but you might try "boldness" instead.
|
A stronger verb than "to alleviate" How to say if something finishes a pain completely not to some extent that the words " to alleviate" or "to mitigate " imply? The only thing you can do to ......... my pain is to tell me the truth. <Q> The medical word you are looking for is eliminate <S> However, in your example the appropriate word is The only thing you can do to end <S> my pain is to tell me the truth. <S> since "end" and "pain" tends to be a collocated for an emotional pain end the pain of a broken heart <A> For the particular example given, a simpler word seems to fit better than a more medical or formal term. <S> In this context, I would therefore suggest stop or end : <S> The only thing you can do to stop <S> my pain is to tell me the truth. <S> Or The only thing you can do to end <S> my pain is to tell me the truth. <A> "Eliminate". <S> "Eradicate" is too strong. <S> "Heal" is appropriate in this context, but involves a different kind of pain during the healing. <A> The question states that the pain finishes completely, and not to some extent, so why not use "completely" in the sentence? <S> "Completely relieve" seems to fit what you are trying to convey. <A> In this context (intense emotional pain), I think "Ease" would do nicely: ...to ease my pain...
| "Make my pain go away" is not quite as strong as "eliminate".
|
What is the negative form of the verb after can? As a non-native English learner, it came across my mind that I don't know a way to put the verb that's after can in negative form. For instance, I can say: "I am capable of not doing this thing" But I can't do the same if I wanted to use can instead of capable of so what am I missing? <Q> If you want sense (1), that's straightforward -- you can simply contract, since "I can't do this thing" has only sense (1). <S> It's a problem to get the other sense, unambiguously. <S> You might try a long pause between "can" and "not", or special stress, but I find that these attempts wind up still ambiguous. <S> So I don't think there is a way to do what you want, short of a complete rephrasing: "I can leave this undone," for instance. <A> It is possible, as some people have said, to use "can" and have the meaning be clear. <S> An example where context is enough: I can go to university, or I can not go to university. <S> Those are my options. <S> Here "not go to university" is clearly a unit since it's contrasted with "go to university". <S> But that structure could be extrapolated to a case with two different verbs, albeit with a little more ambiguity: <S> I can slog through university, or I can not have the career I want. <S> Those are my options. <S> An example where emphasis/intonation is (almost) enough: I'm not worried about the bungee thing. <S> If I get scared, I can always not jump. <S> Also, in spoken conversation, one almost always uses "can't" for "to <S> not be able to", which means that when you hear "can" and a separate, emphasized "not", it probably means "to be able not to". <S> It's also worth noting that the spelling is technically enough, because "cannot" is the normal spelling for "to not be able to", whereas "can not" is the normal spelling for "to be able not to". <S> But this is such a common source of errors, even among native speakers, that I wouldn't rely on it. <S> Finally, if you really want to clear up ambiguity, a very helpful verb is "choose". <S> I can go to university, or I can choose not to go. <S> If I get scared, I can choose not to jump. <S> If it's not directly up to choice, you could say "avoid" plus the gerund: <S> I can avoid doing this thing. <S> By the way, in colloquial speech of the current generation (25 and under), here's a common pattern of sarcastic conversation. <S> It relies on context and emphasis for "can not" to be understood. <S> — "Just to let you know, I'm going to sing the Batman theme a capella for the next hour." <S> — "Can you please not?" <S> i.e., "Please choose not to." <S> Someone is smoking in the hall of an apartment building. <S> Another resident walks by and is put off by the smell. <S> She says without preamble: — "Oh my God, could you not?" <A> If the intent of the original sentence is to convey the inability to do a thing, then it would be easier to say, "I am incapable of doing this thing," or "I cannot do this thing," or "I can't do this thing." <S> As the sentence is written ("I am capable of not doing this thing"), you are conveying that you could resist temptation and avoid doing the thing, which is awkward at best. <A> One way of achieving your objective is by using a verb, or verb+adjective, that denotes "not" doing something. <S> So, if you want to say: I can "not speak", instead say"I can remain quiet" Or, if you wanted to say: I am capable of "not getting angry", instead say "I can restrain myself" I am writing this under the assumption that you insist on using the introductory phrase "I can .... " or "I am capable of" If this is not necessary then there are much better options. <A> At least one of my linguistics professors taught that "cannot" and "can not" are not the same, with "cannot" meaning "not able to" and "can not" meaning "able not to" -- but this distinction is probably generally lost if it even ever existed. <S> Although a non-native speaker asked the question, I think enough confusion exists among native speakers about matters of usage like this to post answers here.
| "I can not do this thing" is ambiguous between the two senses (1) "am not able to do this thing" and (2) "am able to not do this thing". I can choose not to do this thing.
|
"Every Sunday, he has lunch in restaurant" or "...a restaurant"? A. Every Sunday, he has lunch in restaurant. B. Every Sunday, he has lunch in a restaurant. Which of above sentences is correct? I want to tell the habit, not to specify any restaurant. <Q> I understand your confusion: You want to say he does this every week, but not necessarily at any specific restaurant. <S> It's just a habitual practice. <S> Even in this case, some determiner is necessary, and "a" works well because it is indefinite -- it could mean the same restaurant week after week, although it strongly implies that he eats at different restaurants. <S> Other examples: <S> Every morning on her walk through her neighborhood, she picks up a newspaper from a shop . <S> I like to stop by a coffee shop on my way to work. <S> Every year at Christmas he steps into a pub to toast the Queen's health. <S> If you want to be more definite about where he eats, you would use "the" to specify a restaurant. <S> Every Sunday he has lunch at the restaurant on the corner. <S> Every Sunday he has lunch at the ELL Cafe. <S> On the other hand, if you want to be clear he does different restaurants each week, use "some". <S> Every Sunday he has lunch at some restaurant. <S> Or, if you want to imply he doesn't care which and just picks a restaurant each time, use "any": <S> Every Sunday he has lunch at any restaurant. <A> Use "a": <S> Every Sunday he has lunch in a restaurant. <S> They mean basically the same, and both are common. <S> The one potential difference is that "in a restaurant" would technically exclude eating the restaurant's food at their outside patio. <A> “Every Sunday, he has lunch in restaurant” or “…a restaurant”? <S> Which of above sentences is correct? <S> Only the latter. <S> The reason is that the word restaurant is a singular countable noun, and, we must use some type of determiners for it. <S> Of course there are exceptions as well. <S> We have generally (to me) <S> 4 kinds of determiners which one of them is the articles. <S> Here we have some choices but the indefinite article is to be used here (since you haven't supply any further context). <A> In your example, the correct sentence(s) is(are): <S> “Every Sunday, he has lunch in a restaurant.” <S> CORRECT <S> OR <S> “Every Sunday, he has lunch at a restaurant.” <S> CORRECT <S> BUT YOU SHOULD ALSO NOTE: <S> It is worth mentioning that if the speaker was talking about a specific restaurant, it would be correct to use ".... <S> in {restaurant 1}" or ".... <S> at {restaurant 2}." <S> This is the case, even if they are countable, such as with brand named chain restaurants. <S> In these specific cases you may use either example correctly. <S> The brand or chain is treated as one specific, non-countable location [noun] (even though there are actually many restaurants, there is just one brand). <S> FOR EXAMPLE: <S> “Every Sunday, he has lunch in McDonald's.” <S> CORRECT <S> “Every Sunday, he has lunch in a McDonald's.” <S> CORRECT <S> “Every Sunday, he has lunch at McDonald's.” <S> CORRECT <S> “Every Sunday, he has lunch at a McDonald's.” <S> CORRECT <S> OR <S> "Each week, he works at Walmart full-time." <S> CORRECT <S> "Each week, he works at a Walmart full-time." <S> CORRECT <S> I know this may seem a bit confusing and contradictory, <S> but hey, welcome to the English language! <S> It is always contradicting its own rules and has many exceptions to them. <S> Which is why I thought I would mention this specific "exception to the rule" while you were learning "the rule" [to place "a" before countable nouns] itself. <S> Good luck with your studies. <S> Cheers!
| Native speakers will often say "at a restaurant" rather then "in a restaurant".
|
Does "live one more year" make any sense? "Congratulations for living one more year."Does this sound weird? <Q> There are several nuances of expression one might infer from a statement like Congratulations for living one more year <S> Sincere congratulations of a trivial kind (from someone who has no great investment in the social graces) <S> Sincere congratulations of a serious kind (to a person who has been gravely ill, from a person who is not skillful with words) <S> Sarcasm (from someone who is being deliberately boorish, and wants to express that the target has achieved the bare minimum out of life) Good-natured humor (from someone who uses sarcasm in a friendly, joking way) Well-meaning language blunder (from a non-native speaker of English) <S> You would do better to find a more adroit expression of congratulation, if in fact sincere congratulation is your goal. <A> If you tell someone Congratulations for living one more year. <S> the implication is that you may not have expected them to do so. <S> Under certain circumstances it may be appropriate e.g. if the person was very ill or had a major accident, but usually it's not said. <S> I did once say to a friend on their 21st birthday <S> Congratulations on surviving your parents for 21 years! <S> it was a good friend and said as a joke. <A> Yes, it makes pretty sense. <S> For example, one of my roommates wanted to abandon us last year, but my friends and I insisted on not letting him go. <S> We would probably tell him, "Congratulations for living one more year with us". <S> For this has to be said that it does depend on the cotext in which a speaker/writer is endeavoring to convey the intended meaning.
| In short, this phrase sounds rather odd.
|
Feeling of closeness with something you adore/love so much How do I say that I find a person or place so good or you love it so much that you think it gives you feeling of closeness to it? Or what? E.g I like my friend's mother so much, it's like motherly vibes come out of her. OrI like a place so much, it gives me homely/comfy feeling, seems like a second home to me.What is this feeling called? <Q> There is no unique term, e.g. from psychology, for feelings like that. <S> There are a few for feelings of unification with the world or entire universe and all creatures in it, but not for deep feelings of closeness and identification with one person or one place. <S> The best you can do is describe the feeling. <S> Use relationship and/or <S> emotional terms <S> : "She's like a sister to me". <S> "My friend's mum is so nice that I feel (like / as though) <S> she's my mother too" <S> "I love Minneapolis. <S> It's as though I've lived here all my life" <A> intimacy : a state marked by emotional closeness <S> (the intimacy of old friends) a quality suggesting closeness or warmth (the cafe's intimacy) <S> something that is very personal or private <S> (They shared little intimacies in their letters.) <S> However, intimacy (the state of being intimate) is most often used these days to describe physical intimacy, which comes from having a sexual relationship, and one must be careful when using the word to describe a platonic relationship that the listener does not interpret your sentence in this fashion. <S> telling your friend, for example, that you have an intimate relationship with his mother, without further clarification, may not end well. <S> Is you wish to err on the side of caution , (and most people do) <S> , another term might be a safer bet, such as affinity . <S> affinity : a feeling of closeness and understanding that someone has for another person because of their similar qualities, ideas, or interests <S> Or, as other comments have suggested, you can simply describe the connection witht is person or place as closeness , or being close . <A> I have frequently heard the word "nostalgic" being used for some of feelings you describe. <S> However, the dictionary definitions seem to omit the all the 'sweetness' of the feeling. <S> Nostalgia - (noun)1. <S> a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time. <S> nostalgic - (adjective)1. experiencing or exhibiting nostalgia, a sentimental or wistful yearning for the happiness felt in a former place, time, or situation.
| There is a single word to describe such a feeling, and that word is intimacy , and this can be used in reference to a person, or a location.
|
I 'had' better get going (Why 'had'??) I specifically want to know why the past tense of the word 'have' is used in this phrase. In modern casual English(at least in the US), everyone says ' I should better get going' or they completely omit the word 'had' and say (and even write) 'I better get going'. I've read all posts on the internet regarding this phrase and not one single person questioned the word 'had' in this construction. Cambridge says this but refrains from explaining the origin of the word 'had' in this phrase: We use had better to refer to the present or the future, to talk about actions we think people should do or which are desirable in a specific situation. The verb form is always had, not have. We normally shorten it to ’d better in informal situations. It is followed by the infinitive without to: Could someone please shed light on this? <Q> Had better in [ had better + bare infinitive] can be seen as a two-word item that functions as a modal verb, meaning essentially should or ought to. <S> (At least in terms of traditional grammar; modern grammars likely better classify and/or describe this.) <S> What seem like past forms (preterites) in modals do not necessarily confer a past meaning on the infinitives they modify. <S> An example of this is Could you help me? <S> Although could can be used as the past tense of can, it does not indicate any sense of the past in this example. <S> A deep explanation as to <S> why this is so relies on understanding the evolution of English at a fairly sophisticated level, which is beyond my knowledge. <S> Should better is not normally used in Standard English, or if it occurs, is probably uttered by some speakers informally and may have arisen as a sort of fusion of <S> should and [had] better. <S> The following Wikipedia article, in somewhat fragmented form, addresses some of these issues, and includes a subsection specifically on had better and ought to. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs <A> This said, although had is the past form of have , we use had better to give advice about the present or future. <A> "I better get going", "I had better get going" The phrase is commonly used when the speaker wishes to imply that they would rather stay or continue a conversation, but are unable to due to other pressures. <S> "Sorry <S> , I had better get going if I am going to catch my <S> train". <S> "I better get going or my boss will yell at me".
| Had better is an idiom and consequently it should be treated as such, that is, a fixed expression, in this particular case. The "get going" indicates another action that the person feels they should be undertaking.
|
"There is a lot " vs. "There are lot" There is a lot of animals. There are lot of animals. Which one between the above sentences is correct? Or can both be used? <Q> Unless the second is a typo, then neither are correct. <S> "There is a lot of" and <S> For example: There are a lot of cars. <S> ("cars" is countable) <S> There is a lot of sugar. <S> ("sugar" is not countable) <S> In your example, animals are countable, therefore the sentence should read. <S> There are a lot of animals. <S> or There are lots of animals. <A> If you are describing a plot of land that has many animals, then use the first option. <A> The subject, to me, is Lot - as in Bag, Box, Bundle, etc... <S> So, There is a BAG of cars... <S> Think "parking" Lot.... <S> There IS a Parking Lot of cars - NOT <S> - There ARE a Parking Lot of cars. <S> That said, As commented by someone else, either way sounds incorrect to me. <A> Neither of them are. <S> It should be either of those: There are a lot of animals. <S> There are lots of animals. <S> In these constructions, the verb ('are') will agree with the noun phrase coming after it, and 'a lot of animals' is plural <S> so you need to use 'are'.
| If you are describing a situation where there are many animals in general, use "There are many animals." "There are a lot of" are both legitimate terms, depending on whether the noun is countable or not.
|
what does ''abundant intentionality'' mean? There was an argument between a boyfriend and his girlfriend in a series(The Sopranos). because the boy had taken out his suitcase and his girlfriend saw the suitcase and thought he was going to leave and this boy was trying to say he didn't actually want to leave. The man said: There was no abundant intentionality in me getting out the suitcase. I can understand ''There was no intentionality in me getting out the suitcase''. but I get confused when it adds abundant as an adjective. I thought it may be a phrase or something. <Q> We don't read any legal or philosophical overtone in the boy's use of grandiloquent phrases. <S> It so happens during arguments. Being too excited we grope for words, and are more inclined to say such difficult words as we would remotely use under normal situations. <S> It is true that the boy is pompous, grandiose and ostensibly flashy. <S> Perhaps, in the argument, he iscornered. <S> His intention is found out. <S> Only to conceal it, he takes recourse to this pompous display of thundering words. <S> All he wants to mean is that taking out the suitcase is not proof enough that he is going to desert her. <S> He wants to get an upper hand. <A> The forum I linked to discusses this phrase. <S> I'd agree with what is written there: This is a boy who attempts to show off by using long words, but instead appears "pompous and silly". <S> The phrase seems to have been lifted from the "deconstructionist" group of Literary Theorists, including Jacques Derrida; and the philosophy of John Searle. <S> In philosophy intentionality means "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs" (wikipedia). <S> But the joke is that the boy is trying to sound smart, when he really is not. <S> You don't need to understand the philosophy (I don't) to get the joke. <A> There was no abundant intentionality in me getting out the suitcase. <A> There was no abundant intentionality in me getting out the suitcase . <S> The question seems to arise from the fact that the line being delivered is consciously literary, contrived and artificial. <S> The character seems to be attempting to describe a lack of fore-thought, planning and strong motivation to his action. <A> Well, I haven't heard the word "intentionality" spoken before even though I was a great Soprano fan. <S> Abundant means a lot. <S> A great deal. <S> Intentionality means having the intention to do something. <S> A better way to have said it would have been <S> "I didn't intentionally get out the suitcase" meaning he didn't mean to get it out. <S> Or he could have said, "I didn't really intend to get the suitcase out" Same thing but <S> kind of saying I got it out <S> but I didn't really mean to. <S> I think abundant intentionality is something no American English speaker would use. <S> It sounds really odd to me. <A> It doesn't matter. <S> The example is nonsense. <S> It might be suggested that There was no abundant intentionality in me/ <S> my (anything) <S> meant <S> I didn't mean to and otherwise, who knows? <S> At very best, it might be that abundant here meant clear , in which case abundant intentionality might mean clear reason for/motive to but how certain can we be?
| I would say it means: there was intentionality in the boy but not too much (abundant) in him to let him do what he had in mind.
|
Can I say "Please alter the color on the wall." instead of "Please change the color on the wall." As a non-native English speaker, I am often confused about the difference between "alter" and "change". I know that the following sentence is very natural and correct. Please change the color on the wall. Can I also say as follows? If then, what is the difference? Please alter the color on the wall. <Q> Change - to exchange one thing for another thing, especially of a similar type. <S> Cambridge Dictionary Alter is most likely used when you intend to modify or even improve something existent, Change is most likely used when you intend to replace something by another, for instance - <S> You don't alter your house if you want to move on, you change your house for another one. <S> - You replace it. <S> I took my coat back to the shop to alter the model <S> I took my coat back to the shop to change the model <S> Have you realized the difference between these two statements? - <S> The 1st means to alter it, it may be by cutting some parts, or adding new complements, but it doesn't necessarily mean to replace it by a new one, but altering its style, maybe altering its design . <S> The 2nd means to change the model, i.e, replacing it by a new one, with a different layout . <S> Therefore, if you want to replace the color on the wall by another one, change is the right word for it, but if you just want to improve or modify the current color, which seems to be impossible, since colors can't be modified unless you paint it with another color, then you could use alter . <S> Please change the color on the wall. <S> Change works fine in this statement, but Alter could possibly change the meaning of the statement. <A> Please alter the color on the wall. <S> Please change the color on the wall. <S> The verbs "alter" and "change" are not usually interchangeable. <S> If you alter the color, it usually means that you give a slightly different form or appearance to the color by adding something to the existing color. <S> On the other hand, if you change the color, it may mean that you give a completely different form or appearance to the color by replacing it with another color or by adding something to it. <A> Alter comes from Latin , that means to slightly modify some peculiar quirk or characteristic of an object or something else (that already exists). <S> Simple examples are: <S> I don't like my nose shape. <S> I would like to alter it with surgery. <S> Eliot was persuaded to alter the passage. <S> You wouldn't say to change my nose shape <S> (Do you have a replacement? :-) ) <S> or to change the passage (meaning that you would destroy and rebuild the passage as you like it).
| Alter - to change something, usually slightly, or to cause the characteristics of something to change.
|
"Mix three eggs" or "Mix three eggs up" Mix three eggs with 2 cups of water into a bowl Mix three eggs up with 2 cups of water into a bowl What is the right one and why? Is 'mix up' a phrasal verb, and if so, when and where is it used? <Q> The dictionary seems to say that to "mix up" means to mistake one thing for another, or misplace something, or jumble things together without order. <S> Examples: <S> She mixed up what day the test was on, and so arrived late. <S> He dropped the tray and everything in it, that he'd so neatly sorted, got all mixed up. <S> However in my experience, colloquially, people use "mix up" all the time to mean "mix", <S> as in Could you mix up a bunch of eggs for me? <S> I'm really hungry. <S> If that is the case, it should be "mix up three eggs ..." and not "mix three eggs up." <S> As a general rule of good English style, you should keep a dependent preposition close to its verb. <S> So "climb up on the table" and not "climb on the table up", "get over a bad cold" and not "get a bad cold over", etc. <S> However it's not followed religiously, for example: <S> The recipe calls to mix in the sugar with the flour. <S> The recipe calls to mix the sugar in with the flour. <S> Both are used -- in fact it seems to vary with context . <S> So you might have to pay attention to individual cases. <S> Anyway, here again the "up" is optional since "mix" and "mix up" are synonymous when talking about something like eggs. <S> Both refer to exactly the same action -- to blend the eggs in with the water. <A> First off, you should say "in a bowl", not "into a bowl". <S> You usually use the verb "mix" to mean to combine or blend. <S> You can also use the phrasal verb "mix up" to convey this sense, but it's less common. <S> For examples: I am always mixing up the twins. <S> Your question has completely mixed me up. <S> You have mixed up all the papers. <S> Mix 3 eggs and 2 cups of water together in a bowl. <A> Yes, it's technically a phrasal verb. <S> You can say "Mix up some eggs." <S> and you can say "Mix some eggs up.", <S> but if you use a pronoun for the eggs, you should say "Mix them up.". <S> This is common phrasal verb grammar. <S> As to the meaning, the preposition "up" is sometimes used in English to emphasize that the activity is perfective, as in "I'm going to eat you up." . <S> It suggests that the action is performed to completion -- in this case, that the eggs are thoroughly mixed into the water.
| So you usually say: Mix 3 eggs with 2 cups of water in a bowl. It's usually used to mean to confuse, to upset, or to put something in disorder.
|
a verb to mean to start "not being on speaking terms" There are many terms describing 'ending a relationship'. I'm looking for a dynamic (not static) verb to stop a not necessarily romantic or sexual relationship but to stop relationship for example with your family members or intimate friends because of a quarrel or disagreement. I'm not on speaking terms with my brother. How do you paraphrase this sentence with an dynamic/active verb? <Q> The phrase that you are looking for may be as simple as fall out . <S> I cannot think of anything more specific. <S> Certainly, if you fall out with someone, you may no longer be on speaking terms with them. <S> The expression can be used in both everyday and formal English. <S> fall out <S> — phrasal verb with fall (ARGUE) informal to argue with someone and stop being friendly with them: <S> He left home after falling out with his parents. <S> She'd fallen out with her boyfriend over his ex-girlfriend. <S> Cambridge Dictionary <A> Piggy-backing off Andrew's answer, the word estrange can be used as a verb, but I don't hear it used that way very often, and it sounds awkward to me when I try to use it that way: <S> He estranged his brother last Christmas after an argument about politics . <S> You can look at this Google ngram and see that the adjective form has become much more popular than the verb form over several decades. <S> However, I looked up the verb estrange in the thesaurus, and found a very suitable synonym: alienate . <S> Unlike estrange , writers use alienate more often as a verb than as an adjective, according to the ngram . <S> So you could say: He alienated his brother last Christmas after an argument about politics . <S> According to NOAD, alienate is defined as: alienate ( verb ) cause (someone) to feel isolated or estranged; cause (someone) to become unsympathetic or hostile Looking up alienate in a thesaurus provides some other candidate verbs, such as divide (which is fairly common) and <S> disunite <S> (not so much so). <S> However, I think divide works better in a more passive construct: <S> The brothers were divided last Christmas after an argument about politics . <S> (You wouldn't say, "He divided his brother last Christmas..." – at least, I hope the argument wouldn't get that out of hand.) <A> To spurn means to reject and is more usually used for romantic relations. <S> To cut is a somewhat archaic term that means to express contempt by refusing to acknowledge knowing someone. <S> None of these is exactly right for your use case though. <S> To say "I fell out with him at Christmas" is a slightly unusual application of the expression, but admirably clear, while retaining a polite ambiguity as to just who is shunning whom. <S> An American in this context might say, "I cut off contact with him". <S> But, really, I don't think we have an active verb for exactly what you're requesting <S> – I feel pretty sure, given how much people in my family do this, I would have heard such an expression by now if there were one! <A> It is used for family or friends who once were close but who now, for some reason, are very distant. <S> He has been estranged from his family for decades and never talks about them. <S> People who are estranged can be reconciled . <S> The estranged brothers were reconciled by the death of their beloved mother. <A> How about <S> He was ostracized after behaving badly at Christmas dinner. <S> They are ostracizing him after he behaved badly at Christmas dinner. <S> For your example, you might say I am avoiding my brother. <S> She is ignoring her ex these days. <S> both imply recent noncommunication.
| To shun means to avoid or refuse to meet with, usually from anger, contempt or other disapproving sentiment. The word you're looking for is "estranged" -- meaning, "to be like a stranger with".
|
Can we grow a habit? What are verbs that we can use in a collocation with the noun habit? Particularly, Is using "to grow" correct as in the following example sentence? Is it standard English? When people can realize that using the machine can be much more time-saving, they will grow a habit to use it eventually. I saw in Longman Dictionary that the verbs create,form,develop are used and make/get into the habit of doing something are more common patterns but I also saw many times that "growing a habit" is used on the Internet. <Q> Usually a habit is developed over time, or an action becomes a habit. <S> If one is not careful, social smoking can become a real smoking habit. <S> However, the first thing that came to mind with grow <S> (your) habit was that, with the legalization of marijuana, one might literally be able to grow one's habit <A> Any usage of "grow a habit" that you may have found on the Internet is not standard. <S> I speculate that somebody might use that language in advertising or marketing as a way to stand out and draw your attention. <S> I would not use that form. <A> It's certainly possible to "grow" a habit <S> but I would recommend a number of other verbs instead: <S> Active: <S> make acquire develop <S> instill <S> inculcate get Passive: <S> become <S> have is <S> Somewhat relevant Ngram . <S> Note most of these are past-tense since, presumably, you would have started on the habit in the past. <A> In standard English, one does not grow a habit. <S> But one can grow into a habit, or grow out of it. <S> Google Ngram shows that both phrases have declined substantially from their peaks, though. <S> I was surprised to learn that "grow into a habit" was so much more common than the opposite phrase; I have heard "grow out of the habit" in use much more often. <S> For your specific situation, however, "grow into the habit" doesn't seem right, as growing into a habit doesn't take voluntary effort whereas using a machine does. <S> I think "habituated" would work better. <S> The contrast between the two can be shown by this sentence: Since I stopped working, I've grown into the habit of staying up really late, but I'm trying to habituate myself to an earlier bedtime again. <S> You could also try "grow accustomed to using" instead of "grow the habit of using" <S> *. <A> The most direct answer to your question is no. <S> That sentence would be understood - it isn't completely nonsensical - but it certainly isn't standard. <S> I've never once heard a native speaker use it. <S> You are correct that get in the habit or make it a habit are most often used. <S> Original Sentence: <S> When people can realize that using the machine can be much more time-saving, they will grow a habit to use it eventually. <S> Modified Sentences: 1) <S> When people realize that the machine saves them time, they will eventually get in the habit of using it . <S> 2) <S> When people realize that the machine saves them time, they will eventually make a habit of using it . <S> 3) <S> When people realize that the machine saves them time, they will eventually make using it a habit . <S> 4) <S> When people realize that the machine saves them time, using it will eventually become a habit . <S> I will admit that the first three "patterns" are tricky. <S> Tricky enough that I don't know if I would call them patterns <S> - maybe they're idioms or figures of speech. <S> Using them this way (unless someone can point out a counterexample) applies to the word habit only. <S> There are other phrases you could use- a person can pick up or fall into or acquire a habit. <S> However, for the sentence you asked about, the above examples work best.
| They could also develop a habit over time. "Grow a habit" is not idiomatic - as you mention, the usual verbs are create, form, and develop; or "get into the habit of...".
|
Is it normal if my tongue doesn't come between my teeth while saying "What is this thing" Whenever I pronounce it, it seems as if my tongue says "What is dis ting" (Albeit, there's a slight "h" in the thing). Is it normal for this to happen? <Q> However, I have often heard foreigners saying 'this' as 'dis', so in that way it is not abnormal. <A> It is not abnormal in casual speech, or if you speak a dialect that does not distinguish the phonemes d-ð and t-θ. <S> If your pronunciation of "d" for "ð" or "t" for "θ" draws unwanted attention to you, you should practice saying the sounds as in standard, formal speech. <S> Here is an article that might help. <S> The ABA Journal <S> Even if there is no known problem with how you pronounce these sounds, it would be good to be able to distinguish the d-ð and t-θ pairs when you need to do so. <S> That would mean practicing the sounds. <S> Pronouncing the sounds correctly in formal speech can be a benefit to anybody. <S> A general summary of the issues is here: Wikipedia To many of us the fact <S> the fricative forms of "d" and "t" still exist in English is a mystery. <S> The Germanic Languages on Continental Europe have generally lost these sounds. <S> That they still exist in Icelandic is not so much a mystery, as that nation has been so isolated from outside spoken language influences, at least until recently. <S> But English has had considerable influence from the Continent the last thousand years, the last four hundred with those sounds gone from Continental Germanic. <A> Not "normal" sounding in English. <S> If you pronounce "th" like a "d" then you are just having an accent to a native English speaker. <S> We can still understand you, but it isn't proper English pronunciation. <S> "Th" always needs the tongue between the teeth to make the correct sound. <S> I don't know where you're from, but if you are a Spanish speaker, it would be like pronouncing " <S> ñ" <S> the same as "n", if that helps.
| It is not normal pronunciation, if this is what you're asking. On pronouncing the 'th' sound, you should have your tongue under or between your front teeth.
|
The use of and alternative verbs for " to clock" The word " to clock" is used in a sense of "to measure or record the time or speed that someone or something is travelling at". However, I would like to use it in a more casual context as in the following if possible or how can I say it with different verbs? A: How long did your journey take? Should I say ? B : I "clocked the time/it". It took about half an hour. or B : I forgot to look at the clock so I did not "clock it" but it was about half an hour. Another scenario A: How long did it take you to read and understand a research paper? B: I "clocked the time/it". I took about half an hour. What I mean is here that I looked at the clock when the process started and I looked the clock again when the process finished. However I did not measure time in a scientific way using millisecond unit like in a spring. <Q> To "clock" something is idiomatic <S> so it's not necessarily OK to use as a substitute for the more generic "to time" something. <S> It does convey an image of timing with a stopwatch or some other precise chronometer, so measuring things like swimmers or race cars or solving the Rubik's Cube is fine, since those are activities where more speed / less time is wanted. <S> But when talking about something like a research paper, it's weird. <S> The image is someone standing over your shoulder while you study, stopwatch in hand, urging you to "read faster!" <S> Although of course you can use "clock" for comic effect. <S> I'm really getting into "power napping" . <S> I clocked my latest nap at 35 minutes, but I think with more practice I could easily break 30! <A> clocking the transitive verb is about time and speed <S> The race car clocked in with a top speed of 250mph. <S> A: How long did your journey take? <S> B <S> : I clocked it. <S> It took about half an hour. <S> B <S> : I timed it. <S> It took about half an hour. <S> B : <S> On the clock , it took about half an hour. <S> And so may not be appropriate for your second example. <S> A <S> : How long did it take you to read and understand a research paper? <S> B <S> : I timed myself. <S> I took about half an hour. <A> The simplest thing is to not use "clock" or any equivalent. <S> Just say the time. <S> Question: <S> How long did it take you to read that research paper? <S> Answer: About half an hour. <S> We generally only use the verb "clock" when giving instructions, like, "Al, please clock Bill's time. <S> " It's rather redundant to say you measured the time and then to give the measurement. <S> Like: <S> How tall is this stack? <S> I measured it. <S> It's 9 inches. <S> Well obviously if you know it's 9 inches you must have measured it, <S> so saying you measured it is superfluous. <S> People will use "clock" when they want to make clear that this was a measurement and not a guess or estimate. <S> How long did it take you to read that paper? <S> Half an hour. <S> The listener can't be sure if that's an actual measured value or just a guess. <S> But: I clocked it at half an hour. <S> That indicates it's an actual measurement. <S> " <S> BTW "Half and an hour" is not correct. <S> If you mean 30 minutes, say "half an hour".
| You could also say "I timed it ..." or "I checked a clock and it was ... If you mean 90 minutes, say "an hour and a half".
|
What is the meaning of starstruck in this context? I was reading an article about "39 strange habits most architects can relate to" and came across to this phrase but I don't know what it means. Getting starstruck around buildings. I know "starstruck" means "very impressed by a famous people." But, what's the relation to buildings? <Q> To an architect, who is a person that studies the design of buildings, famous buildings which represent the peak of their craft, are much like celebrities to them. <A> Being starstruck is to become weak-kneed, and/or tongue-tied or have a display of awe about something that is your object of affection, usually a celebrity (thus the "star" portion). <S> In your example, the buildings are the objects of affection since the observing group is architects. <S> This can also happen to non architects in certain situations. <S> For example, it is a well known fact amoung natives that In New York City, only the tourists look up. <S> to admire the height of the buildings. <A> In this context it means exactly what you think it means: very impressed by a famous people <S> Note that you don't need to meet a famous person to be starstruck. <S> You can for example be starstruck in the presence of Jimmy Hendrix's guitar. <S> Objects that are intimately related to a famous person can be awe inspiring especially if the object in question is one of the reasons that person is famous. <S> An architect or an architecture student will usually know who designed the famous building. <S> In some cases, the architect who designed the building may be a "superstar" among architects. <S> So it's not unusual to become starstruck by the famous person who designed the building when one is surrounded by said building.
| In this case the person is ironically using the phrase "starstruck" which refers to the feeling of adoration you might feel on meeting a celebrity, to describe how they feel when they see famous buildings.
|
The meaning of third time is the charm If the third time is the charm, then what is the first and second? Is there a fourth? <Q> It is often used as a phrase to encourage someone to try for the third time even after that person has failed at that thing two times earlier, making him realize that his efforts might give him the results on his third time. <S> You just have to keep trying. <A> 'third time’s a charm' or 'third time’s the charm' is an idiom - there isn't a correlating first, second or fourth time. <S> A similar expression is ' third time lucky '. <S> There is an interesting post on EL&U that attributes the origin of this expression to Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor . <S> As to why the number '3' is used (and it pops up in other expressions, such as 'try, try and try again'), there are a number of arguments. <S> One argument is the Holy Trinity, and that by extension, goodness or luck is associated with the number three. <S> The most likely reason can be found here : <S> It seems more likely that it is just a folk belief that, having had setbacks, we ought to persevere and not give up. <S> This is enshrined in the phrase 'try, try and try again'. <S> Three seems to be the right number of times to try. <S> Two isn't enough but four is too many. <A> Third time's the charm (lucky) Proverb. <S> The third time you try to do something, it will work. <S> I've called her twice, but she doesn't answer her phone. <S> – Try again. <S> The third time's the charm. <S> That means the third time you will be lucky. <S> "Three" was a lucky numeral in ancient times. <S> Compare: <S> German . <S> Aller guten Dinge sind drei. <S> French Toutes les bonnes choses sont au nombre de trois. <S> Russian. <S> Бог любит Троицу. <S> God loves the Trinity. <S> You can add your examples. <S> All the proverbs originated from Latin. <S> Numero deus <S> impare gaudet.(God loves an odd number) Virgil The Eclogues. <S> 8, 75.
| Third time is a charm is an idiom which means on your third try you're likely to succeed after failing two times.
|
what can I say ''when someone shares a good experience/feeling''? Here's the situation: my friend got accepted in a job interview and described his feelings and how happy he was. I wanted to say that I've had the same experience/feeling as he does when I got my first job.I found '' I've been there '' and '' tell me about it '' but I think these expressions have too much of a negative connotation to use here what can I use? This is our conversation A) Hey, I got a job recently and I'm really happy about it. B) I know how you feel,..... I want a phrase for this gap like ''I've been there'' but with a positive connotation. In addition, It can be any positive situations like ''falling in love'', getting a job'', ''passing a hard exam'' that both sides already experienced. <Q> One suggestion is you could say something like "It feels good, doesn't it?", which would imply that you've also experienced something similar. <A> So, if I understand your question correctly, the situation you describe has three parts: <S> The person you are talking with is experiencing some kind of joyful situation <S> You have had a similar experience in your past <S> You want to say that, because of your similar experience, you know how your friend feels <S> Given those three things, I'd probably use some sort of exclamation to express my happiness, and then use the phrase "I remember..." to relate my past experience to my friend's current situation. <S> For example, I might say something like: <S> That's great! <S> I remember when I got my first job. <S> Congratulations! <S> I remember how I felt when I passed that exam. <S> That's wonderful! <S> I remember the joy I felt when I first fell in love with Marie. <A> "I've been there." and "Tell me about it. <S> " are most often used when commiserating , so you probably wouldn't want to use it in the positive situations you've mentioned. <S> When a situation is not positive, we welcome empathy from other people who have been through the same thing. <S> For accomplishments like landing a new job though, we would rather have someone recognize our accomplishment than say "I did the same thing before you did <S> and I was happy too. <S> " That might be my own cultural bias though. <S> So, I would recommend choosing a response that doesn't mention that you shared the same experience because it distracts a little bit from your friend's accomplishment. <S> I know this isn't exactly an answer to your question because it doesn't include "I have experienced this also", but I would say something similar to what neotryte mentioned in their answer: <S> "That's wonderful! <S> I'm so happy for you!"
| The main response in this situation would be something like "I'm so happy for you!", but this does not convey that you've also experienced the same thing as the other person.
|
How to express the ratio a=b/c? How to express the ratio a=b/c into words? (e.g., in the context of an election: turnout = number of expressed votes / number of person listed on electoral register ) I would suggest " a is the ratio of b divided by c " . However, it seems pretty bulky to me. <Q> The most common way to express fractions (or ratios) is with "over". <S> 3/4 <S> is three over four <S> 7/15 is seven over fifteen. <S> So in your example: A = B/C A is equal to B over C <S> However your "bulky" way is better for anything other than casual conversation, such as a school report. <A> For example, if I have ten bananas and four apples then I could say the ratio of bananas to apples is 5 to 2 (or 10 to 4) . <S> So in your situation you could say: Voter turnout is the ratio of votes cast to registered voters . <S> To emphasize that a is a sub-set of b <S> we often use the phrase " out of " or " in " (these might sound opposite, but they actually mean the same thing), especially when giving the actual number. <S> A very common type of statement would be something like <S> One out of / <S> in ten* registered voters actually cast a vote in the recent election. <S> This ratio is a little higher than the previous election, although in general voter turnout has been declining for the past several decades. <S> This language for ratios of part-to-whole works well for the non-mathematically-inclined who might be thrown off by mathier terms like "divided by" or "fraction" or "quotient". <S> (I know people who have a hard time with the idea of "one divided by three" but no problem at all with "one in three"). <S> Unfortunately, it is a little awkward for a purely explanatory sentence, with no numbers. <S> However, I might stick with the "to" language, just changing your terminology a bit to make the relationship clear: <S> Voter turnout is the ratio of registered voters who actually cast votes to total registered voters . <S> *All numbers there are fictional. <A> The common way to say this is, "Turnout is the number of votes cast divided by the number of registered voters", or "... <S> the number of people who voted divided by the number of registered voters". <S> You can say "over" instead of "divided by", e.g. "votes cast over registered voters". <S> Or if you want to express it as a percentage, you might say "the percentage of registered voters who cast a vote". <S> For casual writing you don't usually use the word "ratio", just say "X divided by Y". <S> You can say "the ratio of X divided by Y" or "the ratio of X over Y", but I think that's unnecessary extra words. <S> I think generally, a "ratio" means a number between 0 and 1 while a percentage indicated a number between 0 and 100, i.e. a ratio might be ".47" while a percentage would be "47%". <S> But that might be a little technical, the average person might not understand it that way. <A> You can also say it like this: turnout ratio is total votes expressed over total registered persons.
| You could perhaps say: The voter turnout ratio is the number of voters who actually voted out of the total number of registered voters. Ratios are most often notated as a:b, rather than a/b, which is said " a to b ".
|
When you want to ask someone to maintain their class Please imagine that you take a friend (a guy) to meet a group of your friends at a party. The group and the guy are have never met one another and know nothing about one another. The guy starts clowning around out of the blue and you have no idea why he is acting like that. You feel shy in front of your group of friends and wish to let the guy know that you feel uncomfortable with his actions. You wish to tell him to not act foolishly and present the appearance of a low-class guy in front of your friends. In my mother language we may use any of the sentences below. I don't know if there are some equivalents in AmE to convey similar messages, or if they all work in English. I would appreciate it if someone could let me know if there is a natural sentence from among my suggested examples I could use, or if not please tell me what an AmE speaker would say instead: Be high-class. Be like a high-class person. (Observe / maintain) your class. Don’t act like a low-class person. <Q> I'm not sure that in modern usage of english that we refer to class directly in this way - people tend to reference the attributes that go with being in an upper-class environment, rather than referring to the class itself. <S> For example, in the scenario you have provided, one might say: Have some etiquette! <S> Show/have a little decorum. <S> Show some manners. <S> Show some respect. <S> ... <S> or variations thereof, to request that a friend act in a manner more appropriate to the social situation. <S> You can also take the opposite view, for example: <S> Don't be vulgar. <S> Don't be crass. <S> Don't be rude. <S> ... <S> and so on. <S> The closest I can think of that references the social class of that person would be show a little class. <S> ... <S> but even then, the reference is indirect. <A> I don’t know anyone who would say, “Maintain your class.” <S> The word class in this context doesn’t usually get a personal possessive pronoun such as <S> my or your . <S> Instead, we’d use a determiner like some : <S> Hey! <S> Show some class. <S> I think “Don’t be crass” is good, too, although I might add a <S> so in a sentence like that: Don’t be so crass. <S> You could also warn the other person calmly: <S> You’re making a fool of yourself. <S> or rebuke them outright: <S> Don’t make such a fool of yourself. <S> and a cruder version of that might be: <S> Don’t be such an ass. <A> Even though (social) class is a concept in American English, it tends to not be used commonly because the American culture tends to pretend social classes are either not important or don't exist (due to the equality of all people that is assumed by the culture). <S> So if I had to use one of your answers, I would use the last one (Don't act like a low-class person), but I would replace 'low class person' with 'a word like 'crass', 'crude' or 'unrefined' and say one of the following: Don't be crass. <S> Don't be so unrefined. <S> Don't be crude. <S> Another, much more common sentence that conveys the same meaning is: Act your age. <S> The sentence above implies that only a child (who doesn't know better) would act in this way. <A> The guy starts clowning around out of the blue and you have no idea why he is acting like that. <S> When someone is obviously in high spirits, and enjoying themselves I might leave well alone. <S> If however the person's behaviour is really inappropriate, I might take them to one side and hiss ... <S> Have you no dignity? <S> Do you realise how inappropriate / uncouth <S> / ill-mannered / <S> your behaviour is? <S> Don't you have any self-respect? <S> Stop embarrassing yourself. <S> For something more direct, and "rural" then just ask <S> WTF are you doing? <A> Absolutely no one native to the UK using BrE would ever make a remark comparing someone's behaviour to a person from another 'class' unless, that is, they are themselves pretending to some degree of social 'refinement' (or snobbery, in fact). <S> In the circumstances you describe, depending on what kind of person you are, you might take your friend on one side and ask what on earth is wrong with him that he's behaving like an idiot and embarrassing himself, or you might simply say 'don't be such a jerk/idiot/twit', or possibly 'what did you take before you got here', or 'what are you on', but never, ever would any such criticism include any reference to social class. <A> As many have stated we don't generally refer to "class" directly (in the U.S.). <S> It's always abstracted via the actual name of the group. <S> As if by doing so we remove the group's relationship to class, which of course is complete nonsense. <S> We would say it like this, "Stop acting like a [insert name of group that your high class friends would be comfortable disparaging or that they commonly disparage]." <S> The answer can be found in the prejudices of your "high class" friends.
| Other good suggestions have been given in other answers – I particularly like “Show some manners.”
|
Usage of the idiom "around the block" I know of the idiom around the block , but I'm having some doubts as to whether I can use it in certain ways. More specifically: Can I use it in a phrase like "This is not your first time around block" , to indicate that the person has done this before? If yes, then how informal is it? I mean, can I write to a colleague about a certain task something like "Since this is not your first time around the block, you know what this task involves" ? To give you some context, in our workplace we're quite friendly and not too formal with each other. <Q> Probably depends what country you're living in - in the UK, 'been around the block' is now an urban phrase which refers specifically and most commonly to sexual activity, although originally, I believe it was intended to be used simply to mean you've had former experience of other particular subjects. <S> You might more easily say 'I know you've been around the block a few times, <S> so you know what this task involves?' <S> which is less stilted, but if you're in the UK, particularly in London UK, probably best not to use the phrase at all. <A> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/have-been-around-the-block-a-couple-of-a-few-times <S> ... <S> or... <S> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+been+around+the+block <S> ... <S> I've heard this expression countless times <S> so I'm a little surprised at some of the comments that express unfamiliarity with it. <S> FWIW, I'm in the US northeast - New York / Boston axis. <A> I feel it's something people 50+ would be more likely to say. <S> To me it means "experience", but at least one person in New Zealand who heard me use it thought I was referring to prostitution...
| In the US this is a very common expression to describe someone who has had plenty of experience, and especially someone who has seen the various ways that things can go awry, and so is not surprised or put off by them.
|
Writing a letter to two persons who are not a couple or married? I am writing a letter to my boss and my senior. Dear Mr. John and Mrs. Jane, I feel it's a bit weird because they are not couple/married. Does it sound normal to write like that? <Q> First of all, please note that the usage "Mr. Firstname" or "Miss Firstname", as in your example, are conventional only in specific subcultures of English speakers; I encountered it for the first time when I was working with prison inmates. <S> (I am unaware of any community of English speakers that would utter "Mrs. Firstname".) <S> Properly speaking, which is to say in formal English, "Mr" and "Ms" (and "Miss" and "Mrs") are all applied to last names, or full names. <S> So "Mr. Smith" is fine. " <S> Mr. John Smith" is fine. <S> "Mr. John" is really weird unless you are in some parts of the American South, and even then, I'm not sure you'd address a letter that way in a business context. <S> Second of all, part of why it feels weird is that in your example you address a woman as "Mrs." At least in the US, one does not ever address a woman as "Mrs." in a business context unless she has specifically indicated that it's her preferred title (same rules as "Capt." and "Rev.") precisely because it refers to her marital status . <S> The reason it feels weird to address a man and a woman that way when they're not married is that the "Mrs" title is explicitly making a comment about her being married. <S> That is why using "Mrs." is considered gauche in the workplace. <S> Same with "Miss". <S> The professional default title <S> one uses for a woman is "Ms." and she is addressed "Madam" (parallel to "Mr."/"Sir"). <S> You may find that Dear Mr. Wu and Ms. Smith feels a lot less weird. <S> Should you find yourself needing to use "Mrs." ( <S> say, in a social context, like writing wedding invitations), there's a whole archaic set of rules for its correct use, about which I am very hazy. <S> (Something like if Jane Doe marries John Smith, she's Mrs. John Smith but not Mrs. Jane Smith? <S> I remember it was non-obvious and complicated.) <S> Refer to an etiquette manual. <S> Frankly, the correct rules for deploying "Mrs." were complicated enough, that was what drove the widespread adoption of "Ms." which works just like "Mr." <A> One safe choice in most business situations around the world would be: <S> Dear John Wu and Jane Smith, <A> It sounds normal, however usually, the woman's name is used first Dear Mrs. Jane and Mr. John (like holding the door open...) <S> at least that's what I was taught. <S> In the case of emails, I did work at a place where the ordering was: 1) seniority within firm 2) longevity at firm by seniority <A> It depends on the communications culture in your business. <S> I work for a large multi-national <S> but we have a 'first names' culture. <S> Even when writing to my CEO I use their first name. <S> When I need to write to more than one person I tend to put the names of the people I am directly communicating with first, then those I am keeping informed. <S> So, for my circumstances, the letter would simply start Dear John and Jane <S> As Codeswitcher explained it would be unusual to include a title with a first name. <S> Avoiding them also means you don't have to worry about the correct form of address.
| What sounds normal depends on the culture of your boss and your "senior", your company, and other factors.
|
How can you describe (in AmE) an aggressive guy who tends to fight with people most of the time? What do you call someone who is an aggressive guy who is always making some kind of trouble which usually leads to a fight? Such a guy tends to turn a small issue into a fight. I found two terms and I was wondering if someone could let me know which one works here in a natural way: He is a trouble. He is a hell-on-wheels. For me they both work properly, but I didn't find any reference showing that "trouble" works in this sense. Urban dictionary and some other sources somehow refer to the meaning in my question, though not completely. I would appreciate it if they do not work properly here, someone could let me know what native speakers would call such a person in AmE. Added: what I need is an AmE informal term. <Q> Well, there's probably a few choice words people might call a person like this, but that's a separate discussion. <S> :) <S> With regards to your two suggestions, you do not want the "a" in either of them, they should be: <S> He is trouble. <S> He is hell-on-wheels. <S> Also, with regards to turning something insignificant/small into a big deal, some people would say: He makes a mountain out of a mole hill. <S> Although this may be more idiomatic to UK English rather than AmE - there's a Wikipedia page on it here , or you can Google it for some more background information. <A> The problem with your two suggestions: He is a trouble. <S> is that we do <S> not use an indefinite article when using these terms. <S> Instead, we could say: He is trouble. <S> He is hell on wheels. <S> or maybe: He is nothing but trouble. <S> If you wanted to use a noun with an indefinite article, we might say: He is a troublemaker . <S> Incidentally, “hell on wheels” is an idiom, so the term needn’t be hyphenated. <S> Also, I’m not sure it fits exactly what you describe in your question. <S> Yes, it is used to describe a person or situation that is difficult to handle, but it doesn’t necessarily imply an argumentative spirit. <A> The adjective for someone who is quick to fight is pugnacious <S> It has the same root as pugilist = <S> boxer, one who fights with his hands
| He is a hell-on-wheels. Here are some other suggestions for adjectives you could use: argumentative confrontational combative belligerent
|
Which is correct in this sentence - 'to inhibit', 'inhibit', or 'inhibits'? What this medication does is ( to inhibit / inhibit / inhibits ) the reproduction of the certain kinds of bacteria. <Q> The correct sentence is: What this medication does is (to) inhibit the reproduction of certain kinds of bacteria. <S> According to The Free Dictionary, you can use an infinitive with or without to after the construction What + subject + do + be. <S> However, the infinitive without to is more common. <A> To inhibit is the one I would choose, similar like it is to prevent incidents. <S> "is" is one of Be verbs, there are be+doing/adjective, without "is" <S> Then verb can't follow by another verb unless it is connected by "to" like "I am going to camp at the forest". <S> Actually, I have joust found something that can explain what I had written in a professional and technical way Functions of the to-infinitive which is shared by Davyd Diniz <A> I would say it as What this medication does is <S> ,it inhibits the reproduction of the certain kinds of bacteria. <A> The sentence can be reordered as: [ (to inhibit / inhibit / inhibits) <S> the reproduction of the certain kinds of bacteria ] is what this medication does <S> In this view, the fragment must stand on its own as a noun phrase (the subject) , and to inhibit has this property. <S> However, after "is", "inhibit" also works. <S> You can find examples on the web by searching " <S> what this * do is" in google books. <S> Then "inhibit" or "to inhibit" work.
| it should be "inhibits" as "What this medication does" equals "it".
|
A more positive term than "obsessed" Below are four different situations describing people's obsessions A friend who loves everything and anything to do with cats. She has five cats at home, and there's more cat food in the house than "human" food. Another girl friend has a weakness for white-haired men, she finds them irresistible, they don't have to be old-looking, but they must have a mop of white hair or as the Italians say, "salt and pepper hair", but with more salt than pepper . A male friend only dates women who are petite, and extremely slim; not anorexic but women whose dress sizes are 38 in Italy. I think in the UK that would be equivalent to a size 8. Another male friend who is mad about skiing, will happily drive for two or three hours until he reaches those snow-capped mountains, and ski uninterrupted from 10.00 in the morning until 04.00pm (when dusk falls). Now, I could say that they are all obsessed , but that term, more often than not, carries a negative connotation and I don't want to express disapproval. I could say love but that word is overused, and I want something a little more original. Is there a positive word and/or unusual expression that fits all four scenarios? It can be slang, American, British, or Australian English, I don't mind. The more original and good-humoured, the better. <Q> There are may synonyms out there for obsession in various forms - some can be perfectly fine in one scenario but carry a negative connotation in another, particularly when it comes to personal relationships. <S> For example, it it perfectly acceptable to be <S> infatuated with a new hobby, but describing oneself as infatuated with a new girlfriend can come across quite badly. <S> One expression that comes to mind that covers all of the above scenarios without carrying a negative or overbearing connotation is 'really into' . <S> I'm not sure if it fits into your idea of 'original and good-humoured', but consider the following substitutes to your original sentences. <S> Let's say you have a friend who is really into cats... <S> Another girlfriend is really into white-haired men... <S> A male friend is really into women who are petite... <S> Another male friend who is really into skiing... <A> My friend has a thing for cats <S> Anna has a thing for white-haired men. <S> He has always had a thing for petite women. <S> Another male friend has a thing for skiing a thing for informal Have a strong liking for: <S> ‘She apparently had a thing for smart guys.’ <S> ‘Dana had a thing for chocolate - or candy in general.’ <A> My friend is nuts about cats <S> Anna is nuts about white-haired men <S> He has always been nuts about petite women <S> be nuts about <S> Like very much: ‘Andrew, 33, is nuts about classic Harley Davidson motorcycles and little Harley is already following in his footsteps with her own quad bike.’ <S> ‘The person I knew was nuts about horses, her whole life was horses.’ <S> P.S Oxford Dictionaries says the phrase is Britshon , it took me a few minutes to realize that it stood for British Only
| Another friend is nuts about skiing
|
How can an event prove by itself? I looked up in this online dictionary for the word, endeavour, http://www.englantisuomi.com/en/dictionary-english-finnish/endeavour but the example sentence even made me more confused. Here is the example sentence: In spite of our best endeavours, it has proven impossible to contact her. Who has proved that it is impossible to contact her? Either her family or some rescue team, isn't it?So, I am wondering why it is not In spite of our best endeavours, it has been proven impossible to contact her. Please help me.I am trying very hard to understand why the example sentence given by the online dictionary is grammatical. <Q> The it in the sentence is just the dummy it . <S> An English sentence has to have a subject, but sometimes there's no obvious subject for a sentence, so we use <S> it to stand for the existence or nature of something, like <S> It is raining <S> What's raining? <S> Nothing, really, just "it". <S> Or It is hard to find good bread in this city Again <S> , "it" doesn't really stand for anything except a vague reference to "the way things are". <S> You could rephrase the sentence as Finding <S> her has proved difficult which makes the phrase finding her the explicit subject. <A> In the example sentence, the following form is used (from Oxford Dictionaries): prove <S> Verb 2.1 [ <S> no object, with complement] Been seen or found to be: "the scheme has proved † a great success" <S> † <S> Note that proved and proven are the same – using one or the other is a stylistic choice of the author. <S> However, the usage of to prove in the sentence you've suggested is the following sense: 2 <S> [with object and complement] <S> Demonstrate to be the specified thing by evidence or argument: "if they are proved guilty we won't trade with them" <A> proved (to be) = turned out to be <S> The verb refers to the now known outcome. <S> The party turned out to be a lot of fun. <S> We thought it was going to be dull. <S> The party proved to be a lot of fun. <S> It wasn't boring, as we had feared. <S> The ice hockey game on the neighborhood pond proved impossible because the weather warmed up and the ice melted. <A> "it has proven impossible" is a stock phrase. <S> It's a passive voice construction for saying "we couldn't do it". <S> Similarly, "it has proven difficult" = <S> "we had a hard time doing it". <S> It's used a lot in business jargon as an excuse, or a way to make something seem more meaningful or important than it really is. <S> "It has proven impossible to contact her" could mean anything from "we couldn't find her phone number" to "she never returns our voicemails" to "she disappeared near the North Pole without a trace". <S> Your suggestion of "it has been proven impossible" is something you'd read in a mathematics paper, not for an everyday-life situation. <S> Prove <S> (MW, see the section for English Language learners) to turn out to be
| In your example, It has proven difficult to find her , nothing in particular has proven the fact, the "it" just refers to the way things are. There are multiple senses of the verb to prove .
|
What does the expression 'seven for seven thirty ' mean? I get invites which tell me I am expected at 7 for 7.30.What time should I arrive? <Q> 'expected at X for Y' is a format sometimes used in official invitations - it's effectively a window of time where it's considered polite to arrive, without being late. <S> An online example of such an invitation can be found here . <S> Note the text in the bottom corner. <S> Black Tie 7.00 for 7.30pm Carriages at Midnight <A> This is a shortening of the phrase: Arrive at 7:00pm for a 7:30pm start. <S> This avoids the confusion of advertising 7.00 and having people arrive at 6.30 for a 7.30 show, else advertising 7.30 <S> assuming that people will arrive early and ready to start at 7.30 but then have guests arrive late under the presumption that 7.30 is the meeting time with a later event start. <S> Specific Example <S> A concrete example of this would be requesting to meet at the cinema at 7.00pm for a 7.30pm start of the show. <S> Asking to meet earlier is to allow time for purchasing tickets and locating seats while also clearly stating the acceptable range of arrival times/consequences of being late. <S> For instance, arriving after 7.00pm means ticket purchase etc is rushed with limited/no time for snacks, while arriving after 7.30pm means missing the show/event (or having to order your food after everybody is beginning to eat their starter, in the case of a meal). <S> It also shows that arriving at 6.30pm is not required since the half-hour "overhead" has already been factored in. <A> Arrive at or very shortly after 7, but well before 7:30. " <S> At 7" means exactly what it says: <S> you are expected to be there at 7. <S> "For 7:30" means that the main event will begin at 7:30; for a formal dinner, this would mean that the first course will be served at 7:30. <S> The half hour in between ensures that all guests have a chance to check or put away their coats/jackets, find their places (if it's a large gathering with assigned seats), and mingle a bit. <A> It is most usually used in more formal invitations where there is an initial event (ie cocktails) that precedes the main event (dinner). <S> It is not an invitation to arrive at the later time as usually the first event is also catered for. <S> However arriving somewhere between 7 and 7.30 would be acceptable (the closer to 7.30 the less acceptable) with arriving after 7.30 regarded as most impolite. <A> Another usage of this word combination ([time] for [time]) in British English is if you are describing when you're leaving for an event, and the time you intend to arrive there. <S> For example: "When are you going to the party?" <S> "I'll leave at half 6 for half seven, traffic is murder at this time of day"
| In your example, 7 for 7.30, one would be expected to arrive between 7 and 7:30, with the main event (often a dinner party) taking place at 7:30 sharp. This is often used when registration or seating etc. is required, where guests are invited to arrive at a given time, while communicating that the event or meeting is due to start later than the arrival time.
|
Can we use "shot" for "serum"? I was in the hospital the other day. A doctor prescribed me serum. How could I say this? Can I use "shot"? Like "I got a shot yesterday"? And what can a nurse say when they do this to you? "I (the nurse) give him (a patient) a shot/serum"? I don't know if you use serum in this situation so this picture is also attached to prevent any ambiguity about what I meant by serum. <Q> The picture is of someone "getting an IV". <S> A nurse would "administer an IV" or simply "give an IV". <S> (On TV a doctor might yell at a nurse to, "Start an IV stat!" <S> or, "Get an IV started with 250 milligrams of isopropylwhambamthankyoumamamine stat!" -- <S> but the few times I've been witness to actual real life emergency rooms, they never said anything like that.) <S> I went into the emergency room and they found my electrolytes were really low, <S> so they gave me an IV. <S> While my father was in the hospital they administered all his medications through an IV. <S> "IV" is short for "intravenous drip" , but you hear the phrase all the time on television so many people will know what "IV" means. <A> A "shot" would be typically used to refer to a syringe, which is a handheld needle of some kind. <S> " <S> Serum" is a liquid component of blood. <S> What you have pictured there is an "intravenous drip", presumably full of blood plasma or "serum" to replace lost fluid. <S> While both a "shot" and an "intravenous drip" or "IV" both use a needle, the words are not used interchangeably. <A> It can also be called a jab <A> A more formal term for a “shot” is injection . <S> Merriam-Webster : <S> something (as a medication) that is injected inject : to force a fluid into (as for medical purposes) < inject a drug into the bloodstream <S> > <S> Macmillan Dictionary : a drug or another substance that is injected into your body <S> He needs a daily injection of insulin. <S> Medical dictionary (thefreedictionary.com) : the forcing of a liquid into a part, … a substance so forced or administered; in pharmacy, a solution of a medicament suitable for injection. <S> ︙ <S> This refers to the use of a handheld hypodermic needle: [Original image source: <S> http://dosagemayvary.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/162223080.0.jpg ] containing some sort of liquid drug or medicine,being manually inserted into a patient’s body —usually (but not always) into the arm: [Original image source: <S> http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/q10231646.jpg ] <S> The word “hypodermic” is formed from hypo + dermic . <S> “Hypo” means under , and “dermic” refers to skin . <S> And yes, you can use the word “shot”as in “ <S> I got a shot yesterday” and “the nurse gave the patient a shot” —if that’s what happened (but not for your picture).
| Yes you can use the term shot (in the arm) for a serum or vaccine which is administered using a needle and syringe either under your skin subcutaneous (sub-Q) or intramuscular (IM) .
|
"I left my home village yesterday, for which reason my father is sad now". Is this sentence awkward? I and my friend are doing an English exercise which requires us to make a sentence with the phrase "for which reason(s)" I have made this sentence: I left my home village yesterday, for which reason my father is sad now. However, my friend looked at my sentence and told me it should be changed to: I left my home village yesterday, which is why my father is sad now. He said "for which reason(s)" is used at the beginning of the interrogative sentence like: For which reasons do you buy a smartphone? or after a verb: I want to understand for which reason the shipping cost has increased. Could you please advise me as to whether my sentence #1 is correct or not? <Q> Actually your friend's sentence is no better than yours, and in any case he is mistaken that "for which reason" can only be used at the start of a sentence, or when asking the reason why. <S> Consider <S> this example (among many others): <S> We were invited to dinner by the inspector-general. <S> The inhabitants have no tables, as not making any use of chairs, for which reason the cloth was laid in the middle of the floor. <S> In this case "for which reason" means "because of this" -- the cloth was laid in the middle of the floor because the inhabitants do not use tables or chairs. <S> It is a bit formal when used as a conjunction in this way, but it is not grammatically incorrect. <S> There are of course many less formal / more natural ways to express the same thought, but it sounds like you are already familiar with those. <A> Your friend is correct. <S> #3 and #4 are also valid example sentences that use 'for which reason'. <S> Your first sentence is a compound sentence , but you are trying to replace the conjunction word with the words 'for which reason'. <S> If your sentence #1 were written as 'I left my home village yesterday, and my father is sad now.' <S> it would be a valid sentence; 'and' in this case is the conjunction word in this example compound sentence. <A> 1) I left my home village yesterday, for which reason my father is sad now. <S> 2) I left my home village yesterday, for which is why my father is sad now. <S> "Which" is a choice from many. <S> To ask For which reasons do you buy a smartphone? <S> the context may need to be established. <S> P1: <S> People buy smartphones for convenience, taking pictures, making calls, playing games. <S> For which reason did you buy a smartphone? <S> For what reason did you buy a smartphone? <S> Why did you buy a smartphone? <S> P2: Pokeman!
| Your first sentence, although grammatically correct, is very awkward; your friend's sentence (#2) is much better, and his example sentences
|
"Thank you for the good advice" - can this refer to a single piece of advice? Jim: I cannot use Linkedin! It is blocked! Tim: You can use friGate, it's a nice addon that will help you. Jim: I've just installed it, and it works. Thank you for the good advice ! I wonder if this use of the is natural here. "Advice" is a noncount noun, so it cannot take a . I searched on Google Books and it looks like it can take the in "the good advice". But will that mean "thank you for the good piece of advice", or will that mean generally "thank you for being so helpful with your advice" (which may consist of many discrete instances of "advice")? Let me explain my request with an example: what if during the conversation several different pieces of advice were given, on wildly different matters? Would "Thank you for the good advice!" refer to them all, or only to the latest piece of advice in the conversation? <Q> Thanks for the advice is typical when the speaker assumes that the listener(s) will be familiar with which or what advice is being discussed, whether we have in mind one item of advice or several. <S> We use <S> a and <S> the to introduce "uncountable" or mass nouns when they are implicitly or explicitly divided into units. <S> Thanks for the milk. <S> Or in Russian: Thanks for the vodka. <S> We would normally use TRomano's perfectly natural alternative Thanks for all the advice when we wish to emphasize that a lot of something was given, or to specifically acknowledge multiple pieces of such. <S> So, Thanks for all the milk carries a different connotation. <S> Also, we use no article to introduce uncountable nouns when we talk about a thing in general: <S> Advice is like snow - the softer it falls, the longer it dwells upon, and the deeper it sinks into the mind. <S> Samuel Taylor Coleridge https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/samueltayl100590.html <A> If the conversation included advice on sundry topics: <S> Thank you for all the advice . <S> The phrase "all the advice" acknowledges that the advice dealt with sundry topics or was in some other way wide-ranging or in-depth. <S> P.S. <A> I'm not really sure whether taking " the " off is ungrammatical or not, it seems so to me, but if not, someone correct me, please. <S> " the " refers to the advice that your friend gave you, which is: You can use friGate, it's a nice add-on that will help you. <S> It may be considered to be advice, since it was a useful opinion and recommendation. <S> Taking " the " off would make it sound weird, as " the " is the definite article, which implies to mean that you were definitively referring to the advice your friend gave to you. <S> Check out these two forms: <S> Thank you for recommending that app to me! <S> - Thank you for 'THE good advice' = recommending that app . <S> If you took " the " off, it might mean any advice, not a specific one, and you were specifically referring to the advice your friend gave to you, which was the recommendation of the app. <S> See: <S> You <S> : Thank you for advice, Paul! <S> Paul : What advice are you talking about? <S> I have given you many ones. <S> You : ' The ' one about the app you gave me yesterday. <S> The one = <S> The recommendation. <S> So, according to the definite article rule , I'd write it this way <S> : Thank you for the good advice! <A> A boat. <S> The boat. <S> While the boat is a specific boat, a boat could be any boat at all. <S> So if you say thank you for the good advice , you mean the specific piece of advice. <S> Had you instead said Thank you for good advice <S> You could have meant all the good advice you just recieved. <S> I would have avoided phrasing it that way, though. <S> Instead, I would have used "thank you for your good advice", instead of "thank you for good advice". <S> The "the" is natural.
| "Thank you for the advice" is also perfectly acceptable but " all the advice" acknowledges (in gratitude) that the advice has addressed multiple issues or multiple facets of an issue.
|
The intransitive word "disagree" The word "disagree" is intransitive so why in this sentence It is unusual for you and Tom to disagree " is there no "with" or "upon" to follow it? Is its meaning the same as "It is unusual for you and Tom to disagree with each other"? <Q> Intransitive verbs do not automatically require any with , upon or other type of complement. <S> If the additional information is needed, it can be expressed. <S> If it is not needed, it can be omitted. <S> It is unusual for you and Tom to disagree. <S> One of two things are happening here: <S> The speaker/writer is assuming the listener/reader already knows what you and Tom are disagreeing about. <S> This sentence can also mean the same as "It is unusual for you and Tom to disagree on anything" or "It is unusual for you and Tom to disagree in general." <A> At the risk of being wrong, I have to say I do not understand your own question. <S> So, I'm not sure why you want to force it to have one. <S> The reason "with" or "upon" follow "disagree" at times is because of the object, not the verb. <S> Does this help? <A> If the subject of the verb disagree is both people, than it means they have different opinions: <S> Bob <S> and I disagree on this matter. <S> If the subject is only one party, than you use with to link another party who the subject disagrees with: <S> I disagree with Bob on this matter. <S> In your question, the actor is both "you" and Tom, so the sentence is correct. <S> It can be reworded, though: It is unusual for you to disagree with Tom. <S> As for upon , it is intended to explain further and introduce the matter people disagree on. <S> If you are not talking about a particular matter and want to say that people just often argue (or if the matter is clear from the context), then no upon/on is needed. <S> Keep in mind that such constructions are possible: <S> Bob and <S> I disagree with Tom.
| Because disagree is an intransitive verb, it does not need an object, and therefore, does not need "with" or "upon" to follow it.
|
What time does "by the time" mean? What does it mean "by the time he was six he had learnt to play piano"? I have searched in the dictionary for a definition of "by" but I don't get the concept in the case of "by" referred to time. I have made some hypothesis about the meaning of the phrase above: Does it mean during the time before he was six, nearly the time he was six, immediately before he was six, immediately after he was six, meanwhile he was six or something else? <Q> by the time establishes an end-point or end-range. <S> It is used in constructions where the speaker wishes to say that something had happened (or will have happened) not later than the time specified. <S> You can think of it as "<= the specified time", i.e. earlier than or equal to the specified time. <S> This traffic is terrible. <S> By the time we get to the theater, the movie will be halfway over. <S> By the time the parents got home, the baby was already asleep. <S> By age three, she could recite the first 100 decimal points of π. <S> The lack of specificity you refer to in your question has nothing to do with the preposition by . <S> All of the vagueness is in the time-phrase. <S> In "by age three", age three really means something like "as a three-year old". <S> She might have been 3-1/2, or even approaching the age of four. <S> I want you to be here by 10AM sharp . <S> There is no vagueness there. <S> You should be here not later than 10:00:00 . <S> By the time the clock struck twelve, the coach had turned into a pumpkin. <S> The coach was fully a pumpkin when then last chime sounded, or possibly when the first chime sounded. <S> It depends on how you understand "struck twelve". <A> It is probably easiest for me to define this idiom by giving a some example sentences and their meanings. <S> 'By the time Joe was 10 he was driving the family car. <S> Joe in this case may have learned to drive a bike or tractor before he was 10 years old, but when he was 10 years old he already had the skill to drive the family car. <S> 'By the time Frank was 16 he was already robbing banks. <S> Frank probably started stealing candy from babies at a much younger age and was so good at performing all kinds of robbery that he had graduated to bank robbery and was doing so at the age of 16. <S> The actual meaning is that the person is doing the specified activity at the age mentioned (usually in years), but the implication is that they may have been studying or learning that skill at a younger age in order to have the skill they have now. <A> By the time I was 10, I already knew how to operate a computer. <S> What that means is that when I was 10 years old I already knew how to work at the computer. <S> In other words, if you could travel back in time and you went to my birthday party when I just turned 10, you could see that I had already acquired all the necessary knowledge one needs to operate a personal computer on a fluent level. <S> It's that simple.
| The idiom 'by the time he/she/it was [number; usually years]' is usually used to point out something unusual about someone or something, often that they are doing something at an unusually younger age than normal.
|
What are the differences between "there" & "in there".? I couldn't find any source on the internet that explains the differences between " there " & " in there ". It seems that " there " emphasizes locations in general & " in there " emphasizes the inside of something. Ex1: Don't go in there. It's too cold. Ex2: Don't Go There! (a travel guiding book says that) It would be great if you showed me a reliable source that mentioned this. <Q> somebody or something enters, penetrates, infiltrates or visits. <S> That's a cryochamber, don't go in there ! <S> It's too cold. <S> = <S> Don't go inside the cryochamber because it is cold inside. <S> " There " refers to a place, location, building, object - something in general. <S> If you've never been in Antarctica, don't go there . <S> It's too cold. <S> = <S> Don't go to the place called Antarctica because it is cold there. <S> Practically, different prepositions can be used with " there " and " here " like " in ", " on ", " over ", " up ", " down ", e.t.c. <A> You are describing what is grammatically known as a "preposition", a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element. <S> And yes "in there" is specific to a location. <S> The Preposition <A> You usually use the word there as an adverb, but it can be used as a noun/pronoun. <S> When you say "Don't go there", you are using the there as an adverb meaning "to that place". <S> So Don't go there = <S> Don't go to that place. <S> As a noun, the there means "that place". <S> The preposition "in" means inside. <S> So Don't go in there = <S> Don't go inside that place.
| " In there " mostly refers to the inside of a specific location, object, building - something
|
Do you natives say "will you mind doing something"? I know that it is polite to say " would you mind buying me a newspaper? ". But can we say " will you mind buying me a newspaper? " though I feel it is uncommon. <Q> We might say Will you mind buying me (something)? <S> but we would much more likely use <S> would you. <S> The use of would communicates remoteness and is generally considered polite because it theoretically makes it easier for the listener to respond with something like Sorry <S> , I can't (because ...). <S> It's possible that some people would sometimes use will instead of <S> would unconsciously or unthinkingly, <S> and there's a good chance a listener may not notice the difference. <S> But I think it would be relatively unusual. <S> We would more likely use <S> Will you mind (something) <S> when, for example, I know that you will be doing something in the future. <S> If I know that you are planning to go shopping on a busy shopping day, I might ask Will you mind the crowds? <S> If I know you are going to visit Antarctica <S> , I might ask you <S> Will you mind the cold? <S> So this is not a request for someone to do something. <S> It is a question about whether they will be bothered when some expected future event occurs. <A> It has been portrayed in movies that a good looking woman may ask a man at the bar <S> Will you buy me a drink? <S> which is different than the stereotyped <S> Man <S> : Can I buy you a drink? <S> Woman <S> : I don't know, can you? <S> but usually "would you" gets used since it is a hypothetical proposal. <A> Would you mind getting me a newspaper? <S> Will you mind getting me a newspaper? <S> Both the phrases "would you mind" and "will you mind" are grammatically correct. <S> The use of the phrase "woud you mind" is more usual as it's more polite.
| It would not necessarily be seen as impolite, though it tends to suggest that the speaker assumes that the listener is going to buy them something.
|
What is the difference between "either of" and "either.. or"? Can someone please explain me the difference between "either of" and "either..or" What is the difference between "either of" and "either.. or" in the following context? Or do they have same meaning? There are two light bulbs. A person can turn on either light bulb 1 or light bulb 2. A person can turn on either of the light bulbs. Does the second statement mean that the person can turn on only ONE of the two light bulbs and not both? <Q> "Either" is a determiner, pronoun, adverb or conjunction. <S> In the examples along with 'of' it is a pronoun occurring prior to the noun(pronoun!) <S> it replaces and keeps both the options open but does not allow the liberty to choose both at a time. <S> In sharp contrast to this, EITHER is an alternative coordinating conjunction proceeding a word or statement followed by the disjunctive OR to emphasize the possibility of choice. <S> Either come or write. <S> You may choose either of them (the options). <S> No, in none of your examples you're not allowed the privilege of lighting them both at a time. <S> You are given a choice. <A> "Either" is used with alternatives. <S> Because both of your sentences use it, both <S> indicate that the person has a choice of one or the other but not both. <S> The difference is purely in emphasis (separating out each object) and style. <S> Even without the "either" in the first sentence, though, the sentences would still mean the same thing. <S> This is because "or" in English is generally taken to be mutually exclusive: <S> A person can turn on light bulb 1 or light bulb 2. <S> would most commonly be taken to mean that you could turn on one or the other (i.e., either), but not both. <S> Note that this is only true when given two options. <S> You can easily say: A person can turn on light bulb 1, light bulb 2, or light bulb 3. <S> to mean any one of the three, but "either" is limited to two choices. <S> The appropriate replacement would be "one": <S> A person can turn on one of the three light bulbs. <S> Or you could use "any" to indicate one or more: <S> A person can turn on any of the three light bulbs. <A> Most online learning resources, such as this one , mistakenly imply that "either ... or" always means one and only one alternative between two choices, but that assertion is not borne out in practice. <S> For example, suppose my company has an opening for a managerial position. <S> I have two employees who seem like they would do a good job in that role. <S> So I might say: Either Susie or Richard should get the promotion. <S> Since there is only one job, only one of those two (but not both) can get it. <S> So here, "either ... or" represents a narrow, tight choice. <S> But it could also be used less tightly; I could say: Either Susie or Richard would be fine for the role. <S> Here, I'm not saying that only one and not the other would make a good manager. <S> I'm saying they are both equally valid choices. <S> Nor is "either" restricted to just two alternatives. <S> If there are more than two good candidates, I could tack on more "or"s: <S> Either Susie, or Richard, or Maria should get the promotion. <S> Alternatively, I could just use commas to separate the list, putting an "or" before the last name: <S> Either Susie, Richard, or Maria should get the promotion. <S> Whether between two alternatives or several, though, in most (though not all) contexts "either ... or" is exclusionary, meaning only one choice can be made. <S> "Either of" is looser. <S> It means at least one, perhaps both. <S> Suppose in trying to decide between two good employees, I think of examining their previous experience. <S> I might ask: <S> Has either of them been a manager before? <S> It's entirely possible that one, both, or neither has been a manager before. <S> If there were more than two candidates, I would say: Has any of them been a manager before? <S> In an answer to an earlier question , @tchrist explains that "either" is sometimes exclusionary, and sometimes distributive. <S> " <S> Either ... or" tends toward the former, "either of" the latter.
| Typically, "either ... or" specifies one or the other, but not both. So the exact meaning depends on context.
|
Singular or plural with "zero": "The temperature will drop to zero degree(s)" Please have a look at the two sentences below: The temperature will drop to zero degree. The temperature will drop to zero degree s . So which one is correct? In other words, how to use the plural form of degree? And furthermore, for any other countable noun? OK, guys. Let me change my problem. Now I'm very confused in the definition of plural form. When do we need to use plural form? If it means "more than one", how do we ought to use 0, -1, 0.9, and so on? If not, what is its real meaning? <Q> When you use the word zero as a number, the word it quantifies should always, I repeat, always be plural! <S> Example <S> #1: <S> Ice melts at zero degrees Celsius. <S> Example <S> #2: <S> — How many friends do you have in this town? <S> — After that story went public, I have literally zero friends ! <S> You may ask why is that true? <S> Well, consider this. <S> You can have three cars , you can have two cars and you can have just one car . <S> But how many cars do you have when you don't have any? <S> Notice, I said how many cars , not how many car . <S> So, naturally, your response should be I have zero cars . <S> The determiner <S> many always implies plurality unless you have only one of something. <S> If it was indeed possible to say zero car , then your response would have been either <S> I have a zero car or <S> I have zero car . <S> Well, the first one sounds more like you're talking abut a type of car, not how many cars you've got. <S> And the second one sounds like a name or title (the name of a game or a movie title, perhaps). <S> Do you see the confusion? <S> The same holds true when talking about temperatures. <S> Even when you're dealing with a fraction of a degree, it's still plural. <S> Example: <S> The outdoor temperature is 0.2 degrees <S> Fahrenheit. <S> PS: <S> The question how many cars do you have? would be more likely answered like this: — How many cars do you have? <S> — I don't have a car. <S> / I've got none. <S> The only time you ever say <S> I've got zero cars <S> is when you want to emphasize the fact that you don't have any cars at all. <S> So, it's just a more emphatic way to stress that. <S> Here's some more information on the subject you might consider reading: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38293/why-is-zero-plural <S> In summary, 1 or -1 degree Celsius should grammatically always be singular, but in everyday speech a lot of people might say 1 or -1 degrees . <S> Here's the rule: <S> if exactly one of something—singular (regardless of whether the quantity is negative or positive). <S> Everything else—plural (regardless of whether the quantity is negative or positive). <A> From Cookie Monster's answer : <S> Even when you're dealing with a fraction of a degree, it's still plural. <S> This is only the case when the number is phrased as a decimal value. <S> For values between zero and one, when phrased using fraction words ( three-fourths , four-fifths , etc.), the unit word should be singular and separated by "a" or "of a". <S> For example: It is 0.75 degrees ["(zero) point seven five degrees"] outside. <S> It is 3/4 of a degree <S> ["three-fourths of a degree"] outside. <S> The fraction 1/2 is something of a special case, as both of the following are valid: <S> It is 1/2 of a degree ["one half of a degree"] outside. <S> It is 1/2 a degree ["half a degree"] outside. <S> To my American English ear, the latter phrasing sounds more natural. <S> For non-integer values greater than one, however, the unit word should be plural regardless of the phrasing: <S> It is 2.75 degrees ["two point seven five degrees"] outside. <S> It is 2 3/4 degrees ["two and three-fourths degrees"] outside. <A> Allow me to simply for you. <S> If the number in question is not one or a expressed with one as a reference - half of a degree or 20 times a degree for example - then you use plural. <S> People make English too complicated.
| The word degree should always be plural unless it's exactly 1 degree Fahrenheit or Celsius.
|
Phrase for don't fool yourself I am actually looking for a phrase which means"don't fool yourself " For example : The phrase "get over yourself" is used for someone who thinks that they are more important than other people. In the same way please let me know if there is any phrase that is used to say someone to stop fooling themselves? <Q> <A> Three expressions I can think of at the moment. <S> Example #1: <S> Don't be a fool! <S> She's lying. <S> She doesn't really love you. <S> All she wants is your money. <S> Example <S> #2: <S> Get your head out of the clouds! <S> No one will give you a job without education. <S> If you're not gonna study hard, you're not gonna succeed in life! <S> Example <S> #3: <S> Don't fall for it ! <S> She doesn't really love you. <S> It's your money she's after! <A> You could say "take your head out of the sand" <A> "Wake up!" <S> But if you are trying to be clear about something just say what you have to say, don't try and make it sound cool. <S> You want to ask or suggest to another person to not to be 'taken in' by something? <S> Where I grew up, saying "Wake up!" <S> means, stop dreaming and pay attention. <S> Or look at what you are seeing -- wake up your mind to what is really happening.
| How about: "Open your eyes!" One could say ' don't kid yourself ' - meaning don't delude or fool yourself into believing something.
|
Shut Down - exact meaning I don't know the exact meaning of the phrasal verb: " Shut down ". There seems to be one little button on Windows which turns the computer off, and is called: shut down . Yesterday, I was watching a TV show where two siblings were competing to know who would get more customers, after a while one won it, and seeing that by winning it, he made his sister feel bad because she got fired due to lack of customers, therefore he decides to "shut his tent down" - Guys, I can't believe you SHUT DOWN your tent just for me . So, what does "shut down" exactly mean? I have noticed that " shut down " may mean "turn off", but could anyone explain to me what are the others meanings? Edit 1 - The siblings were competing to know who would get more customers by selling food in a tent. - There are also other examples using the phrasal verb "shut down", such as: Shut her down , Shut me down , I will shut you down . What do they mean? I have also already heard " Shut down " in a game called League of Legends , when a player's got a kill score, like: Killed 15 players and died 0 times, and when someone kills the player with a kill score, A warning pops up saying: Shut down ! What does it mean? I presume it may mean something like: Stopped! <Q> When you shut your computer down, you bring it into a nonoperational state. <S> If authorities shut a business down (by the way, another term that's used to refer to a company or business in English is operation ), they legally close it down thereby making it nonoperational. <S> This idiom can also have a third meaning : 3 <S> [transitive] informal to stop someone from doing something, especially to stop a player from having the freedom to move around or play well <S> So, to sum things up, in simple terms shut down just means to prevent something from keeping doing its thing by, possibly, liquidating it. <S> Example of a more colloquial usage: He tried to ask her out, but she shut him down completely. <S> This is how this expression can be used in sports: <S> Our team will need to shut down their passing game if we are to succeed. <A> To "shut down" means to stop doing business it can be used to mean either involuntary or voluntary action. <S> The police raid shut down the illegal gambling operation in the basement of the liquor store. <S> or The clothing store at the mall is shutting down because it does not make enough money <S> It is meant in a similar way; the "shut down" button stops all operations on the computer <A> a shutting down, as of a factory, school, or machine; a termination or suspension of operations, services, or business activity: a partial government shutdown. <S> so any termination is called a shut down process. <A> If you consider the logic behind the verb to shut : <S> shut ( shŭt ): <S> To block entrance/passage; close To confine in a closed space To exclude from a closed space To fold up or bring together the parts of ... To cause to stop operating <S> It may be easier to understand the different contexts where this verb and the respective phrasal verbs can be used (with a few examples): <S> shut off – you are off limits to certain place (you may not stand on or in it anymore): loners who shut themselves off from the community <S> [they are now isolated since they excluded themselves from there] <S> shut your mouth/eyes <S> – you were speaking to or looking at/after someone <S> and you ceased this activity: <S> people who shut their eyes to poverty [no longer concerned with porverty] shut up – if you were speaking up , you stopped doing so: <S> I asked him politely to <S> shut up <S> shut down – something was open or up and running and it went down (an end state): <S> The fog shut down rapidly <S> A factory was shut down by an inspection team <S> The school that was shut down for the vacation <S> Player X activity was shut down to an end <S> Shut down (the long Minnesota winter) <S> like the white lid of a box —F. Scott Fitzgerald <S> Even if you take down out in any of the examples above, the phrase's purpose remains the same. <S> Notice that the verb itself connotes an action of closure or ending , and thus its derivatives connote a similar meaning. <A> I have also already heard "Shut down" in a game called League of Legends, when a player's got a kill score, like: <S> Killed 15 players and died 0 times <S> This particular usage may be confusing or paralleling the phrase for shut out (definition 2) (or shutout), a sports term meaning that one team was unable to score for the entire game. <S> It isn't commonly used for all sports.
| to shut something down simply means to make something nonoperational.
|
Where we are exactly if we're "at the sea"? I'm familiar with some serious discussions about preposition particularly when it comes to kind of "at" vs "in" involved. I know that " at " suggests a point in space and "in" requires being confined, enclosed in the area. Taking all the information we know into consideration, where does one imply to be exactly by saying "I'm at sea" (apart from its idiomatic meaning for sure). Is he far away from the coast on the water in/on the boat or any vessel? Or is he on the coast anywhere near the sea? Or both are possible? After learning the fact that "being at sea" and "being at the sea" are not the same thing, I have to include the following question in my post ; - how come the article " the " make such a difference like "being close to the sea(seaside)" and " being on an open sea/ocean " ? (please mention it in your answers) <Q> Not great for fishing. <S> On the sea: On a boat, not fishing from a dock or at the shore. <S> At sea: Out on the open ocean, not close to land. <S> Associated with deep sea fishing. <S> English has so many of these little differences that mean so much. <S> It must be a nightmare to learn it as a second language and master all of these microscopic things. <A> Both are possible. <S> If someone is "at sea", I expect that person to be onboard a vessel travelling on the ocean. <S> The vessel is not parked to a port, but other than that the sentence does not convey whether he is close to shore. <S> If someone is " in the sea ", I'd expect him to be inside a submarine... <S> (or perhaps diving / swimming). <A> "At the sea" can be taken to mean on land next to the sea (like a vacation resort, beach, or something like that). <S> This kind of usage seems to be more common in British English ("a holiday at the sea ") than American English ("a vacation at the beach"). <S> "At sea" usually means "on a boat in the ocean" (surface vessel or submarine, at least in the usages I'm familiar with). <S> It can also be used as a metaphor to describe someone in a chaotic or confusing situation; for example, "he was at sea trying to balance the demands of work and family". <S> That usage seems to be mostly literary; I don't usually hear someone say that out loud. <S> "In the sea" would imply being physically in the water (swimming, diving, treading water, drowning, etc.).
| In the sea: someone is actually IN the water.
|
When do people say 'Be well'? It sounds a lot more nuanced than a simple 'goodbye'. What subtle feelings or emotions does it encapsulate? <Q> As far as I know it is not commonly used. <S> In fact it sounds so unusual, it was used as a salutation in the 1993 science fiction movie "Demolition Man" (Sylvester Stallone and Sandra Bullock), where people from a sanitized and pacifist future reality would wish each other "be well" instead of "good bye". <S> This excessive congeniality made them sound exceptionally naive. <A> Chris Cuomo, CNN, uses it nightly on his show. <S> I personally like it and feel like it connects better with the recipient <S> , like you sincerely want and hope the best for that person until you meet again. <A> I started saying this a few years ago. <S> I still use "goodbye" and other idioms, but when I say "be well" I mean something more emotional, deeper. <S> It's my way of saying, "For however long passes between now and when we next see each other I hope you have a good life. <S> Have a joyous life. <S> A prosperous life. <S> A healthy life. <S> The life you most desire. <S> And when we see each other again let us rejoice." <A> I, too, just started using this in person as a form of goodbye and in writing as a salutation. <S> Desiring all good things for all people. <S> It is certainly most appropriate in our current unsettled, global paradigm regardless of the audience. <S> It is synonymous with thrive. <S> Be well! <A> This question is likely a matter of opinion. " <S> Be well" is certainly not a typical departure phrase. <S> I have sometimes heard this phrase used by people who strive to be alternative (a theme in my community), and use language that is intentionally different from many other people's. <S> I also just recently saw this phrase used in email and other electronic message signoffs to a friend who has been extremely ill. <S> In this case the phrase could be a wish that the person becomes well, or could be an attempt to avoid saying "goodbye" ( <S> again, this is a matter of opinion), which could sound, well, final, or "see you later," when there is a good chance that will not happen. <A> If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that the usage of “be well” in English as words of parting originated in areas of the US with a large Yiddish-speaking population, and gradually gained wider popularity. <S> Personally, I like the way it sounds <S> — it seems to have a kind of warmth and familiarity to it. <A> It is often used to also end an email and let the other person know you are ceasing further dialogue and don't expect a reply. <A> I have been using Be Well for more then 8 maybe even 9 years or more. <S> I don't do goodbye anymore. <S> I started doing it because good is way to light or dark in the use of words good <S> also does not say much on parting. <S> Be Well handles a lot better, it leaves a lot for the one who hears it to place it on a scale themselves. <S> Take care sounds like their is risk at every turn. <S> Where I would use Be well and safe travels, I am drawing perception to the idea of more awareness when driving or travelling. <S> Or safe journey, also works I may even use have a happy morrow. <S> As in wishing their next day well, but I also tend to let people know when I am leaving to do something else or going to my room <S> so they know they have more privacy when we have shared company.
| In Yiddish, the expresssion “Zei gezunt” (“be well”) is very commonly used, and often as a way of saying goodbye. A more common expression is, "Take care!", even if the person is not about to do anything dangerous.
|
You can't smoke (here / in here) You can't smoke ( here / in here ). What's the need of adding in before here here. Can't only here suffice. <Q> Both are correct, but there are subtle differences between both expressions. <S> You can't smoke here. <S> implies that the person can't smoke in the same location as the speaker, wherever they happen to be. <S> ' <S> in here' on the other hand, narrows the scope somewhat, because it refers to a space that can be entered, such as a room or building. <S> Other prepositions that work, depending on context, are 'out ', 'down' , 'up' . <S> For example: You can't smoke in here. <S> You can't smoke out here. <S> You can't smoke up here. <S> You can't smoke down here. <A> In is added only if the place in question is an enclosed one. <S> That way, it adds weight to the fact that it is, in fact, a closed space. <S> For instance, a room. <S> If it is an open space, like a ground, in should be omitted. <A> Yes, only using here will suffice. <S> In might be used to imply that smoking is allowed nearby.
| 'here' simply implies a broader sense of location, and that location is usually implicit in the sentence. As stated, in refers to an enclosed area.
|
What the meaning of " əˈtraktiv "? When I type one English word on Google Search Engine, It's show me small translate form on their result. When I search for "Attractive", it's give me result like this What I'am confused is the text on red box, What it's meaning? Is there an English alternate words? or something like that? <Q> As others have indicated, these symbols are meant to represent the pronuncation of the word… but there's more, as the saying goes. <S> There are many different respelling systems, but this one is derived from a system created by Noah Webster. <S> With some modifications, it remains in use by Merriam-Webster (see the MW Guide to Pronunciation ), the American Heritage Dictionary (see the AHD Pronunciation Key ), and other dictionaries published in the U.S. <S> This is the system which most Americans are taught in school, but it is only designed to represent American English, and is essentially unheard of in the rest of the world. <S> I am somewhat surprised to see that it is the system Google employs internationally— for example, for Google.fr and Google.de as Googgle.co.id. <S> No doubt this is because Google's information is sourced from an American dictionary. <S> The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is elsewhere the standard, as it is designed to represent sounds from across all human languages, and this may be more familiar to you. <S> The pronunciation of attractive would be rendered something like /ə ˈtræk <S> tɪv/ in IPA. <S> Wikipedia has a U.S. dictionary transcription key <S> which provides a "translation" of the notations from the Webster system to IPA. <S> Also see What is the name for “pronunciation spelling”? <S> at EL&U. <A> I think that's just the phonetic notation. <S> It's the way to show how you read the word aloud. <S> You do not need to worry about it unless you are looking for pronunciation of words. <A>
| That is the pronunciation respelling which is a regular phonetic respelling of a word to indicate the pronunciation.
|
What is the difference between IMO and IMHO and IHOP? I was reading a public forum, and I saw the following abbreviations: IMO IMHO IHOP As far as I see, these are interchangeable somehow, but I don't understand the correct usage of them.Just assuming the IMO Probably stands for "In my Opinion", and the extra 'H' letter stands for the Honest (or other references says: Humble). I don't understand with the extra "H" does it sarcastic or even rude to say? For the last one, I have absolutely no clue. I've tried to google it, and I ended up with: -- After all, I don't know how to use these abbreviations.Plus, is it common in the spoken language as a slang? Edited with an example of the last one Person 1: Hey you wanna go out later tonight? Person 2: IHOP Person 1: Damn, maybe next time I appreciate every answer! <Q> IMO - in my opinion <S> IMHO - in my honest/humble opinion <S> Both of these are very well known internet acronyms, and have been used for many years. <S> Its sincerity depends entirely on context. <S> For example: IMHO, I think that the MacBook pro is overpriced. <S> IMHO, you're an idiot. <S> ... <S> are worlds apart in their sincerity. <S> Based on the context of the conversation you provided, I am guessing that IHOP stands for <S> I H ave O ther P lans, and is not a commonly used acronym from what I can see. <S> [edit] Apparently the Urban Dictionary agrees with the meaning of IHOP, and oddly, uses the same example that the OP provided. <A> I Hate Old People <S> I Hate Other People <S> I.H.O.P.a hard hit in football. <S> referring to the common slang of pancake for the same meaning IHOP(International House of Prayer) <S> IHOP <S> iHOP <S> Information Hyperlinked Over Proteins <S> IHOP <S> International House of Pain (slang for sports conditioning) <S> IHOP Internal Heat or Pressure <S> IHOP <S> International Health Opportunities Program <S> You would have to know the context to understand the acronym. <A> This one is very easy. <S> IHOP - I have other plans
| Both expressions are more or less interchangeable, and in my humble opinion is not by itself sarcastic - it should be taken as being genuine sign of humility, unless something else in the sentence indicates otherwise.
|
What's the meaning of this sentence?...,, While reading "Louis Pasteur" by Margaret Avery,I am having difficulty in understanding this statement: "...Placed under the patronage of a name doomed henceforward to execration by my country, that of Rex Guilemus" Louis Pasteur(Franciscan) wrote this to Uni. of Bonn when war broke out between France and Germany. I tried literal translation but could not figure out. <Q> I found the context of the above phrase in Journal of the Chemical Society. <S> Transactions. <S> Vol. <S> LXXI Part I, 1897. <S> p. 727. <S> After referring to the fact that he had framed the diploma and hung it up in his study, he says: "To-day, the sight of this parchment is odious to me, and I feel offended at seeing my name, with the qualification of virum clarissimum which you have bestowed upon it, placed under the patronage of a name doomed henceforward to execration by my country, that of Rex Guilelmus." <S> In context, "Rex Guilelmus" refers to Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany. <S> Diplomas of that time often used Latin. <S> What Pasteur means is, he is offended that the diploma is signed by Wilhelm, or that it states his endorsement of the university (of Bonn), implying that he (Pasteur) is approved of by ("under the patronage of") Wilhelm, whose country has attacked France, and Wilhelm is therefore hated by the French people. <A> In this instance, the man Louis Pasteur is a Frenchman who has received an honorary doctorate from a German university. <S> However war between Germany and France has just broken out, and so he feels uncomfortable with being honored by an institution of a rival nation, something that other French might see as negative, or an indication of disloyalty. <A> Say that the name doomed henceforward to execration by my country, was a well-known German. <S> He would want to be recognised by his fellow French, and might not like being admired by the enemy of his country. <S> Oh and the writing is not clear in terms of modern writing. <S> It was likely perfectly understandable when it was written. <A> "... <S> Placed under the patronage of a name doomed henceforward to execration by my country, that of Rex Guilemus" Louis Pasteur(Franciscan) wrote this to Uni. <S> of Bonn when war broke out between France and Germany. <S> We have two quasi-passive predicative complements there, formed with the past participles of verbs (place, doom): placed under the patronage of a name doomed henceforward to execration by my country and two metonyms: name (meaning "notable person") and country (meaning "fellow citizens") <A> He is offended to see his name on a document approved by a German emperor, whom his country men hate and criticize. <S> As Pasteur was a patriot <S> so he felt like he was under patronage of that name which he wanted not.
| It means the name might likely be heavily criticised or disdained by Pasteur's fellow country-men.
|
How to differentiate between possessive pronouns and adjectives? How to use possessive pronouns and possessive adjectives? For example, which is correct: Is this your luggage? or Is this yours luggage? <Q> This is my book. <S> Mine,yours,his,hers,ours,theirs are possessive pronouns or independent genitive pronouns <S> (thanks BillJ).They don't require nouns after them. <S> The book is mine. <S> Is that car yours? <A> The first case is correct : "Is this your luggage" ' <S> Yours' is a pronoun, so it should not be followed by a noun or noun phrase. <S> 'Your' is a determiner and must be followed by a noun, completing a noun phrase. <A> "Your" always goes before the noun. <S> Is this your luggage? <S> "Yours" always goes alone. <S> Is this yours? <S> or Is this luggage yours?
| My,your,his,her,its, our, their are possessive adjectives or dependent genitive pronouns used as determiners before nouns .
|
Can we leave out "for"? He wants very badly for everyone to like him. Can we leave out "for" in this sentence? If not, is it because of the adverb "badly",its position in the clause or the following pronoun? He wants everyone to like him very much. Here we can use "everyone" without "for". I am sure both sentences are correct and have the same meaning. When should we use "for" with the infinitive clause? Thank you. <Q> This sentence is a bit awkward: <S> He wants very badly for everyone to like him. <S> but the smoothest and least ambiguous way to rearrange <S> it is as follows: <S> He (very) badly wants everyone to like him. <S> which removes the need for the word "for". <S> For instance, "want" takes a direct object without a preposition. <S> By contrast, with the verb "pray" you would use "for": <S> He prays for everyone to like him. <A> No, I don't believe it is grammatically correct to leave out the preposition in the first sentence. <S> I would also say the positioning of 'very badly' as an adverbial phrase is slightly awkward in such construction. <S> I would say: He wants everyone to like him very badly. <S> So that it is used at the end of the sentence, which is why your second example is the correct version of the two. <S> Also to note is that we don’t use for + infinitive to express our purpose or intention. <S> We use to + infinitive. <S> For is normally used with the -ing form of a verb to talk about the function of something or how something is used. <A> Here in this case both for and to are subordinator. <S> The subordinator to is used to introduce a non-finite clause, we commonly call to -Infinitive clause. <S> I like to do it myself . <S> In here the infinitive clause has its own subject. <S> But it's not mentioned explicitly. <S> The implied subject of the infinitive clause and the subject of the superordinate clause are the same - I . <S> [Note that we are calling to do it myself a clause. <S> If it doesn't have a subject, how can we call it a subject. <S> It indeed has.] <S> In some cases the subject is explicitly mentioned. <S> I have something else for you to do while you are here. <S> The clause-subordinator - for - is used to add the explicit subject to the to -Infinitive clause. <S> Notice that in this case we need to mention the subject of the infinitive clause explicitly, else in absence of this explicit subject we end up understanding that I have something <S> and I would do it or work on it . <S> With the for you part added, we would interpret it as <S> I have something <S> and you would do or work on this something . <S> He wants very badly (for) everyone to like him. <S> Actually in formal and written context you wouldn't expect anyone to write this sentence. <S> You would normally hear the sentence without the clause-subordinator - for . <S> But in informal speech you may hear someone say it. <S> Both of the sentences do mean the same thing. <S> You must be thinking that the subject of the infinitive clause is mentioned explicitely, still we don't need the clause-subordinator - for . <S> Why? <S> It's because of the main verb of the superordinate clause - want . <S> It licenses a Noun Phrase that can be post modified by a to -infinitive clause. <S> It can also license a to -infinitive clause.
| I would say that the choice of verb is the important thing in determining when "for" is needed with an infinitive phrase.
|
James is inside Emily in a room? Two persons are in a room: Emily and James. James is closer to the center of the room than Emily is. In other words, Emily is closer to the wall of the room than James is. Can this situation be described that James is inside Emily in a room? <Q> As Peter says, most readers' first thought would be that they are having sex. <S> Or depending on context, you could use these words if James is an unborn baby who is in Emily's womb, or if James is a doctor who is performing surgery on Emily, or if James is a psychiatrist or a mind-reader, though in that last case a native speaker would be more likely to say "inside Emily's mind" or "inside Emily's head". <S> Saying what you are trying to say clearly requires more words. <S> " <S> We say, "James is to the right of Emily" or "James is to the north of Emily". <S> But there's really no corresponding phrasing for "center". <S> We DON'T say, "James is to the center of Emily". <S> Perhaps because for "left" or "right" or "north" or "south", we only need to mention the two people, but for "center" we also have to identify what the thing is that we are talking about being at the center of. <S> The "center of the room" or the "center of city", etc. <S> But even at that, I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "James is to the center of the room of Emily". <S> They always had words like "closer to". <A> Unfortunately, no it can not be described the way you are thinking about it. <S> The phrase James is inside Emily. <S> without further context would be understood as they are having sex, especially given the gender and positioning of the phrase. <S> To not be misunderstood, you would need to provide more context or rephrase it to possibly James is on the inside of Emily. <S> "The" turns it into a positional description, just as James is on the right of Emily. <S> James is on the left of Emily. <A> Two persons are in a room: Emily and James. <S> James is closer to the center of the room than Emily is. <S> In other words, Emily is closer to the wall of the room than James is. <S> Can this situation be described that James is inside Emily in a room? <S> No. <S> Both people are in the room. <S> James stands in the centre and Emily by the wall. <S> I am not sure why it is important that you position Emily and James, but here is my suggestion: James stood in the centre of the room and Emily stood by the wall. <S> or, James stood in the centre of the room while Emily stood next to the wall. <S> These examples are not 'good' writing, but the meaning is clear. <S> There are many ways to write this information, some more literary and some other ways of clearly stating their positions. <S> Some other words for stood: positioned, placed, located Some other words for placed: lounged, sat, lay, settled Some other words for next/close: alongside, adjacent, touching, beside <A> @Jay mentioned that, unlike cardinal directions and left and right, "for "center" we also have to identify what the thing is that we are talking about being at the center of." <S> There are center/outer terms that can work analogously to the cardinal directions, but they are niche jargon terms. <S> You can use the terms coreward and rimward , which are used in some science fiction stories but don't seem to have a big following outside of sci-fi. <S> Using one of these terms in the context of the OP's room could be seen as a metaphorical extension of the concept of these directions with respect to a galaxy being reinterpreted with respect to a room. <S> Thus, you could say, James is coreward of Emily. <S> These terms should be avoided in formal writing, but there is no reason that you couldn't use them casually with a known science fiction fan.
| I think the most natural way to say it would be, "James is closer to the center of the room than Emily.
|
waiting ON a miracle? Is this phrase correct? "Smoke and mirrors keep us waiting ON a miracle" ("Let Me Love You" Justin Bieber) looked up in the browser and found out that to WAIT ON is to bring a meal for someone. And this meaning isn't suitable actually. I assume in this song "wait on" is used like "wait for a miracle" or "believe in a miracle". What can you tell me about it? ADD:Guys, really thank you for your help. Yeah, i agree with SimonH that first of all i need to learn proper English, which i really want to do and try to do. As i understand, "WAIT ON" can exist like "WAIT FOR" but only with my english-spoken friends. And i'd better avoid using it at school, moreover while i'm sitting my exams. THANK YOU AGAIN ;) <Q> Wait on is a colloquial variant of <S> wait for <S> ; it is not acceptable in formal discourse. <S> In my experience the two are practically equivalent, except that there may be some slight tendency to prefer on when the wait is caused by a delay. <S> ADDED: Just to clarify: in Bieber's song wait on <S> is a colloquial variant of <S> wait for something or someone. <S> There is also a formal use of wait on , now virtually obsolete except in historical contexts, meaning "attend, hold oneself in readiness to serve" a superior. <S> This is (for instance) <S> the sense you encounter when Samuel Pepys writes "Thence to White Hall, and we waited on the Duke", or in the title "Lady-in-Waiting"; and this sense is the source of the still-current use with servers in a restaurant. <A> I would interpret the phrase "to wait on a miracle" as having a different meaning from "to wait for a miracle". <S> Which preposition is more appropriate would depend upon which meaning was intended. <S> By contrast, "to wait for object X" would mean that one is refraining from performing at least some task until X arrives, but does not imply that one is setting aside all --or even most--other tasks. <S> Waiting "on" a miracle would, metaphorically, suggest that there is a "miracle has occurred" light and one is focused exclusively on watching that light. <S> By contrast, waiting "for" a miracle would imply that there are some things one is expecting to do if/when the miracle occurs, but in the meantime one may do other things. <A> My generation did not ever use 'wait on' unless it was specific to a server waiting on patrons in a restaurant or at a dinner party. <S> A maid or butler would wait on you as well. <S> Now, most of us do not have maids or butlers and the only person 'waiting on' us is a wait person/ server. <S> I am waiting for the bus. <S> I am waiting for spring. <S> In writing, waiting for is the accepted usage outside of the server/maid example. <S> In speech, it is slang/colloquial (but not yet 'correct'*) for people to say, "I'm waiting on the bus." <S> In writing that would mean you are literally waiting on the bus for an event to happen. <S> "We waited on the bus, for the driver to arrive." This means we were inside, on the bus while we waited. <S> I said not correct* because if you are in a formal setting and trying to impress a potential employer or anyone important to you that you have some education, you should try not to use colloquialisms -- unless you fully understand them. <S> It doesn't matter what those might be. <S> Slang or colloquial speech is still unacceptable in some situations. <S> Until you know those situations, I'd suggest you speak more formally. <S> Everyone will understand you. <S> ON EDIT: Here is a link -- but you can google this easily. <S> I don't know if this is the same where you are from, but I automatically do not use swear words in many situations. <S> I don't need to be told or have it explained. <S> I just know not to swear at my teacher, the boss, a child, and so on. <S> Other colloquialisms are similar. " <S> Wassup?" might be perfectly acceptable to your group of friends, but totally unacceptable to your potential boss. <S> Justin Bieber is writing poetry/lyrics. <S> There's a lot of leeway and license given to artists in their choice of phrasing and word usage. <A> As there seems to be a lot of debate in the comments on this I thought I should post the Oxford Learner's Dictionary opinion on this. <S> wait on somebody <S> | wait on something (informal, especially North American English) to wait for something to happen before you do or decide something <S> She is waiting on the result of a blood test. <S> And by "informal" the OED means "suitable for normal conversation and writing to friends rather than for serious speech and letters".
| At least by my interpretation, "to wait on object X" means "to watch for X to perform some expected action, while setting aside all other tasks".
|
I love you too vs I too love you What is the proper response to I love you? Is it "I love you too" or "I too love you" ? <Q> I too = <S> I, in addition to another person or persons <S> I, too, am wearing a blue shirt. <S> The sentence above implies that I am not the only person wearing a blue shirt. <S> I am one of the people wearing blue shirts. <S> I am wearing a blue shirt too. <S> This form is ambiguous, and the ambiguity can be resolved only by the context. <S> It could mean that my trousers, say, or my necktie, is blue and so is my shirt. <S> Or it could mean that I am not the only person wearing a blue shirt; I am one of the people wearing blue shirts. <S> In speech, the intonation pattern would disambiguate: <S> I'm wearing a blue shirt too . <S> (I'm one of the people wearing blue shirts) <S> I'm wearing a blue shirt too. <S> (My shirt is not the only blue thing I'm wearing) <A> I too love you. <S> Too here <S> modifies <S> I , implying there are other people that love you besides "I". <S> It can't modify any other word. <S> I love you too <S> Too can modify any other word in this sentence. <S> In speech, the word stressed indicates which is modified. <S> In text, you have to pay attention to context. <S> I love you too = <S> I + other people love you. <S> I love you too = <S> I love + other actions to you. <S> I love you too = <S> I love you + other people. <S> I love you too = <S> I love you in the same manner as someone else loves you. <S> 90% of the time the "someone else" is whoever "you" is in the sentence. <A> To only say I love you too . <S> after someone has professed their love for you is a bit uninspired. <S> If you are feeling playful, you might say I love you (right) back . <S> I love you more . <S> Not as much as I love you! <S> If you say I too love you. <S> Though correct grammatically, may not be what you mean romantically. <S> It only means that you are one of possibly many admirers.
| "I love you too" is pretty idiomatic in English and the last meaning is usually what these sequence of words mean - but the way it is said or context can make the other meanings possible.
|
Fall vs Fall down I can't know the difference between "fall" and "fall down", I saw both definitions in Cambridge and in some dictionaries, but they seem to be the same to me. See these definitions: Cambridge Fall - to suddenly go down onto the ground or towards the ground without intending to or by accident . Cambridge Fall down - to fall to the ground Cambridge Fall vs Fall down - We can use fall as a noun or a verb. It means ‘suddenly go down onto the ground or towards the ground unintentionally or accidentally’. It can also mean ‘come down from a higher position’. As a verb, it is irregular. Its past form is fell and its -ed form is fallen. Fall does not need an object. *We can’t use fall down to mean ‘come down from a higher position’: House prices have fallen a lot this year. Not: House prices have fallen down a lot …* What does it mean? Why is it not allowed to use fall down when something comes down from a higher position? If something falls down, according to the Physical laws, the object had to be in a higher position, if not, how did it feel "down"? It doesn't make any sense to me, how can something fall down without being in a high position? Can anyone explain to me the difference between these two terms, because I read it many times but I still don't get it, as far as I'm concerned, it may be optional. <Q> English has a lot of verb+transitive preposition constructions like this one— hurry up, turn around, deal out, gather in —in which the preposition doesn't add any particular directional or locative meaning, even a figurative one. <S> When a construction of this sort first emerges you often find pedants and purists complaining that the preposition is "superfluous" or "redundant" (for instance, Google a fairly recent one, "continue on"), and it's true that the core meaning of fall down and hurry up and the rest are expressed perfectly adequately by the bare verb. <S> But this misses the point: the function of the preposition is not so much to modify the meaning as to intensify or 'color' it. <S> If you are a speaker of German or a Romance tongue it may help you to think of the preposition as equivalent to the prefixes on verbs which are common in your language. <S> (English used to create verbs with prefixed native prepositions this way, too, but mostly gave it up about eight or nine hundred years ago in favor of posterior prepositions.) <S> What I think Cambridge is trying (not very successfully) to express is that fall down is not used to describe mere movement from a higher position to a lower one: it typically characterizes the movement as sudden, rapid, involuntary, uncontrolled, or some combination of these; and it usually implies that the fall ends in a more-or-less violent collision with an unyielding surface. <S> When prices fall they usually stop somewhere short of $0.00; but when a person falls down <S> she usually lands on the ground or the floor with a bump!—she <S> falls all the way down. <A> Dictionaries only give you simple definitions, not complete instructions for how to use a phrase, so don't be surprised if things are not always perfectly clear after reading the dictionary. <S> The dictionary definitions are correct: Fall : to move towards the ground because of gravity, or more generally to move downwards. <S> For example, "I saw Smith fall when the rope that he was climbing broke", or "Housing prices will fall." <S> Fall down : to move downwards by accident and hit the ground or floor . <S> For example, "Harry tripped over his son's toys and fell down" or "There was an earthquake and Grandmother's portrait hanging on the wall fell down." <S> We don't use "fall down" to simply mean "come downwards from a higher position". <S> For example, it would sound wrong to say "I saw the damaged airplane fall down." <S> And you might ask, " <S> Why? <S> Doesn't falling always mean moving downwards?" <S> All I can say is "We don't use the words that way." <S> Fall down is a phrasal verb , in which the meaning of the phrase is not obvious from the literal meaning of each of the words. <S> I would advise you to just learn the meaning and not get too hung up on the 'why' of things. <A> Fall, Fell, Fallen, Falling - This is not related to gravity. <S> She fell ill. <S> Fall under category. <S> Fall asleep. <S> Fall into a trap. <S> Fell in Love <S> ❤ <S> ️ <S> She fell to my knees. <S> Fall down, <S> Fell Down, Fallen Down, aFalling Down - <S> This is related to gravity. <S> Meaning to loose a stable position suddenly or upright position suddenly. <S> It meaning sense is also related to tip over - coming from vertical to horizontal position , overturn - when car tyres are towards the sky and roof is on the ground but meaning of Falling is also similar to Falling Down but Falling <S> usual falling we don't take notice of it. <S> Falling Down <S> This is Unusual falling. <S> This is for things that fall <S> and we take notice of it. <S> The season when the leaves fall from the trees is called . <S> . . .? <S> Rain drops and snow flakes were falling. <S> Check the difference <S> rain drops fall, <S> don't worry, it's <S> natural VS Rain drop is falling Down, oh no, who did it, now we were gonna die also. <A> A fall is an unexpected movement towards the ground or other supporting surface, that's not the direct result of being thrown or tossed. <S> If X has fallen down as opposed to merely fallen, X is in one of the following states after it experienced a fall: X's broadest or most significant surface is now in contact with the ground (that is, flat ). <S> X is now significantly "under" you in terms of height <S> and it's not possible for X to move downward any further. <S> One can say X would have to get up before moving again. <S> An animal may fall down on its hind legs - the above two conditions probably don't apply technically but <S> we'd definitely say the animal would have to "get up" before it starts walking again.
| If you say "fall down", it sounds like you mean "accidentally moved from its normal position and hit the ground."
|
When you cannot recognize identical twins Please imagine your neighbor has identical twin sons and since you've met them you've been unable to recognize them properly. It seems strange to you and you're talking to a friend. I was wondering if someone could let me know which one of my self-made sentences below works here: I always mistake twins up. I always muddle twins up. I always mix twins up. <Q> Mistake is not used with up , and muddle as a verb is relatively uncommon in US English; so of your three choices, the most natural to my ear is <S> I always mix the twins up. <S> (If you omit the article you are saying that you confuse all pairs of twins, not just the pair next door.) <S> But in my part of the country it would be even more natural to say <S> I always get the twins mixed up. <A> I always mix up the twins. <S> I always mix the twins up. <S> I always muddle the twins up. <S> I always muddle up the twins. <S> You need to use <S> the since you are talking about a specific set of twins, otherwise your mistaken identity would apply for all twins. <A> Don't use mistake ; <S> mistake up is not a phrasal verb or idiom. <S> I wouldn't use muddle , either. <S> That implies more of a total state of confusion, not just getting two things confused with each other. <S> but you want to change your wording: <S> I always mix the twins up. <S> or: <S> I always get the twins mixed up. <S> You want to say "the twins," and not just "twins" because you are talking about a particular pair of twins – the ones who live near you. <S> As a footnote, yet another way to convey this would be: I never know which one is which. <A> Mix.. <S> Up is correct <S> : mixed up,you mean that who you really thought was <S> child X was really child Y Muddle up <S> seems to be right too, but like this: The twins are so alike that it's easy to muddle them up. <S> mistake Won't work, since they are usually two persons, and by a mistake you don't mean mixing or confusing thing. <A> The 3 sentences are incorrect. <S> The first two refer to twins in general. <S> Use past tense for "mix" and "muddle", and identify the twins with "the". <S> When referring to a specific pair of twins, it's best to use " <S> I always get the twins mixed up." <S> over "I always get the twins muddled up.", although both are correct. <S> "I always mistake twins up." <S> is wrong. <S> It's fine to say "Muddle up" and "Mix up", but never "Mistake up.".
| The clear choice here is mix up,
|
How can I say this in one sentence: "I am bad, love me as I am"? I actually have two questions: 1-How can I say this in one sentence: "I am bad, love me as I am" ? I was thinking about "Love me the way I am bad" or "Love me as I am bad" but I don't feel they are correct. 2-I want to say everybody likes good people. Is it correct to say "Everybody loves the good" ? <Q> An idiomatic way to convey that thought would be Love me, warts and all. <S> The phrase warts and all can be used to allude to a person’s faults and shortcomings. <S> As for “Everybody loves the good,” that could refer to good people, or it could refer to anything good in life. <S> If I read that sentence without any additional context, I’d assume it was talking about all that is good, not just good people: pleasant weather, the arts, world peace, unselfishness, etc. <A> Love me though I'm bad. <S> Love me even though I'm bad. <S> Love me even if I'm bad. <S> Yes, it's correct to say that. <A> Another conventional expression like "warts and all" is " <S> you must take me as you find me" meaning that, to have a relationship with me, you must be satisfied with me as I am and not expect me to change to please you. <S> As to your second question, <S> "Everyone loves the good" is a fairly conventional expression, but much more often used as a general statement about the world, not about living beings particularly. <A> Love me despite my faults / flaws. <S> would be a gentler way to say it. <S> Your second sentence seems to have the sense of Always find the good in everyone / everything. <A> If you want to use your original words verbatim, you can use a semicolon to separate the two phrases. <S> "I am bad; love me as I am". <S> While this is grammatically correct, for the purpose of dialogue it doesn't flow well. <S> You could say "I may be bad, but love me as I am", but again, I personally don't think that it's a natural phrase. <S> A better option could be to try phrasing it as a question, such as, " <S> Can't you love me as I am, even though I'm bad/a terrible person?" <S> or, "I may be bad, but can't you love me as I am?" <S> As for the second question, it is grammatically correct, but I share my precious sentiment about the way it flows. <S> The phrasing is still a tad awkward.
| A more natural way to say it could be to replace "good" with a more descriptive adjective, such as "righteous" or, if you're looking for a more creative way, "Nice guys might finish last, but everyone still loves them"/"Everyone loves the nice guys".
|
overall or "as a whole" which is suitable to describe a shape? A golf ball has dimples, but the dimples are very small. Can we say that a golf ball has a sphere shape as a whole or can we say a golf ball has an overall sphere shape? <Q> Yes, both actually. <S> As a whole, a golf ball is a sphere, albeit a dimpled one. <S> In a similar way I would say that, overall , Washington DC's National Mall is a long rectangle , bordered by parks, museums, and monuments: <S> Granted <S> it's not a perfect rectangle, <S> but if you start at one end you can walk in a straight line all the way to the other end, and the Mall itself is a consistent width. <S> So as a whole , I can describe it as rectangular . <S> Unlike New York's Central Park, which is an actual rectangle: <S> But here I can say, overall Central Park is covered with grass and trees (albeit with a small lake in the middle). <A> I use as a whole and overall in the different orders of mentioning the whole and the parts. <S> 1. <S> Use as a whole after the parts are mentioned I would use as a whole if I have mentioned the parts of an object which may have differences with it. <S> I mean, Some parts of an object do not have a feature, but the object as a whole has it. <S> I'll say, A golf ball has dimples, but the dimples are very small. <S> We can consider that a golf ball has a spherical shape as a whole. <S> Key: forget the dimples. <S> 2. <S> Use overall before or without the parts are mentioned <S> But if having not said anything about the parts , I prefer to use overall . <S> For example, A golf ball has an overall sphere shape, but it has dimples. <S> A golf ball has an overall sphere shape in spite of the dimples. <S> Key: plain statement. <S> 3. <S> Use as a whole without the parts are mentioned <S> I don't like to use whole <S> when the parts are not obvious. <S> A golf ball has a spherical shape as a whole. <S> The sentence may confuse me to pause, thinking what the parts of a golf ball are, if I do not know the dimples on golf balls. <S> On the contrary, the words below will not: <S> Overall, A golf ball has a spherical shape. <S> If the whole consists of relatively small groups of the same kind of thing, or something that is well known, It won't confuse. <S> The U.S. population, as a whole, is very mobile compared to other countries. <S> This implies an omission meaning The population in some area of the U.s. is not mobile. <S> Key: forget the parts. <S> I even don't want to say about it. <S> 4. <S> It implies ignoring the mentioned thing. <S> but fo A golf ball has dimples, but overall, has a spherical shape. <S> To me, it means that A golf ball has dimples. <S> If ignoring the dimples, a golf ball has a spherical shape. <S> Key: ignore the dimples at this time. <S> Addition. <S> Use overall if the content do not have an explicit relationship between the whole and the parts <S> There are several little mistakes in your report, but overall, you have done a great work. <A> In describing a shape, one would use "overall" if one is describing a size or complex shape by ignoring those parts that are an irregularity or complexity. <S> In the example of the golf ball, one is ignoring the concave dimples and looking only at what the size and shape would be without them. <S> One would use "as a whole" if one is describing a size or complex shape by including those parts that are an irregularity or complexity. <S> If the golf ball's dimples were convex bumps then, as a whole (by including the bumps), the circumference of the golf ball is greater than one with dimples. <S> Note: <S> "As a whole" is short for "[All the parts] taken as a whole" = <S> overall (adv.) <S> "Overall" (adj.) = <S> the maximum/greatest extent
| Overall, a golf ball has a spherical shape. Use overall after the parts are mentioned
|
Went vs Was gone My Grammar book gives me "went" as the correct answer and I don't understand why. "When did Jane go?" "I don't remember when she ____." a. goes b. went c. was gone d. had gone Why "was gone" is not the right answer? <Q> In modern English "BE + past participle" as a verb form can only be passive (eg "was eaten"). <S> Since "go" is not transitive, it cannot form a passive. <S> It follows that "was gone" cannot be a verb form. <S> * <S> It follows that "was gone" <S> can only be parsed as "copula + adjective". <S> So "I don't remember when she was gone", while grammatical, has a rather different meaning: it can only mean something like "I don't remember when she wasn't here". <S> * <S> In Early Modern English, some intransitive verbs could take BE + ppl for the perfect, so "was gone" could correspond to modern "had gone". <S> You'll find such forms in Shakespeare and the King James Bible. <S> But this is obsolete now. <A> "When did Jane go?" <S> "I don't remember when she ____." <S> a. goes <S> b. went c. was gone d. had goneWhy "was gone" is not the right answer? <S> the question in the sentence is GO. <S> The past tense of GO is WENT, not /was gone/. "to be gone" is a different expression with different rules. <S> I don't remember when she went . <S> However, I would say the following: None of the answers are great. <S> The most idiomatic response would probably be: I don't remember when she left. <A> Gone is the past participle of to go. <S> Used as the verb of a sentence, it must always be preceded by an auxiliary verb such as <S> has, have, had, is, am, are, was, were, be, or one of their contractions. <S> It never takes an auxiliary verb. <S> Incorrect: They gone to the movies. <S> (Gone needs an auxiliary verb.) <S> Correct: They have gone to the movies. <S> Correct: They are gone to the movies. <S> Correct: They went to the movies. <S> Incorrect: You could have went with them. <S> (Went takes no auxiliary verb.) <S> Correct: You could have gone with them.
| Went is the past tense of to go.
|
What does "I'll make it" mean? There's a song Paul Dano's character's singing in "Swiss Army Man" movie. Crazy, I'm freaking crazy, Maybe, just maybe I'll make it alone. Rescued, Thought I was rescued, But you're just a dead dude and I'm gonna die. There's gotta be a better way to get out of here I can't understand what does "make it" mean in this context. General definition of "make it" is "to achieve one's goals". I can't understand what goal does the guy have. <Q> The sentence means "Perhaps he will manage to survive in a difficult situation. <S> He will try to do it on his own. <S> He considers the ways of getting out of "here". <A> Paul Dano's character wants to get off the island he's marooned on. <S> That's the goal that "make it" refers to. <S> He says that when he saw Daniel Radcliffe, he "thought he was rescued", but it turns out Radcliffe is "just a dead dude". <S> So that means that Dano has to "make it alone": he has to find his way back to civilization on his own. <A> For example: "Will my son make it through the night doctor?" <S> or "I've been through worse trials <S> , I'll make it this time. <S> " <S> Based on the context given, that is probably what Paul Dano's character meant.
| One of the common definitions of "Make it" is to survive or endure hardship.
|
What does the line "So long and thanks for all the fish!" mean? I got a mail with the subject "So long and thanks for all the fish!" from my Manager. What does it mean? <Q> It is a quotation from Episode Three of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio series by Douglas Adams. <S> This is a comedy, the phrase, as used there, is to signify that Dolphins are more intelligent than humans. <S> In the story, Earth is destroyed, the dolphins knew this was coming and left the planet. <S> The full quotation is: Curiously enough, the dolphins had long known of the impending demolition of Earth and had made many attempts to alert mankind to the danger. <S> But most of their communications were misinterpreted as amusing attempts to punch footballs, or whistle for titbits, so they eventually gave up and left the Earth by their own means - shortly before the Vogons arrived. <S> The last ever dolphin message was misinterpreted as a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double backwards somersault through a hoop, whilst whistling the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’. <S> But, in fact, the message was this “So long and thanks for all the fish”. <S> Subsequently, Douglas Adams published a book with the title <S> So Long and Thanks for all the Fish which was based upon the original series. <S> So, in the context of your email, it is just an attempt at humour by someone leaving. <A> To boil it down to its most basic: It's a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and has become a humorous way of saying "Goodbye". <A> "So long and thanks for all the fish" is the title of the fourth book from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" tetralogy. <A> As the others have said, the line is a quote. <S> The phrase "So long" is an informal synonym for "Goodbye". <A> The line is the title of a humorous novel by Douglas Adams. <S> It refers to dolphins, who were much more advanced than we had thought, leaving Earth prior to its destruction to make room for a "hyperspace bypass". <S> Having a particularly British sense of decorum, they could not leave without thanking us for the fish they had eaten. <S> I have no idea what your manager's email was about. <A> I just recently used this expression, and got the same question. <S> Other answers (especially the one from Chenmunka) have described the reference, but I’m not sure they fully describe what I was trying to say. <S> For me, <S> and I believe most others, it's a humorous way to say 3 things simultaneously: <S> Goodbye. <S> Thanks for all the nice things you’ve done for me. <S> The goodbye is permanent: <S> I’m not coming back, and most likely I’llnever see or hear from any of you again. <S> It’s that third connotation that makes people want to use humor. <S> It keeps the goodbye from being too melodramatic. <A> Almost certainly he is referencing saying goodbye - probably on a permanent basis or possibly simply for a long time. <A> Adams' line "thanks for all the fish" might be a nod toward the intertextuality of several science fiction writers. <S> Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout being his nod towards his fellow writer Theodore Sturgeon, Philip Farmer's "Venus on the Half-Shell" under the pseudonym Kilgore Trout nods toward Vonnegut, and then Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" nods toward 'Half-Shell's' 'definitive answer. <S> And one more nod perhaps: half-shells come from oysters, a type of shellfish anyhow. <A> I too used the phrase when departing a disagreeable job. <S> I held a very negative outlook for the companies future, ie. <S> Imminent failure. <S> I was happy to leave for a better job, yet felt sorry for the poor souls trapped in their jobs. <S> I gave proper notice, left quickly and had no further contact with anyone after my departure email.... <S> its been nice working with you.... <S> blah blah blah.... <S> so long and thanks for all the fish. <S> The quote and story line seemed to fit my job experience <S> so bloody <S> well -on so many levels! <S> I enjoyed eating at expensive restaurants using my expense account <S> and I'm a pescatarian! <S> I thought the intent of the quote (a humourous middle finger) in my departure email was so obvious. <S> Now I think people had no clue how negative I was about the company's.
| In context with its subject line, it could be that he is good-naturedly announcing he will be away from the office for a while, or maybe permanently. As others have said - it is a quote from Douglas Adams the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Used in a message it is just a humourous way to say goodbye, calling to mind the leaving of the dolphins from Earth saying thanks for the fish they had gotten.
|
which one ("numbers" or "number") in this context? Which one is correct to say? More number s of tasks; or More number of tasks? The full sentence is something like this: "In situation A, a user accomplishes more number of tasks than that in situation B." Also, I need to use the word "number", because it is about an equation. Thanks! <Q> The problem with 'more number of tasks' is that it is verging on tautology. ' <S> , so what you are really saying is 'a greater number number of tasks'! <S> Better: 'more tasks', or 'a greater number of tasks' -- <S> but I suggest you normally opt for the shorter choice! <S> You may be referring to an equation, so might wish to use the word 'number', but you might also credit the reader with the realization that, because it is in reference to an equation, numbers will be involved. <S> While on the topic of 'more', the opposite of 'more' in the sense of 'a greater number' is 'fewer', never 'less', which is only used as the opposite of 'a greater amount'. <S> So 'fewer birds', but 'less water'. <S> We often see 'less' used for both senses, which is technically wrong -- but language DOES change, and this distinction may well disappear as more and more people fail to see the difference. <A> What I believe you are trying to express is that the user gets more things done, therefore you are looking for a single number of tasks which would be the bar for measurement <S> more number of tasks <S> however, your phrase would be better stated as a greater number of tasks meaning the number of tasks accomplished is more then otherwise. <A> Neither construction is correct. <S> more number of tasks <S> The problem with this phrase is that number , when used in the sense of 'quantity' (ie. " <S> a quantity of Xs"/"a number of Xs"), is a mass noun whereas <S> more only works for count nouns . <S> Your other suggestion almost fixes this: more numbers of tasks <S> Here numbers could be taken as a plural count noun, and so could be modified by more . <S> The problem is that it no longer has the meaning of 'quantity', and simply refers to numbers as things (eg. " <S> Which of the following numbers are even?"). <S> As such, it doesn't make sense to say "numbers of tasks". <S> To confuse things, it is possible to use numbers as a mass noun as well, for example: "Significant numbers of voters are turning away from bipartisan politics." <S> However, it's not so appropriate in this context, and in any case would not admit use of more . <S> If you insist on using number , the correct construction would be: a greater number of tasks <S> Here, greater is the appropriate modifier for a mass noun. <S> I'm not sure what you mean that it should be number because you're talking about equations. <S> Since the word is being used in the sense of 'quantity' rather than to refer to mathematical numbers, there's no necessity to use it, unless you want to achieve a kind of punning or poetic allusion to the fact that numbers are involved. <S> Otherwise, it would be much more natural to say simply: more tasks
| More' means 'a greater number' (or 'a greater amount')
|
"being there such differences" - is this an acceptable turn of phrase? All studies should be directed at identification of potential differences between a biosimilar drug and a reference drug, and on assessment of their significance ( being there such differences ). Is this an acceptable phrase? I would have written "when such differences are detected" or "should there be such differences", but maybe the bolded phrase is also acceptable. <Q> All studies should be directed at identification of potential differences between a biosimilar drug and a reference drug, and on assessment of their significance (being there such differences). <S> And in the aforementioned case, being there such differences and being there no other such similarities, the parties to A shall... <S> you get the idea. <S> There's nothing wrong with "if" in formal writing - I would write your sentence as: <S> All studies should be directed toward identification of potential differences between a biosimilar drug and a reference drug, and <S> if there are differences, toward the assessment of their significance. <S> I don't like at "at" or "on" with directed in this context. <S> As an answer on ELU explains, "directed at" has an aggressive tone. <S> I hope that reprimand wasn't directed at me - I didn't do anything wrong! <S> Directed "toward" is what I expect in formal writing. <S> Note that "directed toward" is more common in AmE <S> and I believe "directed toward s " is more common in BrE and which you choose is a matter of style. <A> The given sentence with this inversion does not sound natural to me. <S> Maybe because it is a long sentence. <S> Another problem is the redundancy in the use of the word differences. <S> You can do away with both the awkwardness and the redundancy by sticking the explanatory phrase as close as possible to its source and removing the repeated word. <S> All studies should be directed toward identification of potential differences, should any exist, between a biosimilar drug and a reference drug and toward the assessment of their significance. <S> Also I agree that there's nothing wrong with using IF. <S> Usually, the most effective sentence is the simplest one. <A> All studies should be directed at identification of potential differences between a biosimilar drug and a reference drug, and on assessment of their significance (being there such differences). <S> All studies should identify and assess any differences between the biosimilar and the reference drug. <S> There's no need for the ponderousness. <S> But if you are a fan of the ponderous: All studies should have as their goal the identification and assessment of potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference drug.
| The phrase "being there such differences" seems like purposefully obfuscated meaning to me.
|
Confusion about the use of the present simple in a story I am reading a plot summary of " Wuthering Heights ", a story written by Emily Brontë. One day Mr Earnshaw, father of Catherine and Hindley, goes to Liverpool on business. When he returns , he brings with him a child who has been living on the streets in the worst part of the city. From the moment that Mr Earnshaw takes the child as his son, giving him the name Heathcliff, nothing for the Earnshaw family or the Linton family is ever the same again. So my confusion is about the verbs in bold. Why did she use the present simple form even she is telling something that had happened in the past? I'm willing to add more context if needed. <Q> There is a difference between telling a story and explaining what happens in a story. <S> They are different. <S> When we tell a story, we often use the past tense. <S> We try to get our reader or listener involved in the story. <S> We want them to forget where they are and that they are reading (or listening). <S> We want them to enter the world of the story. <S> When we explain what happens in a story, we are usually summarising what happens. <S> We aren't trying to get the reader or listener to forget where they are or to forget that they are reading. <S> We are not trying to get them to enter the world of the story. <S> We are just explaining what happens in the story. <S> We use the present tense to provide these kinds of summaries. <S> You will notice that what happens in a particular story never changes. <S> The story has a fixed plot, and every time you read the story everything happens in exactly the same order. <S> So what we have is a fixed sequence, a bit like a procedure. <S> It is normal when we run through a fixed sequence of events that never changes to use the present tense. <S> This is similar to when we describe other procedures such as recipes, instructions, ceremonies and so forth. <S> The Original Poster's excerpt is a summary of the plot of the novel. <S> The person who wrote the summary is not telling a story. <S> They are just summarising what happens in the story. <S> For this reason they have used the present tense instead of the past tense. <S> They have not used the present tense because Wuthering Heights is a famous or classic novel! <A> It has been a literary convention for at least four hundred years that plot summaries are cast in the present tense. <S> I imagine that the device is intended to exhibit the action of the work as it will unfold before the reader or spectator. <S> This convention obtains across genres: you will find it in accounts of plays, operas, novels, histories—even the liner notes to recordings. <S> Here, for instance, is the 'Argument' Ben Jonson set before his play Volpone (1605), cast entirely in the present tense: V olpone, childless, rich, feigns sick, despairs , O ffers his state to hopes of several heirs, <S> L ies languishing: <S> his parasite receives P resents of all, assures , deludes ; then weaves <S> O ther cross plots, which ope themselves, are told. <S> N ew tricks for safety are sought; they thrive : <S> when bold, E ach tempts <S> the other again, and all are sold. <A> You are not reading "Wuthering Heights". <S> In chapter IV of "Wuthering Heights", the story of the adoption of Heathcliffe by Mr Earnshaw is told entirely in the past tense. <S> Here is an excerpt: "Not a soul knew to whom it belonged, he said; and his money and time being both limited, he thought it better to take it home with him at once, than run into vain expenses there: because he was determined he would not leave it as he found it. <S> .... <S> This was Heathcliff's first introduction to the family. <S> On coming back a few days afterwards (for I did not consider my banishment perpetual) <S> I found they had christened him 'Heathcliff': it was the name of a son who died in childbirth, and it has served him ever since, both for Christian and surname." <S> So be warned, make sure that what you are reading is the original, and not a retelling or a summary. <S> Often the writer of a summary changes the tense to make the retelling more immediate, but you lose much, if not all, of the subtlety of the original! <A> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present In English, using the present tense to recount past events is called the Historical Present (narrative present or dramatic present). <S> It is very used in novels, short stories and by story tellers. <S> Funnily enough <S> , it is not used in historiography though a historian recounting a specific episode in history might also use the present tense to describe a specific event when speaking.
| You are reading a summary by someone else, retelling the tale.
|
Russian or Russians? (Substantivized adjectives) It's a very simple question, but I feel puzzled for some reason. I am Russian. They are... Russian or Russians? (Some people from Russia are meant here.) He is Greek. They are... Greek or Greeks? I would say "They are Russian/Greek/English/Portuguese". Should I use the adjective (Russian) or substantivized adjective (Russians) in sentences like these? Please correct me if I am wrong. <Q> "Russian" is both an adjective and a noun. <S> You can say "these chocolates are Belgian" or "my friends are Belgian" - both times you use the adjective to describe the chocolates or the friends. <S> You can say "my friends are Belgians" but not "these chocolates are Belgians" - "Belgians" is the plural of the noun "Belgian" which means "a person who is a citizen of Belgium". <S> The chocolates are most definitely not citizens of Belgium, so "Belgians" is wrong there. <S> You can say "my friends are Russian" or "my friends are Russians" - once it is used as an adjective, and once it is used as a noun. <S> Both ways are correct. <S> The meaning is practically the same. <A> It depends on the context. <S> In contrast, "Russians" would be used if specifically you mean that the people are from Russia. <S> The same could be said for "I am Russian" (generally speaking) as opposed to "I am a Russian" (specifically making the point that you are from Russia). <S> The same goes for many other nationalities, e.g. for "American" if some Americans were in France you could definitely imagine "they are American" being said, since it's true that they're American, or instead "they are Americans", pointing out specifically that they are from America and emphasizing that they are foreigners. <A> You are correct, to describe several people who are from Russia you would describe them as being Russian. <S> "Those people are Russian" "They are Russian" <S> However if you were describing what they are doing as apposed to who/what they are, and addressing them as a group, the word Russian would change to "The Russians are very happy here". <S> This is the case only with Russian, if you were to use any of your other examples they would always remain the same, "The English are very happy here/ <S> They are English", "The Greek are very happy here/ <S> They are English". <S> Ah the English Language <S> so complex! <S> All the best.
| "Russian" would be used if generically you mean that the people are associated with Russia, either actually being from Russia, having Russian descent, etc.
|
When a witch or wizard influences your life in a negative manner Imagine someone (a bad-doer or someone who can't bear to see your success or for some reasons is jealous of you) deals with malicious, magical sort of things (perhaps a witch) influences your life and somewhat changes your life in a bad way. Which one of the following verbs work in my example properly: I'm sure! She has.........(me. / my life.) a) spelled b) enchanted Based on dictionary definitions, they both sound to be correct, but I'm not sure if a native speaker would say it in the same way and the used verbs in this sense sounds old-fashioned or something. If they are not natural in this sense, what verb is used in this sense? [It can be considered as superstition, but in eastern culture at least you hear a lot about these things.] <Q> Neither of your suggestions seem to fit - spelled can't be used as a verb in this fashion, and enchanted <S> has a very positive overtone. <S> I could be enchanted by a beautiful lady, for example. <S> I believe that cursed <S> might be the word you are looking for. <S> A curse can mean a spell that calls upon divine or supernatural power to bring harm or ill fortune to someone, therefore to be cursed means to be affected by a curse that causes bad things to happen. <S> To use your examples: She has cursed me. <S> She has cursed my life. <A> A witch is rarely to enchant you unless she is remarkably beautiful. <S> Witches are more likely to jinx you or hex you. <S> Both words have <S> evil connotations : to affect as if by an evil spell . <S> She jinxed me. <S> She has put a hex on me. <A> A purely Australian take on this... <S> indigenous Australians have a ceremony in which they place a curse on someone by a kurdaitcha man "pointing the bone" at them. <S> If you have had the bone pointed at you, you will die within a short time! <S> Interestingly, in 2004, indigenous Australians who disagreed with his policies carried out this ritual on the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard. <S> He is still alive and healthy 12 years later! <S> On the other hand, there are instances of Australian natives appearing in hospital claiming that the bone has been pointed at them, and dying within a few days. <S> On autopsy, no cause of death could be found.
| She has hexed my life.
|
How to intensify the structure: "someone is jealous of someone else" How you would intensify the following sentence: He is jealous of me. I'm not sure, but which one of the following sentences works here: He is a serious jealous of me. He is a real jealous of me. He is a severe jealous of me. I was wondering if you could help me to discover what sentence is in common use to be said here. <Q> Depending on how jealous you want to make this person out to be, insanely is often used to intensify jealous in this context. <S> The meaning being that the person is jealous almost to the point of being crazy. <A> You would intensify jealous , which doesn't need the article, so there's no reason for it to be there: <S> He is seriously jealous of me <S> He is really jealous of me <S> He is severely jealous of me <S> He is very jealous of me <S> It's possible seriously might be a bit too casual, and severely isn't quite right, and it has a different meaning which might be confusing. <S> The best way to go is really or very . <A> All the sentences presented by the OP are not correct grammatically. <S> The word "jealous" is an adjective, not a noun. <S> An adverb modifies an adjective, but the OP has used adjectives serious, real and severe instead of the adverbs seriously, really and severely to modify the jealous. <S> None of the adverbs mentioned above are common in use though you can use them. <S> You can also use other adverbs such as very, extremely, insanely, madly, too. <S> However, the most commoly used adverb going with jealous is "very". <S> He's very jealous of me.
| He is insanely jealous of me. The use depends on the extent of the intensity you want to indicate.
|
How to say 'in a round way' It is scientific writing. To do A, we have a smart way than the brute force way. Namely, we can do B first and then do C, in the end A is done. How to describe this scenario? We can do it in a round way? <Q> I think maybe you're looking for <S> Do it in a roundabout way. <S> Adjectively, this is defined as: roundabout ( adj. ) <S> roundabout <S> ( adj. ) <S> not direct, simple, or short. <S> I think this works better than <S> round for what you are trying to say. <A> "In his classic book Strategy , famous military historian Lidell Hart detailed the “indirect” approach to war. ... <S> Instead of a brute force direct attack to overwhelm the enemy, the victors always chose to battle indirectly. <S> When forced to fight, the indirect strategy involves using surprise, intelligence, logic, and human nature to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses." <S> Steve W. Martin "Win More Sales with an Indirect Strategy" Harvard Business Review , May 6, 2014 <S> (The book <S> The strategy of indirect approach was first published in 1941.) <S> This strategy is exactly what you are talking about. <S> An indirect approach can turn a difficult frontal attack into a series of easier and more winnable tasks, often involving a flanking movement to come at the opposition (the problem) from a different direction. <A> In your example, A would be your large task, and <S> B and C would be your smaller tasks. <S> Both B and C are necessary to complete A , and they are usually order dependent, B must precede C . <S> Either B or C may be elegant solutions to your problem without being brute force .
| Indirect, circuitous or circumlocutionary; that does not do something in a direct way; The technique of divide and conquer may be what you are describing, essentially it is taking a large task that needs to be done and breaking it into smaller tasks.
|
Is "would" correct in the answer "I would not agree on this matter"? If I want to answer this question: Would you agree that subjects like science and maths are more difficult than art and literature? Can I say "I would not agree on this matter" ? Why or why not? <Q> When an English speaker says, "I would not agree", he is implying something along the lines of "I would not agree... if you asked me... which you didn't... because it's none of my business... <S> but if you did ask... which you didn't... <S> I would then disagree... politely. <S> " <S> In other words, it's a way to say "I disagree" while tacitly acknowledging that it is not the speaker's decision. <A> "Would" is conditional. <S> It can serve several purposes. <S> As an actual conditional, there would be a condition. <S> "Would you agree... if ...?" <S> Your response could be a simple yes or no since the conditions have already been stipulated. <S> Similarly, if the question is "Do you agree...? <S> ", you could respond with a simple yes or no if the answer is that straightforward. <S> If your answer is conditional, you could respond, "I would, if ..." <S> "Do you agree..." frames the question as a binary choice. <S> "Would" can use its conditional nature to simply soften the question or ask it in a polite way. <S> In that case, there is not an explicit condition, it is more a matter of affording some wiggle room in the answer by recognizing the possibility of conditions. <S> In this case, the response to "Would you agree..." could be yes or no, but it could also be the parallel construction "I would" or "I would not", without stating explicit conditions. <S> That response would be ambiguous as to whether you actually mean <S> yes/no, or the answer depends on conditions. <S> You could also include explicit conditions. <A> To answer your first question simply: Can I say " I would not agree on this matter. "? <S> As @TeacherKSHuang states, yes . <S> As to your other question: <S> Why or why not? <S> Why would you use the word would ? <S> If you want to use more of a passive voice, you would make use of would . <S> Otherwise, you wouldn't . <S> Allow me to explain by way of example. <S> Take the following: <S> No. <S> This sentence answers the question posed without qualification or reservation. <S> This is firmly written in the "Active Voice" (No,) I would not (agree). <S> Now you're qualifying that you wouldn't think so, but you are qualifying that the answer only applies to you. <S> We're moving into the passive voice now. <S> (No,) I would not agree on this matter. <S> At this point, we're now qualifying both that the answer only applies to you, but also that the answer is particular to the details of the question. <S> Not only are we using the passive voice, but we're also further qualifying the already softened answer.
| "Would" is conditional.
|
Difference between "having time to myself" and "having time for myself" I do not have much time to myself. I do not have much time for myself. Do these sentences have different meanings because of the prepositions TO and FOR? If there is, then what? Thank you for the answers in advance. :) <Q> The phrase "for myself" is not separately defined in the dictionary. <S> But in the American Heritage dictionary "for" is defined as "Used to indicate the object, aim or purpose of an action or an activity". <S> Therefore: "Time for myself" means I am using that time to benefit myself. <S> "Time to myself" means that I am alone during that time. <S> I may or may not be doing something "for myself" during that time. <A> They way I understand it, the sentences are fairly similar, but with slight differences in the way that the solitary time might have been used... <S> I do not have much time to myself. <S> -- I do not have much time on my own, not having to do things for other people. <S> I do not have much time for myself. <S> -- I do not have much time on my own, where I am free to do things for myself. <S> I do not have much time by myself. <S> -- I do not have much time on my own, with no implication of things to do for myself or for anybody else. <A> "I do not have much time to myself." <S> = <S> I am not alone much <S> "I do not have much time for myself." <S> = <S> I do not have much time that I can devote to myself <A> Just an add: I'd be of the opinion and understanding that you could possibly be with others during time that you have for yourself (this would be to distinguish from time you otherwise obligatorily spend on life's responsibilities). <S> However, time to oneself denotes to me a distance from other people, similar to the brooding quality noted by Teacher KSHuang. <S> This may easily, however, be idiosyncratic of my dialect.
| From the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:"to myself" means "to not have to share something with anyone else".
|
What is the tense of the following sentence? "They are married" What is the tense of the following sentence? They are married. and what is the part of speech for the word "married"? is it Adjective or Past Verb <Q> The sentence is in the present tense, marked by the present form are . <S> Past participles of transitive verbs are employed in passive constructions ( BE + past participle), so they very readily come to be used as adjectives describing the state which is imposed by the action of the verb. <S> For instance, if I lost my keys yesterday, this may be expressed in the passive by saying that my keys were lost yesterday . <S> Today (unless I find them again) I may say that my keys are lost ; this is no longer a passive event but a description of my keys: they are in a 'lost' state. <S> And when I do find my keys again I will be able to say that they are found . <S> Likewise, if two people marry each other we may narrate the event as a passive: <S> Jack and Susan were married yesterday † ; but the consequence is that they are now in the 'married' state, and we say that they are married . <S> † <S> Lambie points out that with marry <S> the passive version is not in present-day English an ordinary transformation of the active: they were not married by each other, but by a third party: "Jack and Susan were married by Rev. Blovious". <S> But the passive does nonetheless give rise to expressing the state they now enjoy as married . <A> (To) be married, be finished, be dumbstruck <S> The form: <S> (To) + verb: be + past participle (some people say adjective <S> but that is academic, not practical) is used to describe a person's or thing's state or condition. <S> The past participle (or adjective) is the state or condition a person or thing is in. <S> We are finished with this book. <S> We are married now but for a long time we weren't. <S> To be understood , questions have to be clear. <S> The nurses are exhausted on weekends. <A> Regarding married's part of speech, it is an adjectival. <S> "Adjectival" is a term used in linguistics, especially in syntax, which means a word that is not an adjective, but that has the adjective position in the sentence. <S> So the form of "married" is verb, but its position is adjectival <S> so the answer of your question is that "married" is not an adjective like "beautiful" or "amazing" <S> but it works as an adjective in this sentence as it shows the status of the subject "they".
| Married is a past participle (not a simple past) employed as an adjective. The tense of this sentence is present simple as the main verb here is "are".
|
What does Victory Fund mean? I've seen the phare "Victory Fund" several times. Like Hillary Victory Fund or The AAPI Victory Fund, but don't really understand that. What is the Victory? Did those funds accomplish some kind of victory? <Q> Example: The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Our Mission: To change the face and voice of America's politics and achieve equality for LGBT Americans by increasing the number of openly LGBT officials at all levels of government. <S> The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund works to elect LGBT leaders to public office for one simple reason. <S> They change America's politics. <S> Here "victory" means "winning elections". <S> By contributing to the fund, you support the campaigns of politicians who are proponents of this agenda. <A> It's not a type of fund; it's simply a fund that raises money to achieve victory of one form or another. <S> In the U.S., it's commonly used in the names of political campaigns seeking the victory of their endorsed candidate in an election, as the examples you have stated. <S> But this is far from the exclusive use of the word; for example, there is Adam's Victory Fund , which raises money for childhood cancer research, or the University of Miami Football Victory Fund , which raises funds to support their football team, and presumably contribute to more victories on the field. <A> That's just the name of a fundraising organization. <S> Wikipedia has more to say on this: The Hillary Victory Fund .
| I guess, Victory Fund just means that the money that's being collected by this organization is going to help them win election campaigns or something along those lines.
|
Is "myself" correct in "It will be a historic moment for myself because I turn eighteen"? (me vs. myself) Is "myself" correct in the following sentence? Or should I use "me"? It will be a historic moment for myself because I turn eighteen. <Q> In normal usage, the reflexive pronoun ("myself", in this case) is reserved for occasions where the actor is also the object or target of the action. <S> If you say "Fred punched John", then Fred is the actor, and John is the direct object (the thing receiving the action, or being acted upon). <S> If Fred is doing the punching, and Fred is hitting his own body <S> , that's when you break out the reflexive pronoun: "Fred punched himself". <S> In your situation, there is no action that you are taking, so the use of the reflexive pronoun is not called for. <A> No, myself should be me . <S> It was not for my family. <S> It was not for my friends. <S> It was for myself. <S> It was an accident, and nobody else was involved. <S> I myself killed their cat. <A> To expand on the other answers, I wouldn't say that it's entirely incorrect, but it sounds a little old fashioned, or as if you're trying to make a contrast with someone else. <S> For example, saying something like For myself, this is a historic moment <S> sounds like you're saying "It might not be historic for other people, but for me it is". <S> It puts more emphasis on you. <S> But don't worry too much, if you used "myself" when talking to someone, they wouldn't misunderstand you. <S> The bigger "error" in the sentence though, is "because I turn eighteen". <S> It would be more correct to use the present progressive "because I'm turning eighteen". <S> That goes for most situations in english that are happening in the present. <S> "I go home" -> "I'm going home". <S> Saying something like "I eat cake" makes it sound like it's something you do frequently, or enjoy doing, but not something that you're doing right now. <A> I can't explain why, but having me there instead of myself just sounds better.
| The word "myself" should be reserved for cases where you really want to emphasize that you were the one involved, or if you are specifically amplifying the word "I". I would rewrite your sentence like this: It will be a historic moment for me because I'm going to turn eighteen.
|
A word for a man who doesn't get upset about his wife's relationships Is there a word for a man who doesn't care about his wife, sister or girlfriend's relationships. For example: He is OK with his wife being kissed by every man and somehow encourages her to do so. I don't mean a person who is open-minded , Rather a person who is weak and somehow like potato . Of course a real man gets angry in that condition and in some situations tells her wife to dress clothes which are less revealing. And, Is there a word which is opposite for that potato man. A man who cares. Edit: A real man fights against somebody who stares at his wife/sister. <Q> I once asked a question on EL&U asking for the female equivalent of this term, wittol , a very rare word which I discovered in my Chambers Dictionary. <S> It said, a man who knows his wife's unfaithfulness, and accepts it . <S> In a few online dictionaries the term is defined wittol (ˈwɪtəl) a man who tolerates his wife's unfaithfulness <S> [C15 wetewold , from witen to know (see wit²) + <S> - wold , perhaps from cokewold cuckold] <S> A historical example, from Kenilworth by Sir Walter Scott <S> She would not quit the estate and title of the wittol who had wedded her. <S> [...] <S> Go to Elizabeth’s feet, confess your marriage—impeach your wife and her paramour of adultery—and avow yourself, amongst all your peers, the wittol who married a country girl, and was cozened by her and her book-learned gallant. <S> The term cuckold , although far more common is quite different, inasmuch as the husband is usually unaware of his wife's extramarital affairs. <S> a man whose wife deceives him by having a sexual relationship with another man <A> <A> The word that comes to mind for me is voyeur - a person who watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity. <S> Generally, this person gets sexual pleasure from watching others having sex. <S> Traditionally a voyeur would watch unsuspecting couples, but in the modern age, the definition extends itself to willing participants, including within a marriage.
| A man who does nothing while his wife behaves inappropriately with other men is sometimes called a cuckold , or cuckhold , or is being cuckholded .
|
When to use "should do something" & when to use "be supposed to do something"? be supposed to do something: used to say what someone should or should not do, especially because of rules or what someone in authority has said We’re supposed to check out of the hotel by 11 o'clock. It seems that native speakers prefer to use " be supposed to do " over " should do ". Let see this scenarios in a movie. A man is going to leave his wife for another woman. The wife said " What am I supposed to do to raise my children? " Compared to the sentence " What should I do to raise my children? " The difference is a bit subtle. So, When to use " should do something " & when to use " be supposed to do something "? <Q> Frequently, supposed to {do something} is used when telling a person the proper way to do something. <S> Modal should isn't as authoritative as supposed to . <S> You're supposed to turn the dial counter-clockwise. <S> You should turn the dial counter-clockwise. <S> The first sentence expresses the idea <S> "I know how this thing works (possibly because I've read the instructions carefully or have done it before myself or have seen it done). <S> When turning the dial, turn it counter-clockwise." <S> The second sentence expresses the idea "My advice would be to turn it counter-clockwise". <S> That idea might be expressed with greater or lesser force, depending on the tone used. <S> But it's not as clear with <S> should where the authority resides, in the speaker's opinion, or in fact, externally. <S> I can't play baseball today. <S> I'm supposed to pick up my little brother after school. <S> We couldn't really say the following: <S> I can't play baseball today. <S> I should pick up my little brother after school. <S> because the latter sentence might be understood to mean that you're contemplating possibly not picking up your little brother. <S> should doesn't express obligation and necessity, but merely what is advisable . <S> Your example "How am I supposed to raise my children!? <S> " <S> could be paraphrased: <S> I understand that I must raise my children, that this is my responsibility . <S> How will I ever live up to that obligation, under the present circumstances? <S> The tacit reference is to an obligation or necessity, an unavoidable responsibility. <A> They are two different types of rhetoric. <S> How should I raise my children? <S> is phrasing you would use if you were seeking genuine advice. <S> You would not use this phrasing if you were in distress at a husband leaving, but you might use it when asking a fellow mother for advice on parenting. <S> How am I supposed to raise my children? <S> - Asking how you are 'supposed to' do something means asking how do other people expect it to be done. <S> "I suppose you are leaving?" <S> "Yes, I am supposed to be leaving" <S> it adds some doubt - <S> I am supposed (expected by other people) to be leaving, but I am not sure. <S> In your example it implies that she wants to know how she is expected to manage raising children on her own. <S> As another example, you could say <S> "I should make dinner." <S> or "I'm supposed to make dinner. <S> " <S> 'I should' implies that you are considering making dinner, and 'I'm supposed to' means that other people have asked or are expecting you to make dinner. <A> We’re supposed to check out of the hotel by 11 o'clock. <S> The other answers are great, I am just adding a slight shade of difference. <S> In this sentence the speaker also could mean, that they are aware that they should be checking out and that they also know there will likely be a penalty for not checking out. <S> The shade is that they may decide to pay the penalty. <S> To quote TCassa: <S> it adds some doubt - <S> I am supposed (expected by other people) to be leaving, but I am not sure.
| We can also use supposed to to refer to an obligation or responsibility imposed on us by an authority, or even by our own conscience or superego, whatever you might like to call it.
|
"[Bleep] talking" What's the offensive word that was bleeped out? In this video , Dwayne Johnson appeared on The Tonight Show and was talking about himself being named the sexiest man alive on the cover of People Magazine. This conversation starts at 12 seconds into the video : Jimmy Fallon: How much grief are you getting for being on the cover of the sexiest man alive? Dwayne Johnson: I mean, first of all, it's an honor. It's really, really cool, right, but, yeah, I am getting so much grief especially from my boys. Of course, as you can imagine, right, everybody's just...It's just a continuation of just -- What's that term? -- Oh, [bleep] talking. Of course, you can't hear the bleeped word, but can you guess what the word was in context? I think it might be helpful to view the video from 12 seconds. <Q> He says "shit talking". <S> I think he means that his friends and family are playfully making fun of him. <S> It's a variation of trash talking <A> A similar British term would be talk rubbish . <S> Shit talking basically means useless talk. <S> This expression doesn't have a set in stone meaning. <S> What it exactly means really depends on the context. <S> Example: <S> Donald Trump talks about how he's going to build that wall to separate America from Mexican illegal migrants. <S> I think he just talks too much shit ! <S> Come on, it's the 21st century, for Christ's sake! <S> That stupid wall is not going to solve any of our social and political problems. <A> The phrase he used is probably shit talking Shit <S> talking occurs when people have too much free time (see: not having a life) and make up rumors or put down others, whether they are enemies, friends, or just random people.
| I think he says shit talking .
|
What does "Rabbit hole" mean? I've found this phrase appears more than twice. Ted-ed at 1:15 So, to use matrices, we need to learn how they work. It turns out, you can treat matrices just like regular numbers. You can add them, subtract them, even multiply them. You can't divide them, but that's a rabbit hole of its own. Adding matrices is pretty simple. All you have to do is add the corresponding entries in the order they come. What does rabbit hole mean? How to use it? Could you please give me some examples? <Q> It metaphorically describes something unknown, possibly fantastical, that will lead to much more complexity than it initially appeared. <S> In the video he is using rabbit hole to humorously state that the reason for no matrix division is beyond what he can cover in a 4'40" long video. <S> He is giving a top level description of mathematical matrices to an audience that is unlikely to be familiar with the concept. <S> You can add, subtract, and multiply matrices, but you cannot divide them. <A> The idiomatic expression, a "rabbit hole" is a reference to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland". <S> Its modern meaning is a detour from your work efforts that will require a great deal of time and analysis, while producing no useful result. <S> It is a dead end or a fool's errand . <S> A June 4, 2015 article in the New Yorker magazine recounts the evolution of the phrase over time. <A> A rabbit warren is an artificial enclosure for raising rabbits. <S> Rabbit Warrens . <S> The rabbit was also introduced into England, probably from Iberia, by the Normans for their fur and meat. <S> Originally rather delicate creatures in order to thrive they had to be sheltered from the elements, protected from predators and fed regularly. <S> To facilitate this artificial warrens were built consisting of low flat topped mounds, 10 to 20 metres long , 5 to 10 metres wide and up to a metre high sometimes surrounded by a shallow ditch. <S> Such mounds are often called pillow mounds [...] <S> Warrens sometimes of considerable size existed on Dartmoor and around Thetford into the early twentieth century. <S> Such large establishments boasted extensive banks to enclose the warrens and other features including vermin traps and pitfalls for catching the rabbits. <S> Source: <S> The Archaeology Of Hunting . <S> The word warren also refers to a colony of wild rabbits or other rodents with many holes, often interconnected. <S> Source: <S> European rabbit: warren, Art, from Britannica Online for Kids, accessed January 26, 2017, http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-171835 . <S> found at Google images "rabbit warren" <S> Thus a rabbit warren can be a system of interconnected rabbit holes and tunnels, or a figurative term for something complicated. <S> Possibly the "rabbit hole" in: <S> You can't divide them, but that's a rabbit hole of its own. <S> means a rabbit warren, used figuratively to mean something complicated. <S> Thus it is possible that in this case "rabbit hole" = "rabbit warren" = something complicated. <A> A rabbit hole is a metaphor for something that can trip you up (i.e. cause problems), just as a real hole to a rabbit's burrow can do. <S> rabbit hole bizarre or difficult state or situation —usually used in the phrase down the rabbit hole <S> shoreline residents are finding themselves helplessly falling down a rabbit hole in their [Sisyphean] efforts to halt beach erosion Merriam-Webster
| Rabbit hole commonly refers to either an actual rabbit burrow where rabbits live, or, as an idiomatic phrase used in your Ted-Ed example, the hole Alice went down following the white rabbit in Alice in Wonderland .
|
"in a given factors" or "The decision will vary in given factors" I would like to ask about these words. Which one is grammatically correct? "The decision will vary in a given factors" or "The decision will vary in given factors" ? Since the word "factors" refers to more than one thing, I think it should be plural. I have searched in google, but the result shows both of them exist. <Q> given factors is surely plural, so the second example is correct. <S> One example I find is a given factors-levels setting here we are referring to the setting, which is singular. <S> The overall sentence doesn't seem quite right to me. <S> I would not say that decisions vary in something, rather <S> The decision will depend upon the given factors. <S> This assumes that earlier in the text we have stated (given) the factors that help us make the decision. <A> Since "factors" is plural, then the adjective "a" in the first sentence is incorrect. <S> The second sentence is better, but still very awkward. <A> There are several ways to describe variance . <S> The first is to say some thing has many different variations , in which case "vary in" is appropriate: <S> Apples vary in size, color, taste, and texture. <S> In this case it sounds more like you want to say the variance depends on some other factors. <S> Here "vary with" is appropriate: <S> The size of the stadium crowds varies with the weather. <S> Singular or plural doesn't really matter: <S> What people eat varies with the available options. <S> Also, it is correct to use the definite article "the" before the factors, if you've already described them. <S> The decision will vary with <S> the given factors. <S> However all that being said, the more "natural" way to say this would be: The decision depends on the various given factors .
| I think you're trying to say: Depending on the given factors, the decision may change.
|
Getting me off here - Is this the same as exciting sexually? I am surprised, because this book says like this: Meaning of "please get me off here" is like "excite sexually". This book proposed to say "please let me off here" instead of that. I'm doubting this, because this book sometimes says untruthful things (Goobye is the same as "see you in hell!" etc.). Getting me off here - Is this the same as exciting sexually? <Q> Without context, I suppose it's ambiguous. <S> At first, I understood it as "please let me off here/please drop me off here". <S> I guess technically it can also be interpreted as the book suggests. <S> We have get off (transitive with object following “get”, slang) <S> To excite or arouse, especially in a sexual manner. <S> Catwoman's costume really gets me off. <S> (intransitive, slang) <S> To experience an orgasm or other sexual pleasure; to become sexually aroused. <S> You are not allowed to get off in my bedroom. <S> It takes more than a picture in a girlie magazine for me to get off. <S> I'm assuming that what the book is trying to say is that please let me off here <S> is correct as a request to exit a vehicle, like a taxi, whereas please get me off here is incorrect and that it has a sexual meaning to it. <S> It doesn't make sense as a request to exit the taxi. <S> But I'm not confident that it would be understood in a sexual manner. <S> It doesn't really seem idiomatic when talking about getting excited , at least in AmE. <S> In other words, I don't think please get me off here <S> will be understood in an "excited" sense by most people, unless the surrounding context somehow supports this usage. <S> Then it would likely mean getting one of the persons to orgasm. <S> Generally though, get off is used like in the example given in the entry above <S> , X gets me off , where X is the thing from which excitement is derived. <S> There is also the related get off on : get off on sth <S> informal <S> -phrasal verb with get to find something exciting, especially in a sexual way: <S> Dave likes power - he gets off on it. <S> Please get me off here , or please get me off of here , can be used to mean <S> please remove me from here in a situation where you are ordering someone else to remove you, for example, while you're stuck on a broken roller coaster ride. <S> Oh my god, the ride's stuck! <S> Please get me off here now! <A> Yes, "get me off here <S> " could be interpreted that way -- it comes from "getting off" which is definitely slang for being excited sexually. <S> If it's in the context of asking to be dropped off at a certain location, then "please let me off here" would be better. <S> Most people probably wouldn't think about the sexual meaning if you said "please get me off here", but it will sound rather clumsy compared to "let me off here". <S> Interestingly however, something like "I'm getting off at the next stop" would never cross my mind as having a sexual meaning. <S> Possibly because phrases like that are so common when on a bus/train/etc. <S> that almost no one would think of any other meaning than "I'm leaving the bus/train/etc. <S> at the next stop". <A> Yes, "Please let me off here" is the proper phrase. <S> Basically you are asking politely to exit (allow me to leave) now. <S> The grammar is awkward to bad in "get me off". <S> You could grammatically request, "Please get me a hamburger. <S> " The word hamburger is a direct object, with me as indirect object. <S> An understood you is the subject. <S> But off does not fit as an object. <S> If this were not an idiomatic phrase, the listener would hear the self-cancelling words and not know what you were talking about. <S> Getting back to your question, yes, the phrase implies you would be asking someone to help you achieve sexual climax. <S> Strangely, the like-sounding phrase "turns me off" refers to something that reduces desire.
| I agree that it is incorrect in the case.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.