source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Can be described the outer curved surface of a round object as an outer circumferential surface? I want to know the difference among "circumferential", "periphery", and "perimeter". Which is best to describe the outer surface of a round object such as a tube, a cylinder, and a can of beer. <Q> There is no common word for this in English other than "surface". <S> In mathematics it would be called part of the "surface area" of the cylinder (excluding the top and bottom "caps"). <S> There may be a more technical term for it, but not one I can recall from all my college math courses. <A> The outside surfaces of a cylinder are called it's <S> faces <S> a cylinder has 3 faces <S> (source: math-only-math.com ) <S> The top and bottom can be referred to as planar surfaces <S> whereas the body is a curved surface . <S> Theoretically, there is no "inside" or "outside" of the surface of a 3D object as the relationship to the boundary is described mathematically, and so the boundary is infinitesimally small the width of a point . <S> The definition of a cylinder being cylinder <S> In its simplest form, a cylinder (from Greek κύλινδρος – kulindros, "roller, tumbler"[1]) is the surface formed by the points at a fixed distance from a given straight line called the axis of the cylinder.) <S> However, practically, because of the limitations of the real world, one has the inside surface of a can which is usually coated in plastic since it comes into contact with food and the outside surface of a can which usually has a label describing the contents. <S> perimeter is used to describe the path surrounding a two-dimensional shape. <A> (yes, technically the ends are surfaces too, but we're not speaking technically here): <S> For example, ... <S> the series of arms nearest the can-revolving devices over which the label is drawn and between which and the surface of the can the label is pressed... <S> Or we might call it the side or sides of the can or bottle: <S> He toyed with the sticky label on the side of the bottle... With pliers, crimp the sides of the can at the bottom at four places around the can. <S> It's usually plural, sides , if you're talking about the whole outside surface of the can or more than one place on it. <S> Again, yes, technically it's one surface, but this is informal speech. <A> The "outside" surface of a cylinder can be called the "outside". <S> This surface happens to be " convex ". <S> If you are describing the stresses and strains in the material, three directions are most important: <S> The "axial" direction is parallel to the axis of the cylinder. <S> The "radial" direction is from the inside of the cylinder toward the outside of the cylinder. <S> In other words, this direction "radiates" from the axis of the cylinder. <S> The radial direction is perpendicular to the axial direction. <S> The "circumferential" or "tangential" direction is perpendicular to both the axial direction and the radial direction. <S> At any given point on the cylinder, this direction is parallel to a line that is "tangent to" a circular cross-section of the cylinder. <S> A " hoop " is a physical object that is a circular cross-section of a cylinder. <S> Hoops are sometimes used to reinforce cylinders, so the stress in this direction is often called the "hoop stress".
| We don't really have a standard term for "the part of the surface of a cylinder that is not one of the ends", but idiomatically we would probably call it the surface of the can
|
What's wrong with the phrase "...didn't even have any thought left"? Example sentence: "She didn't feel anything anymore. She didn't even have any thought left. I thought she second sentence was common. But when I searched for didn't even have any thought, I got 0 results. What's wrong with that phrase? And what the correct wording? <Q> If the text was a quote from a book, then perhaps one could argue that it's a stylistic turn of phrase, but didn't have any thought left is certainly not idiomatic in English. <S> If the implication is that she has no actual thought on the matter (either she didn't care any more, or she no longer had the strength to think about it), something along the lines of <S> She didn't feel anything anymore. <S> Her mind was blank . <S> ... <S> might be more idiomatic. <S> One could also use a similarly worded idiom - to draw a blank - to imply that she was trying to think of something but couldn't. <S> She didn't feel anything anymore. <S> She tried to think of something to say, but she drew a blank . <A> If the noun following "any" in a negative phrase is countable, then the plural form is normally used; e.g. She didn't have any friends. <S> She didn't have any opinions. <S> She didn't have any thoughts at all. <S> If the noun is uncountable, then it must be singular <S> She didn't have any time <S> She didn't have any money <S> She didn't have any patience. <S> The singular form of a countable noun can also be used, but it follows " a " or " an " <S> She didn't have a penny <S> She didn't an opinion <S> Examples taken from Google Books <S> He didn't have a single thought in his head for his own safety...for anything except you. <S> It seemed to her that she didn't have a single thought in her head except that it mustn't happen. <S> I felt as if I didn't have a single thought . <S> Not one. <S> How Zen it seemed. <S> The adjective single is used for emphasis. <S> single 1.2 [with negative] <S> Even one (used for emphasis): <S> ‘they didn't receive a single reply’ <A> Mari-Lou A's answer covers the technical aspect perfectly, but we need to understand your intent. <S> "She didn't even have any thought left." <S> The technical problem is that thought needs to be thoughts , but that is not a complete idea. <S> Is there something specific <S> she doesn't have any thoughts about? <S> When she thought about the wedding , she drew a blank. <S> (suggests she might lack imagination or she may need some new inspiration) <S> She didn't have any thoughts about the wedding . <S> (neutral, she may think of something later) <S> She had no further thoughts about the wedding . <S> (suggests, but does not state, that she doesn't want to think about it any longer) <S> She was done thinking about the wedding. <S> (definitive, she does not want to think about it ever again) <S> If there is no specific situation, you may intend to write: <S> She was suffering from loss of interest. <S> (loss of interest in all her hobbies and personal relationships, this is a symptom of depression) <S> She was lost at that time in her life. <S> (aimless, the reason could be any number of things depression, addiction, fresh out of University, dead-end job) <S> Her mind was clear. <S> (this is a good thing, nothing is bothering her, she is free to think about something new) <S> The following would seem strange to a native speaker: <S> She drew a blank when she thought about her life. <S> (people typically draw a blank about something specific) <S> When she thought about her life her mind went blank. <S> (grammatically correct, but would be puzzling to the reader)
| She didn't have a single thought
|
Does this sentence make sense? (I reformed the cloth into a dress.) When I want to express that I reformed the cloth and made a dress, can I say like 'I reformed the cloth into a dress? If I am wrong, What is the best answer for it? <Q> Using reformed sounds rather odd. <S> If you reform something, you improve it, you don't change it into something else. <S> So, if you reform an electoral system, it is still an electoral system, but <S> (hopefully) a better one. <S> I made the cloth into a dress. <S> Or even: <S> I transformed the cloth into a dress. <S> But that sound a little pretentious. <A> One could simply say reuse in this context. <S> I reused the cloth to make a dress <S> A slightly fancier way of saying the same would be: I repurposed the cloth to make a dress. <S> In both cases, the prefix re- gives the sense the the cloth had a previous purpose or form, rather than being a fresh piece of cloth. <A> A native speaker would not say that. <S> A native speaker would more likely say "I made a dress from the cloth". <A> It's not that "reform" is unacceptable -- it's an awkward use of the word. <S> I like the suggestion of "transform". <S> In the context of dress making it implies that the dress was not simply crafted from cloth, but that the designer was an artist who elevated the cloth to a higher purpose. <A> Reform is incorrect in this case, because it describes taking a working form and turning it into another working form . <S> Re - a latin prefix meaning "again" <S> - implies that the subject was previously formed, but raw materials such as cloth are by definition not yet formed. <S> It would be correct to say that you formed the cloth into a dress. <S> It wouldn't be the best word for this case; <S> formed is old-fashioned and not very specific. <S> You might have sewed , cut , or even fabricated the cloth into a dress, and those would be better options. <A> I can think of one example where "I reformed the cloth into a dress" would be accurate. <S> "Form" can describe forcing something into a shape. <S> Fabric can be "molded" or forced into a custom shape (other than flat), by mechanical processes. <S> If you start with cloth that was formed into a shape for some purpose and decide to reuse it to make a dress employing a similar shaping process, you could say you reformed the cloth into a dress. <S> A forming process certainly isn't a typical way to make a dress, but that would be the literal meaning of the sentence in the question.
| I turned the cloth into a dress. Using "reform" this way might be allowed by the rules of the language, but it is definitely not idiomatic. Using either turned or made would be more appropriate:
|
The use of "to butt in" Is using " to butt in " acceptable in a formal conversation such as business meeting in order to add something or to make a correction by speaking shortly while someone is talking? Or can we say it means "I will say something now and I want to keep on talking"? For example: Can I butt in here please Also can "to come in" be used in this context? Are they synonyms? Which one sounds better? <Q> Yes, it is perfectly common and acceptable to use "butt in". <S> It is simply a more colloquial way of saying to interject . <S> The phrase is commonly used in business meetings and normal conversation. <S> It does not necessarily mean that the speaker wishes to take over the conversation and keep on talking, as you suggest in your question. <A> Appropriateness of language can be somewhat subjective, but personally I wouldn't use butt in in a formal conversation unless I had already established a level of familiarity with the other participants in the meeting. <S> If I did feel the necessity to say my piece while somebody else is speaking, I might say: If I could interrupt... <S> If I could also add... ...or similar. <S> Of course, it is possible to offset the brashness of butt in by qualifying it with a certain amount of humility, <S> e.g. Sorry to butt in, <S> but.... <A> "Can I butt in here, please?" has self-contradictory levels of politeness. <S> The phrase "butt in" honestly acknowledges that interrupting is (at least slightly) rude. <S> The "Can I <do something>, please?" is obsequious . <S> "Can I butt in here?" <S> or "May I butt in here? <S> " is more natural, to my (American) ear. <S> It has the politeness of "May I <do something <S> >? <S> ", without the redundancy of the extra "please?" <S> It is both more polite and more effective than just interrupting, because it gives the person(s) being interrupted a chance to re-orient their attention before the interrupter makes their actual point. <S> It is also more polite because it acknowledges that the interruption is somewhat rude, and at least pretends to ask permission for the interruption. <S> " <S> May <S> I <do something>? <S> " is slightly more polite than "Can I <do something>?" <S> But keep in mind that if it would be socially unacceptable to interrupt in that situation, starting the interruption with "May I butt in?" does not make the interruption acceptable.
| With butt in , there's an element of taking part in the conversation without being invited, which could be perceived as rude.
|
What are the differences between "should live in Japan" & "should be living in Japan"? Ok, see this youtube video , here is this tense matrix Past - Present - FutureSimpleContinuousPerfectPerfect Continuous We also have the same tense structures for Modals Can - May - Might - Must - Could - Would - Ought toSimple may doContinuous may be doingPerfect may have donePerfect Continuous may have been doing I would think the differences between " must live in Japan " & " must be living in Japan " are: Must here refers to a very high possibility. Things that you think is very likely to happen. Ex: She must live in Japan (we also have "She lives in Japan" which means she lives there more or less permanently) And when you want to emphasize a continuous process, say " She must be living in Japan " (we also have "She is living in Japan" which means she lives there more or less temporarily) Ok, " must, might " are easy, but what about " should "? My question is that:What are the differences between " I should live in Japan " & " I should be living in Japan "? Does " I should live in Japan " mean " I should live there more or less permanently " & " I should be living in Japan " mean " I should live there more or less temporarily "? Note: " must " here refers to possibility not obligation. She must live in Japan (=it is likely that she lives there at this moment), not (She have to live there) as if it is obligation " should " here refers to advice. <Q> That whole dish is so far over-cooked, the true essence of the main ingredients is masked. <S> In a question about the differences between ‘should live in Japan’ and ‘should be living in Japan’ <S> the red herring ‘must’ changes naught. <S> The ‘Japan’ fish also belongs in that kettle until someone shows how ‘Xanadu’ might change the flavour. <S> ‘Live’ in and of itself swims with the same fishes unless it starts to behave differently from, say, 'say' or ‘swim.’ <S> Boiling the kettle reduces the stew to ‘live’ and ‘living’ which, with the residual taste of ‘should’ peeled away, need fresh seasoning until they become once again ‘I live’ and ‘I am living’. <S> Underneath <S> all the starch ‘I live’ still smacks more or less of permanent continuance compared to the temporary or transient nature of ‘I am living.’ <S> When the two seem similar <S> that’s either an inadequate example or some kind of confusion. <A> Continuous tenses add a logical or contextual "stretch" to actions. <S> This is a different meaning than the actual duration of the activity sometimes. <S> You usually want this "stretch" if you have two actions/events, and you want to say <S> action/event X started in the middle of the process of action/event Y. <S> "I was walking down the street when I ran into Bobby." <S> Without continuous tense, it sounds like one action/event happened after the other, not while: <S> I walked down the street when I ran into Bobby. <S> (This sounds like you were done walking down the street, and then you ran into Bobby.) <S> You can also use this to say that you could not do action/event X because action/event Y was in process. <S> In this case you may not explicitly specify action/event X in the same sentence. <S> A <S> : So you never saw Bethany? <S> B: <S> No. <S> I was living in Japan at the time. <S> She was in Bangladesh. <S> And this is why you would use a verb like to live in a continuous tense to be living - because you want to say something "interrupted" it or that you could not do something because to live was "in process. <S> " <S> Of course no matter whether you say to live or to be living <S> - you are still living over a period of time. <A> Actually, they have the same meaning, but as " live " is a continuous action, (.i.e. <S> : When you live, you are always living, you can't say: I live there some times) <S> That's why " be living " was used, it implies to say one continuous action. <S> Must , in those sentences, means deduction , it could easily be replaced for: She is probably living in Japan . <S> She is living in Japan <S> could possibily mean that she is now living in Japan, which means that she had been living in another place before she moved to Japan. <S> I'm living in Japan, but I used to live in America. <S> They are living in Japan now, but Europe was their main country. <S> I should be living in Japan <S> I should live in Japan <S> We should live in Japan = <S> It's a normal clause, which implies neither emphasis nor a time. <S> We should be living in Japan = <S> It's an emphasized clause, which implies emphasis and mentions a current time. <S> And, as far as I know, " be " is also used when you want to express time, compare the following sentences: We should be living in Japan next week! <S> We should live in Japan next week! <S> I should be working next week! <S> I should work next week! <S> They have quite a big difference, don't they?
| There are no differences, in addiction to the fact that " be living " is an emphasized action, which means in that very moment.
|
Is "How much underwear?" okay? Is this correct? I often see "how many pairs of underwear", but this doesn't make sense. How is underwear a pair? There is only 1. I've googled and I've seen both "how much underwear" and "how many pairs of underwear". Which one is correct? <Q> Underwear, like trousers or jeans, are referred to as a pair, because it's a throwback to when pants (pantaloons) originally came in two pieces - a matching pair. <S> A person would put on one leg, tie it around their waist, then put on the other leg and do the same. <S> For more information, there is an excellent thread in EL&U, which references the following text : <S> Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. <S> The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). <S> The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. <S> However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular. <S> Pants have obviously evolved, but the terminology still remains. <S> For example: How many pairs of underwear are you packing for the trip? <S> I'm bringing five pairs of underwear with me. <S> That being said however, in question form, we can use much , e.g. <S> How much underwear should I bring? <S> you should bring five pairs of underwear. <A> It's perhaps worth adding that there is a discrepancy between American English and British English here. <S> While in the former "underwear" can be used to mean a specific garment, so "pairs of underwear" makes sense for the reasons Mike gives, in British English "underwear" only has the more general meaning, and so a BrE speaker might say either "how much underwear" or "how many pairs of underpants" (or just "pairs of pants", which in BrE only refers to underwear). <A> The word “underwear” is a mass noun that takes singular agreement (“your underwear is showing”) <S> but there are a cluster of pluralia tantum underwear words. <S> 11 Nouns <S> That Only Have a Plural Form <S> Anyway, both are commonly used: <S> Then how much underwear and how many pairs of socks shall I put in? <S> Last Watch <S> What type of place would tell you how many pairs of underwear to bring? <S> The Boy with the Lampshade on His Head <A> Many and much are used according to what sort of a noun they are referring to. <S> There are two types, and they are called mass nouns and count nouns. <S> Count Nouns <S> These can be counted. <S> Birds, apples, cell phones, etc. <S> These nouns are accompanied with "many". <S> I see many birds on the horizon. <S> The grocer sold many apples yesterday. <S> My science professor has too many cell phones. <S> Mass nouns <S> These occur in quantities that are measured rather than counted. <S> Water, sugar, abstract ideas, etc. <S> These nouns are accompanied with "much". <S> There is much water in the ocean. <S> How much sugar would you like? <S> You argue too much! <S> Which category <S> do you feel "underwear" belong to? <S> I would say, "How many pairs of underwear should I bring", or simply "How many underwear should I bring?" <A> (In European English,) 'Underwear' refers to bras (and often vests and socks) as well as underpants/knickers and a bras is not counted as a pair so the term 'pair of underwear' is a nonsense to this native speaker.
| Therefore, "how many pairs of underwear" is correct usage.
|
Does "fill me in" have sexual connotation? If someone asks you to fill them in, meaning to brief or inform them about something, could it in any way be construed as an invitation for sex, as when a girl playfully says so in response to, "I had a wonderful holiday." <Q> Does it? <S> No. <S> Can it? <S> Absolutely. <S> Almost anything can be made into innuendo with the right inflection, and this one is too obvious not to be so used now and then. <S> So Mary came by and said she'd fill me in , and I said I'd love her to -- <S> but she'd have to first buy me a drink. <S> Side note: <S> The phrases "buy me a drink first" or "take me to dinner first" are often used as standard responses that suggest a risque interpretation of an otherwise innocent statement. <S> It's a casual joke that suggests that, while you might be willing to engage in sexual activity, you'd prefer some romance first. <S> It's not supposed to be taken seriously. <S> Of course context is important and you don't want to shock someone by using it inappropriately. <A> Yes and no. <S> Euphemism and connotation are tricky. <S> Generally, if you use "fill me in" in a normal context, with normal pronunciation, and normal body language, it won't be taken to have a sexual connotation. <S> It would be understood as follows (from Oxford Dictionaries): fill someone in PHRASAL <S> VERB <S> 1 <S> Inform someone more fully of a matter <S> : "they filled me in on all the latest news from Cambridge" <S> However, it does depend on context and how you say it. <S> Alternatively, with the right context, it could take on a sexual connotation without any non-typical emphasis or body language. <S> In Britain in particular, it may also be taken as follows: <S> British 2 <S> informal, dated Hit or punch someone: <S> "I filled in a chap and took his money" <S> It's called dated by the dictionary, but I have heard it used in this way before. <S> It would probably be fairer to call it uncommon but not unrecognisable. <A> Not at all. <S> It just means to bring someone fully up-to-date with the latest information. <S> Of course, if it is said in a lascivious manner, it could mean anything. <S> fill someone in phrasal verb Inform someone more fully of a matter: They filled me in on all the latest news from Cambridge. <S> Oxford Dictionaries <A> It might be used as an excuse to get personal details. <S> If for example it was your honeymoon, they might well be saying something slightly lewd. <S> "Did you have a good time? <S> Fill me in on all the details." <S> Most of us would either be amused if we know the person well, or annoyed because the question from an acquaintance would be too personal. <S> (Nudge, nudge, say no more*.) <S> Some holidays are naturally thought of as naughty and fun times -- like honeymoons, or singles cruises. <S> (*Monty Python sketch.)
| You could, with the right emphasis and body language, give it a sexual connotation. In no way would it sound like an invitation for sex.
|
“score one for truth” What does “score one for truth” mean? Googling it gives plenty of examples but no definitions. It is not clear from context. A lot of the google results appear to refer to conspiracy theories. The first google hits: First Google hit has no meaningful context , just sais score one for truth in advertising with a broken link. Google books result : Waiting for you, she said cheerfully. Score one for truth. His gaze slid over her clothes. Another Google Books result : It was enough. Score one for truth. The official was now a model of cooperation. What does score one for truth mean and what are its origins? What is this score ? <Q> "I was acquitted in court because I proved I was in hospital when the crime was committed". <S> "Well, congratulations! <S> Score 1 for truth!" <S> The "score" part refers to an imagined game between truth and lies, in which a mark is given on an imaginary scoreboard depending on whether the truth or lies about something is believed (usually, but not always, by authorities). <S> The basis of the game is that lies usually win, so for truth to score is noteworthy. <S> (See Mark Twain's comment about lies running around the world before truth can get its boots on) <S> In the case of advertising, adverts are generally based on unsupported claims, so for an advert to state the benefits of the product simply and honestly is quite unusual. <A> "Score one for [X]" is an idiomatic expression that can be used almost anywhere, to indicate X achieved some kind of victory (over something or someone else). <S> It's a sports or gaming metaphor, as if the tally between the two sides is kept on a scoreboard. <S> For example: Donald Trump claims that he had the largest crowd ever for his inauguration as President, but side-by-side photos show that Obama's crowd eight years earlier was much, much larger. <S> Score one for photographic evidence! <S> So, "score one for truth!" <S> means that, this time, the truth won (over some falsehood). <S> Note: If speaking this phrase, you can punctuate it by using your index finger to mark an imaginary tally on an imaginary scoreboard. <A> You might also hear this expression expressed in another way. " <S> 10 points for your new haircut. <S> " You are not actually getting anything. <S> This is usually a compliment and imaginary. <S> I suppose a person could use sarcasm, "10 points for breaking my heart." <S> So "Score 1" or "10 points" could be viewed as interchangeable IF it saying the phrase was meant as a passing comment. <S> If there are points involved in a game, then they could be used literally, but this would be uncommon usage and not close to working with your example.
| It's meant to mean that, in the event being discussed, the truth won over falsehood.
|
What does "within 1 to 2 hours" imply In the following context: You will be called within 1 to 2 hours Does "within" imply between 1 and 2 hours? Or anytime from now, until 2 hours? <Q> The phrase means: <S> You may perhaps be called within an hour. <S> You will definitely be called within two hours. <S> There is no implication that your being called within one hour is any more likely than your being called between one and two hours. <S> Or to put it more cynically: the sentence boils down to this. <S> If you are not called within an hour, you will be called within two. <S> Since the frame within two hours by itself includes within one hour , the explicit statement of the latter is superfluous. <S> It's probably in there just to give you a false hope that the wait won't be as long as it is likely to be. <S> It's like when you're running late coming home for dinner <S> and you call your spouse to say: <S> Sorry, babycakes, I got held up at the office. <S> I'll be home in an hour, two hours tops. <S> That gives your spouse the feeling that you are going to try to be home by the earlier time (one hour) while still giving you the wiggle room to stop by your paramour's for a quickie en route, since what you've explicitly promised is just the later (two hours). <A> From a native speaker: I may be in the minority here, but within 1 to 2 hours tells me between now and one hour, and at the most between now and two hours. <A> The highest time frame within which you will be called is 2 hours. <S> But you can also be called within an hour or an hour and a half or before completion of two hours from the present time. <S> This is it.
| Within does not refer to the range between the one and two hour mark, but to the period inside now and before one hour is over, and certainly before two hours is over.
|
I wish time would stop now or I wish time stopped now Which one is correct? And if there are problems, what they are and why? I wish time would stop now. I wish time stopped now. or I wish the bus stopped here. I wish the bus would stop here. <Q> First things first: <S> "I wish the bus would have stopped here." <S> (This is not grammatically correct in English although it occurs about as frequently as the use of "was" as the past subjunctive of "to be" when "were" is the correct form.) <S> It should read: <S> "I wish the bus had stopped here." <S> ("had stopped" is the past perfect subjunctive.) <S> Now for the rest: <S> "I wish the bus would stop here." <S> ("would" replaces the present subjunctive herein: " <S> It is my wish that the bus stop here." <S> Because if the bus [should] stop here, it will cut time off my trip.) <S> "I wish the bus stopped here." <S> ("stopped" is the past subjunctive of "to stop" herein: "It is my wish that the bus stopped here." <S> Because if the bus stopped here, it would cut time off my trip.) <S> and it's possible that it may happen one day, whereas the second one is my stating a simple wish that does not happen now <S> and I know probably either cannot or will not ever happen. <S> "I wish the bus stopped here (but I am pretty sure that it never will stop here). <S> " <S> "I wish you <S> would just have a good time." <S> (You aren't having a good time <S> and it's ruining my vacation!) <S> "I wish you <S> had a good time [playing sports]. <S> " (You do not have a good time doing whatever, but I wish it were not so.) <S> "I wish you would be quiet." <S> (Shut your mouth! <S> Your ruining everything!) <S> "I wish you were quiet." <S> (It's impossible for you to shut your mouth, but hey, I can wish, can't I?) <S> Other exemplars: <S> "I wish Mr. Smith taught English." <S> (I know that Mr. Smith will probably never teach English, but hey, I can wish!) <S> "I wish Mr. Smith would teach English." <S> (I just want Mr. Smith to teach English <S> and I know he could teach it if he wanted to.) <S> "I wish Mr. Smith had taught English [when I was in school]. <S> " <S> (Mr. Smith didn't teach English when I was in school, but I wish (now) that (back then) he had taught it.) <A> Both are possible, and both have much the same meaning. <S> would stop and stopped <S> both show changes to the verb which mark or corroborate the unreality or counterfactuality of the statement in tandem with <S> wish <S> (namely, modal <S> would and past-tense stopped ): time does not stop, and <S> the bus does not stop there. <A> tricky wicky: <S> I wish time would stop now. <S> [right] <S> I wish time stopped when I have to study. <S> [a general statement, simple past is fine.] <S> or I wish the bus stopped here <S> [but it doesn't]. <S> [yes, a general statement] <S> I wish the bus would stop here <S> [but I know it never will]. <S> [yes, a general statement, less probable than the simple past]] <S> I wish with the simple past <S> is tricky because it is not a past tense : <S> I wish he used a simpler approach to explain these things . <S> [a simple wish] <S> I wish he would use a simpler approach to explain these things <S> but I know that is not possible . <S> [A wish that is less likely than the one with the simple past.] <S> In a present time, if you are expressing a general wish about some situation, you can use the simple past tense even though the simple past tense does not refer to the past. <S> The easiest way to understand this is to compare it with the second type of IF conditional : <S> EXAMPLE: <S> If he went to school here, I would see him all the time. <S> I wish he went to school here <S> so I would see him all the time <S> [but he doesn't go to school here]. <S> BUT:I wish he would go to school here , so I could/would see him all the time <S> [but I know he won't so let's forget it]. <S> [This is NOT like the IF example above. <S> Would in first clause, could/would/might in the second clause] <S> I wish he had gone to school here, so I would have seen him a lot.[This is like a past <S> IF conditional: If he had gone to school, I would see him a lot.]] <S> Wish can take the simple past for a general statement [that is not in the past!] <S> Wish can take the conditional to express something that is even less probable than wish with the simple past. <S> Would in the first clause, would/could/might in the second Wish can take past perfect for a wish related to the past. <S> This is how the simple present use of wish works. <A> I wish the bus stopoed here. <S> I wish the bus would stop here <S> Both the sentences are grammatical, with a subtle nuance of meaning. <S> The first sentence means that you want the bus to stop here, but it doesn't happen so. <S> The second sentence also means that you want it to stop here, but the use of "would" also conveys the sense that you are annoyed or worried that it doesn't stop here.
| Both examples are relatively close to the same meaning; however, the first example ("would stop") is used when I want it to happen or insist that it happen
|
A phrase for "ashamed" Is there a figurative phrase for "ashamed" to mean to bend your head downward or look down, as you can't look at others? In Persian we say سر افکنده which almost means Head Down, or Head fallen <Q> There's a similar expression in english - to hang your head (in shame) . <S> It has very much the same meaning as the expressions you mention. <S> Hang one's head : let one's head fall forward (e.g., when ashamed) <S> For example: When I was caught cheating in the exam, I hung my head in shame. <S> Athletes caught taking drugs should hang their heads in shame. <S> The defendant hung his head in shame. <A> Crestfallen (or maybe downcast) might be another single word equivalent. <S> Crest in English refers to the head or top of something; so the word directly connotes the head being down, but means being sad or disappointed (whether because of shame/embarrassment or any other reason). <S> crest·fal·len <S> ˈkres(t)ˌfôlən/ <S> adjective adjective: <S> crestfallen sad and disappointed. <S> "he came back <S> empty-handed and crestfallen" synonyms: downhearted, downcast, despondent, disappointed, disconsolate, disheartened, discouraged, dispirited, dejected, depressed, desolate, in the doldrums, sad, glum, gloomy, dismayed, doleful, miserable, unhappy, woebegone, forlorn; <S> More antonyms: cheerful Origin late 16th century: <S> figuratively, from the original use referring to a mammal or bird having a fallen or drooping crest. <A> We also say that a person couldn't look [someone] in the eye/face when they are ashamed (often because they are lying, but not always). <S> This is pretty much a set phrase, so it's often singular eye instead of plural eyes . <S> From Collins Dictionary: to look someone in the eye or look sb in the face phrase <S> If you look someone in the eye or look them in the face, you look straight at their eyes in a bold and open way, for example in order to make them realize that you are telling the truth. <S> He could not look her in the eye. <A> we also might use: shamefaced, tail between his legs shame·faced <S> ˈSHāmfāst/ <S> adjective feeling or expressing shame or embarrassment. <S> "all the boys looked shamefaced" synonyms: ashamed, abashed, sheepish, guilty, conscience-stricken, guilt-ridden, contrite, sorry, remorseful, repentant, penitent, regretful, rueful, apologetic; embarrassed, mortified, red-faced, chagrined, humiliated; informal: with one's tail between one's legs <S> "Giles looked shamefaced" <S> Google Dictionary <A> Bow/hang your head in shame. <S> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/shame_1 <S> Hope this helps <A> I have heard and read of a hangdog look or expression. <S> Per: Dictionary.com shamefaced; guilty: <S> He sneaked out of the room with a hangdog expression.
| In addition to: hang your head in shame
|
How to pronounce 'GB'? If I want to buy a phone with 64 GB, how should I say it? Should I say "A phone with 64 gigabyte." or "A phone with 64 GB (simply pronounce the letter 'G' and 'B')." which one is more native? <Q> You typically don't spell out shorthand or acronyms for units of measurement, especially if the shorthand is not easily pronounceable. <S> In this case, say "gigabytes". <A> With units of measurement like that, you write them without any plural marker, but say them with the plural marker Examples: 64GB → Sixty-four gigabytes 1GB → One gigabyte <S> 30km → Thirty kilometers <S> 1L <S> → One liter 2L <S> → Two liters <S> As for saying 'Gee Bee' instead of gigabytes <S> , that's harder to answer, and probably up to personal preference to a certain degree. <S> It sounds a little bit like something my technically illiterate parents would say My phone has 64 gee bee <S> But as a counter example, I often hear things like <S> My internet is slow, I'm only getting 300 kbps (said kay bee pee ess , stands for kilobits per second ) <S> I also agree with people saying My phone has 64 gigs or <S> I have a 64 gig phone <S> Those are probably the most natural and casual for GB specifically. <A> The answer may vary regionally. <S> (Notice that there is no -s on gigabytes here because "gigabyte" precedes and is modifying "phone.") <S> I would not call it a 64-gig phone or a 64-gigabyte s phone, although I would understand what someone meant if they used either of those expressions. <S> I have a 64-gigabyte phone. <S> If the question were about "64GB of RAM" in a computer, I would pronounce it as either 64 gigabytes of RAM <S> --or-- <S> 64 gigs of RAM <S> I am thinking about buying a computer that has 64 gigs of RAM. <S> I am thinking about buying a computer that has 64 gigabytes of RAM. <A> The most common would be to say it fully. <S> A phone with 64 gigabytes. <S> Note the plural 'gigabytes'. <S> It's also fairly common to say A phone with 64 gigs. <S> Though this is more informal, it's usually clear in context what the unit is with only the prefix. <S> This is similar to how someone might say That stone weighs 100 kilos. <A> Should I say "A phone with 64 gigabyte." or <S> "A phone with 64 GB (simply pronounce the letter 'G' and 'B')." <S> To answer your direct question, I would say: I would like a phone with 64 gigabytes of RAM, please. <S> (You have to put in the units, otherwise it is like saying "I want a phone with 42"). <S> To say "GB" sounds like "jeebee" as in Heebie-jeebies . <S> I think you would get a blank look if you asked for "64 jeebee". <S> More colloquially you might say: What have you got with 64 gigabytes? <S> They will probably realise you mean RAM and not buttons or cameras or something like that.
| I would pronounce a "64GB phone" as a 64-gigabyte phone Colloquially, native speakers may also say "gigs".
|
How to pronounce 'GB' (the island)? When talking about United Kingdom or United States people often pronounce the letters of the abbreviation like "you kay" (UK). However, I have never noticed anyone spelling out 'GB'. Is it somehow unspellable? <Q> Great Britain is a subsection of the United Kingdom, so it is not as frequently mentioned as the UK is, since the UK is the accepted term. <S> Although some speakers may decide to say "Gee Bee," it is not in common usage. <S> " I suspect that it has not entered common speech precisely because it is not the official term for the entire country of the United Kingdom. <A> It is pronounced "Gee Bee" for each letter and is not spelled out, just as "USA" is usually not spelled out. <S> Most people will be familiar with the old car decals used to designate country of origin which has now moved on to the license plate <S> it is also the designation of the Olympic team from the UK How to pronounce <S> This is team GB <A> Great Britain is part of the United Kingdom. <S> The official name of the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. <S> Great Britain, since Stewart times, consists of England, Scotland, and Wales. <S> Great Britain curiously does not include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
| To be most widely understood, it is best to simply say "Great Britain.
|
All I know (how/what) to do Below are three examples: That's all I know to do. That's all I know how to do. That's all I know what to do. Which of the three is the most idiomatic way of expressing the idea that what was mentioned was all that I can do, since I don't know how to do anything else.To me, 'how to do' sounds the most natural but lacks logic, since it's about WHAT I can do and not HOW I do them.Also, as much as I am tempted to go with 'All I know to do', isn't the verb 'know' usually not followed by infinitives? Thanks in advance. <Q> That's all I know about it. <S> would be the general idiomatic expression to say you have a limited knowledge about the subject. <S> would mean you have limited knowledge on "how" to do something <S> That's all I know (about) what to do. <S> would mean you have limited knowledge on "what" needs to be done in a situation. <A> All three are okay, but they are used in different contexts. <S> That's all I know to do <S> This one is for when you are speaking about your knowledge of which options you have. <S> As in, "I can't think of anything else to try." <S> That's all I know how to do <S> This is for speaking about your knowledge of certain actions. <S> As in, "I don't know how to do anything else. <S> Therefore, there's nothing more I can try." <S> That's all <S> I know what to do <S> This is is pretty much the same as the first, but it's not used this way in standard English. <S> It is chiefly a variant of certain dialects within England, and frankly is probably not very common there either. <S> Since I'm Canadian, I can't speak much to English dialects outside my area. <S> Perhaps an English user could give a clearer answer to that. <A> List item <S> All the sentences are grammatical. <S> That's all I know to do <S> / <S> That's all <S> I know what to do. <S> Both the sentences have the same meaning <S> , that is, I don't know there's more to do than I told you. <S> That's all I know how to do. <S> That's a different meaning. <S> It means "I don't know more than I told you how to do".
| That's all I know (about) how to do (it) .
|
The second person in conversation As far as I know, there are two terms in English grammar to identify two main parts of a conversation: "First person" and "second person". But my question is that what do you usually call them out of English grammar domain? I searched a lot and found the following terms: "Speaker" ---> I somewhat sure I'm on the right track with this. And "Spoken to" OR "Second person" ---> I doubt about it For example: a) You have to always know your second person (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. b You have to always know your spoken to (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. [It sounds a bit odd to me.] Which one is correct? "a" or "b"? If no one, then let me know what would be the normal term here? <Q> In fact, Renaat DeClerck extends this to the ingenious practice of always referring to the s peaker as s he and the h earer as h e. <A> I would refer to the people in the conversation as the speaker and the listener . <S> In your example sentence, however, I would use audience . <S> "Know your audience" is a standard piece of advice that's given in a variety of situations, and will be instantly recognised by many English speakers. <A> At your request, I will say that Ssav's answer is the one I would select. <S> This is because the word hearer , though it is perfectly correct, sounds awkward to me. <S> Stoney is not wrong at all, this is simply my own preference. <S> John spoke to Mary. <S> He spoke and she listened. <S> The speaker noted that the flowers were beautiful and his listener thought that he was right. <S> None of these are examples I'd use in writing, however. <S> It just sounds strange. <S> When John/he spoke, Mary/she listened intently. <S> If Mary was another man, then he and he could not be comfortably used. <S> While he spoke, Mark listened. <S> I am not at all sure I've added anything that helps. <S> "a) <S> You have to always know your second person (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. <S> b You have to always know your spoken to (the person you are talking to) and speak accordingly. <S> [It sounds a bit odd to me.] <S> " should be, imo: <S> You have to know your listener (but audience is better) and speak accordingly. <S> You have to know your audience and speak their language. <S> You have to know your audience and speak to their level of knowledge/expertise. <S> Audience works better and can absolutely be used even if the audience IS one person. <A> In your example sentences, interlocutor would work well, although it can sound somewhat formal. <S> It works better than listener, in the sense that it implies that the other person (the "spoken to") is in fact a participant in the conversation and is expected to reply to what you say. <S> From Merriam Webster : <S> 1: <S> one who takes part in dialogue or conversation <S> And here are some examples from british newspapers.
| Speaker and hearer are the terms I see most often in linguistics.
|
What does "ellipses in thought" mean? From Primal Fear (1996)A psychiater discovers that her patient suffers from the dissociated personality. She describes: I kept seeing the signs. The big ones. Abusive background, these repeated blackouts, the ellipses in thought I couldn't really understand what are ellipses in this case. All dictionaries say that an ellipse is from mathematics. <Q> An ellipsis is an omission , a missing piece from something that is usually implied by the context. <S> Ellipses is the plural of ellipsis. <S> In writing we mark an ellipsis by three dots in a row "..." <S> For example: He was going to go to the store, but ... <S> From the context, it sounds like the patient has suffered some kind of abuse which they have blocked out from memory, or suffers periods where they can't recall what happened. <A> In writing, the ellipsis (not the ellipse , even though they both have the same plural form: ellipses ), which is represented by ... <S> is used to indicate someone trailing off in the middle of a sentence, for example: <S> Well, I told him he needed to buy more printer paper... <S> Is that a squirrel over there? <S> In this case the psychiatrist was probably noticing the patient had trouble finishing sentences, or expressing whole ideas without losing their place and getting distracted. <A> An ellipsis generally describes a gap in something. <S> It could either mean a 'gap' in thought processes, for example: <S> I am going to the doctor tomorrow, therefore I must buy a toaster. <S> at least to someone else, this would be confusing although in the speaker's mind it makes perfect sense. <S> Alternatively it could mean a complete loss of information, for example, the person couldn't remember certain aspects of an event. <S> The other more subtle meaning, that would only really become clear with more context <S> would be that the 'ellipses in thought' were actually that the person was hiding something, and that they would trail off because they did not want to say what they were originally going to say. <A> For all practical purposes English speaking persons should consider the medical term Ellipsis (plural form Ellipses) as a synonym to "lapse" : <S> A mistake resulting from inattention <S> A break or intermission in the occurrence of something <S> A failure to maintain a higher state Ellipsis originates from the greek word : "ἕλλειψις" meaning want, deficiency, lack thereof, etc. <S> and although historically the Greeks used the same word for the mathematical shape which describes an ellipse, ellipse and ellipsis are two completely distinct words in English, carrying different meanings. <A> Sigmund Freud discusses " ellipsis of thought " in his case study A Case Of Obsessional Neurosis, especially the chapter <S> Some General Characteristics Of Obsessional Structures . <S> "[N]amely,that of distortion by omission or ellipsis . <S> [...] For instance, the patients oldest obsessions ran as follows ' If I marry the lady, some misfortune will befall my father .' <S> If we insert the intermediate steps, which are known to us from the analysis, we get the following train of thought: If my father were alive, he would be furious over my design of marrying the lady as he was in the scene in my childhood; so that I should fly into a rage with him once more and wish him every possible evil; and thanks to the omnipotence of my wishes these evils would be bound to come upon him" (p106) as you can see the ellipsis appears "in a truncated and distorted form, like a mutilated telegraph" <S> (p103) <S> Sigmund Freud, The Penguin Freud Library Volume 9; Case Histories II. <S> translated by James Strachey, Edited by Angela Richards. <S> Penguin Books, 1991
| An "ellipsis in thought" would be an omitted piece from someone's memory or chain of thought, which they can't remember but which they know is missing.
|
Difference between "dealer" and "concessionaire" In a system for control sales of vehicles, which is the appropriate word. Dealer or concessionaire ? In order to refer to a place where they do sell vehicles. What are the differences? <Q> Concessionaire is so uncommon <S> I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word. <S> Also, it usually refers to someone who operates a specific business (a concession ) on someone else's property. <S> Don't use it. <S> The idiomatic term in US English for someone who sells cars is a car dealer . <A> definitions from Google dictionary concessionaire noun the holder of a concession or grant, especially for the use of land or commercial premises. <S> This definition is correct but doesn't help in this context. <S> I know now the part below is wrong! <S> I am keeping it here because I think it's important to 'fess up to errors. <S> I sell used clothing (I am the owner) and earn three dollars <S> but I must give a percentage to the concessionaire of 10%, so they earn thirty cents. <S> The concessionaire owns the store where I can then sell my used item. <S> On Edit: We do not use the term: concessionaire. <S> We use owner, store manager, concession or more likely re-sale store owner. <S> Some galleries sell art on concession. <S> dealer noun 1. <S> a person or business that buys and sells goods. <S> " <S> a car dealer" (2. <S> the player who distributes the cards at the start of a game or hand. <S> *) <S> * not useful <S> A dealer generally has paid for the goods and therefore is the owner of them. <S> They then sell for a profit, that item to a customer. <A> Dealer is the word you are looking for. <S> The definition "the holder of a concession or grant, especially for the use of land or commercial premises" is accurate but needs examples. <S> The US government "owns" Yellowstone Nation Park and operates the Park generally. <S> Park Service personnel staff the Entrance gates, Visitor Centers, campgrounds, and police the roads and back country. <S> But the Park Service grants concessions to other companies that operate the Hotels, Gas Stations, and Stores. <S> The company that operates the Park's Hotels is the concessionaire for the Hotels concession. <S> The company that operates the Park's Gas Stations is the concessionaire for the Gas Station concession. <S> Likewise for the Park's stores. <S> Similarly, the owner / operator of large sports and concert venues usually offers a concession of the "snack food" business inside the venue. <S> The operator of the snacks concession is the snacks concessionaire at that venue. <S> So, the only way a car dealer would also be a concessionaire would be in a specific situation where, for example, the owner of Yankee Stadium in New York granted a concession to operate a car dealership inside the stadium (on Stadium grounds). <S> The owner/operator of the concession might be a Lexus dealer during one concession contract and a BMW dealer during another contract. <S> Both contract holders (Both car dealers) would be considered Yankee Stadium's automobile concessionaire during the terms their contracts were in force. <A> From my stint in Italy, Concessionaires are owned directly by the Car manufacturers, while dealers are independent Value-Added resellers. <S> The earlier often carry a larger bouquet of services as a result. <S> As observed by many, concessionaire is hardly ever used in daily English, and could be misleading if you were trying to make the distinction I just referred to. <S> Hope this helps. <S> Cheers!
| If you are holding something in concession (I think this is what you are asking), then the concessionaire gets a percentage of the sale of the product or item that the seller earns. Concessionaire has a very specific meaning that would only apply in very specific circumstances.
|
When you tell a joke and nobody laughs I'm looking for an expression or a verb describing the feeling you get or the situation when you tell a joke and nobody laughs. Oh man, last night I cracked a joke and noone even smiled at it. I [ the expression/verb ] I think it will be OK if I say, "I got embarrased" (although I'd like to make sure it's OK to be used here) but I'm interested in a kind of informal and casual way to say that. I thought I goofed up might work but it seems it's more about a mistake but when you tell an old joke or simply your joke is not that funny as you thought can't be really a mistake. <Q> The idiomatic expression is "fell flat", to mean that nobody laughed at it. <S> Oh man I told this joke last night and it totally fell flat. <S> If a professional comedian repeatedly "falls flat" during his "set", we say he "bombed", or he "died on stage". <S> " <S> Other options: <S> I told this joke but totally blew the punchline and no one laughed. <S> I told this joke and no one laughed. <S> I just wanted to go crawl under a table <S> (I was really embarrassed). <S> I told this joke and when I got to the end no one laughed. <S> I guess they all have sticks up their butts <S> (lack a sense of humor). <S> [Disclaimer] <S> The expression " <S> I felt like an ass" may not be appropriate in "polite" company. <S> A more socially acceptable expression might be <S> "I felt like a fool", or "I felt like an idiot". <S> The expression "they must have sticks up their butts" is a graphic metaphor that is definitely not appropriate everywhere. <S> Instead you could say something like, <S> Their sense of humor must be broken. <S> or use an even more playful and evocative expression like <S> , They wouldn't know a good joke if it mugged them in an alley and stole their wallets. <A> A common idiom is crickets , meaning that instead of laughter, there was a silence deep enough for crickets to be heard chirping. <S> All the tropes wiki explains: A character says or does something intended to elicit an enthusiastic response from a group watching him, such as the audience in a theatre or a band of comrades. <S> But instead of the reaction he expects, he hears nothing but the sound of crickets chirping, suggesting that not only is nobody responding, there's nobody there to respond. <S> The site also gives several examples of the trope in visual media. <S> Slang Vocabulary also lists the term, and there's a Reddit thread about it. <S> And here's an example of MSN using the term. <A> Aside from the other expressions, you can also say that the joke went down like a lead balloon . <S> It can be used in other contexts suggesting some form of communication has taken place and was not well received. <S> I couldn't find a single word for it, but here's the page from Wiktionary where I found the full expression and the alternative version <S> ( go over instead of go down ): <S> Go down like a lead balloon (Wikitionary) . <S> In addition some less specific words can be used with your original sentence. <S> You could, for instance, say that "[you] missed with that joke". <A> It seems like you're looking for something like "[...] <S> I bombed ". <S> Usually you can probably address the joke rather than yourself - and say "[...] <S> I bombed it ", or "[...] <S> It bombed ". <S> A possible variation - if the joke was ruined by a... lack of grace... <S> in telling it, you can address yourself like: "[...] <S> I totally floundered while telling it". <S> That implies that you were speaking clumsily <A> You could say the joke (or the performance/rendition of it) flopped . <S> (of a performer or show) be completely unsuccessful; fail totally. <S> For example: <S> Oh man, last night I cracked a joke and no one even smiled at it. <S> The joke totally flopped. <S> Or <S> Oh man, last night I cracked a joke and noone even smiled at it. <S> My timing totally flopped. <A> I might just say "tumbleweed" while sweeping my hand along an imaginary barren vista. <S> It's pleasingly evocative of deserts and dusty western ghost towns. <S> e.g. <S> Oh man, last night I cracked a joke and noone even smiled at it - tumbleweed. <S> Of course you then run the risk of nobody laughing at that <S> and I don't think there's even a word for that kind of meta awkwardness. <A> To describe the situation, you could say the listeners are a tough crowd . <S> Urban Dictionary has a nice example : what someone would say after telling a joke or other humorous anecdote, and then getting deadpan looks and no verbal acknowledgement from the people listening. <S> " <S> Yeah, so I heard Dave got a pet cat, <S> oh well, probably the closest thing to pussy he'll ever have in his place, huh guys? <S> hahaha!" <S> (silence and blank stares from everyone) <S> "Geez...! <S> Tough crowd, man.... <S> tough crowd!!" <A> The request is about the feeling of telling a joke that bombed. <S> So it's not a case of understanding what happened to the joke, it's what happened to the joke-teller. <S> Oh man, last night I cracked a joke and noone even smiled at it. <S> You could also used died on it's own, but for clarity, if you're not necessarily speaking to an English native you may need to clear up <S> it's metaphorical use. <S> It also largely depends who you're talking to. <A> Oh man, last night I cracked a joke and noone even smiled at it. <S> It was awkward. <S> The word itself is also something usually said by younger people in response to such events, usually with stress on both syllables with a bit less stress in between and lingering somewhat on the r. <A> I think a reasonable way of explaining is that "they didn't get it ". <S> That is, move the blame from yourself (for telling a bad joke) to the audience (for not understanding it). <S> eg. <S> Last night I told my favourite joke but <S> the people I was with didn't get it. <S> Try searching for "they didn't get the joke" and you'll find quite a few references, memes, etc.
| There are various ways to describe your reaction to telling a joke that falls flat, but you might say something like, "I felt like an ass. I died of embarrassment . A term you might also use to describe your feelings and this situation is awkward : embarrassing or inconvenient; caused by lack of social grace in your example:
|
Tense for something I did yesterday and also will be doing today My boss just asked me which task I was working on yesterday, and which one I will be working on today. I wanted to reply that I was working on the same task, but the sentence structure seemed awkward to me. "Yesterday and today, I will be working on (task-name)" What is the correct way to express this? <Q> In American English, one way of expressing this would be: <S> I'm continuing to work on [task name]. <S> You could also say: I've been working on [task name]. <S> The former focuses a bit more on what you're doing today, the latter on what you did yesterday. <S> However, in context, both formulations express that the task is ongoing, and would be understood as referring to both days. <A> I have been working on ______ since yesterday. <S> I started ____ yesterday and will likely be able to finish it today. <A> Tense: Present Perfect Continuous <S> We form the Present Perfect Continuous like this: <S> I have been working on (task) since yesterday.(= You started working on the task yesterday and you are still working on the same task) <S> We use the Present Perfect Continuous for an action or situation that begun in the past and continues until now: <S> You have been sitting there since five o'clock.(=You started sitting there at five o'clock and you are still sitting there.) <A> The single best verb tense in this situation is the present perfect continuous ( have been + verbroot + -ing ), which is used to describe actions that began in the past but have continued to the present moment and may not yet be completed. <S> http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/quick-grammar/present-perfect-simple-and-present-perfect-continuous <S> http://www.ef.com/english-resources/english-grammar/present-perfect-continuous/ <S> or (using a contraction) <S> I've been working on [task name]. <S> so: <S> Boss: What did you work on yesterday, and what will you be working on today? <S> You: I've been working on [task name]. <S> Note: <S> Strictly speaking , if you say here that you "have been working on" a particular task, although it means that you already worked on the task yesterday and today, it does not necessarily mean that you will also continue to work on the same task later today. <S> It just means that you started working on the task in the past, continued working on it until now, and, in this case, you have not yet completed it. <S> (It could mean, as one example, that you will now do something else for the rest of the day and then resume working on the task next week.) <S> But apart from that very strict interpretation, in the particular scenario described in the original question if you only said "I have been working on [task name]" in response to your boss' question, your boss would reasonably conclude that your plan was to continue working on the same task later today.
| I have been working on [task name].
|
Either in a negative sentence Do the following sentences present acceptable usages for either ? Either this or that fruit is not tasty. I do understand I should have said that differently i.e. with a positive statement: Neither this nor that fruit is tasty. But I am particularly interested in the negation. Some more examples for consideration: Either fruits are not tasty. Either students will not be restricted. Either of the lakes are not polluted. Either paths have not been taken. P.S. I am not interested in these classic usages for either in a negation: My pal is sober and I am not drunk either. [hic] We cannot use either copybook. <Q> either in the pattern you have provided in your example sentences refers individually to two valid alternatives . <S> A valid alternative is one having the required qualities. <S> We can take either road. <S> Either road will take us where we want to go. <S> Either will take us there. <S> For that reason, it is an inherent contradiction and ungrammatical to use either as the subject of a predicate where a valid alternative is said not to possess a required quality. <S> Either road won't take us where we want to go. <S> ungrammatical <S> The correct form is Neither road will take us where we want to go. <S> Neither refers individually to two invalid alternatives . <A> I think that grammatically it isn't correct in each case. <S> Neither fruit is tasty <S> Neither student will be restricted Neither lake is polluted <S> Neither path has been taken <S> I think it is far more natural sounding (and a bit more succinct) to negate either in every case. <A> Either fruits are not tasty. <S> We/ <S> I do not like either fruit. <S> Either students will not be restricted. <S> We/I will not restrict either student. <S> Either of the lakes are not polluted. <S> This lake is not polluted and that one isn't either. <S> Either paths have not been taken. <S> We can't <S> /did not take this path or the either. <S> No one has taken this path or the either. <S> All of these sentences sound awkward to a native speaker. <S> The other answers are correct in saying the word you want is <S> neither . <S> We cannot use either copybook. <S> (I've heard this used fairly often, so you can use it.) <A> First and foremost, “Do the following sentences present acceptable usages for either” presents no acceptable use for anything. <S> Does that make sense? <S> “Either this or that fruit is not tasty” makes some kind of sense grammatically, but it’s pure nonsense semantically. <S> Does that make sense? <S> Semantically, “Neither this nor that fruit is tasty” could work: not in most cases… <S> “Either fruits are not tasty” will never work. <S> Did you mean “Neither fruit is tasty” or what? <S> “Either students will not be restricted” will never work. <S> Did you mean something else? <S> Does your “Either of the lakes are not polluted” mean <S> “Neither of the lakes is polluted” or what? <S> Does your “Either paths have not been taken” mean “Neither path has yet been taken”, or what? <S> When you’re not interested in these classic usages for either in a negation, what might that mean in English? <S> In what language could “My pal is sober <S> and I am not drunk either…” mean anything but that you’d been drinking? <S> In what language could “We cannot use either copybook” mean anything useful?
| For each case I would negate either, rather than use not elsewhere in the sentence. Grammatically, “Neither this nor that fruit is tasty” works.
|
Meaning of 'We have a history' Whenever it is said that 'We have a history' people consider it to mean that 'we' once were in a realtionship. Can 'we have a history' connote a non-relationship-platonic just good memories, sense. I've googled it and haven't got any satisfactory results. Kindly apprise me of its usage. <Q> It doesn't necessarily mean a romantic relationship. <S> It often does, but the usage implies that there was something negative between you. <S> If I ended a relationship with a woman on good terms I might say We used to date <S> But if it was a torrid affair that interfered with my life and friendships, but I don't want to expound upon it I would say We have a history Outside of a romantic context <S> , say I had a long-term business rival who I frequently came into conflict with, "we have a history" is also appropriate. <S> But I would not use that phrase to refer to a long-term friendship or familial relationship. <A> The company has/ <S> We have a history of good customer service. <S> The University <S> has/ <S> We have a history of producing qualified scientists. <S> The school <S> has/ <S> They have a history of racial discrimination. <S> My closest friend and I /We have a history going back to kindergarten. <S> I have/ <S> That person has a history with that guy and <S> so I suggest you be careful before you commit. <S> All of these are possible ways to use the phrase. <A> It is typically said of someone with whom someone once had a romantic relationship. <S> Usually if you want to express that you've known someone a long time, especially outside of a romantic relationship, you tend to say <S> "We go way back."
| It often has an implication that the relationship was troubled and that there may be ill will between the two people involved.
|
Difference between "remove" and "delete" I'm learning English. I have a question. What is word appropriate remove or delete ? I'm deleting the data I'm removing the data What's a difference? <Q> They can often function the same, but "remove" is broad, whereas "delete" is typically used in reference to computer data. <S> If you are talking with your colleagues about not including a chart in the next paper you are releasing, you are discussing "removing" the data. <S> But if you sit down and hit the "backspace" key to actually erase the information, you are "deleting" it. <A> I could delete you or remove you from my contacts, but delete is generally used for technology and remove is used for other things. <S> You cannot delete a student protester from the rally. <S> You can have the student removed. <A> I disagree somewhat with the other answers implying that one of the terms is used in computer-related matters, whereas the other less frequently so. <S> In fact, I claim that both are used equally much to denote discrimination between two ways of managing data in DB and data in GUI. <S> removed - <S> the object is existing but not shown <S> deleted - the object is not existing, hence not shown <S> The phenomenon occurs due to the duality of the concept of existence. <S> A record can be kept in the database but marked as inactive or retired. <S> Then, it won't be shown in the graphic user interface. <S> The perception is that it's not there <S> but it is. <S> Just not on display. <S> Think of it as a phone book favorites, being a subset of all your contacts. <S> You can get rid of one of the favorites in two ways. <S> Making it not-favorite makes it disappear from the list of favorites (you tamper with the display). <S> Erasing it from the contacts makes it disappear from the list of favorites too (but you tampered with the data set and by extension with the display).
| Internet says :" Delete and remove are defined quite similarly, but the main difference between them is that delete means erase (i.e. rendered nonexistent or nonrecoverable), while remove connotes take away and set aside (but kept in existence). "
|
Is to talk "under four eyes" a common idiom in English? In German there is an idiom "unter vier Augen" (under four eyes) which means privately, for example to talk with someone under four eyes. My question is if it is in also used in English, and whether I'll sound weird to an English speaker by using it. I found a site which describes the German phrase well: "As a matter of fact, the literal translation of an idiom is often absurd or comical. The German phrase 'mit jemandem unter vier Augen sprechen' literally translates as 'to talk with someone under four eyes,' but the meaning is 'to talk privately with someone." But it's not clear if it's in use in English as well. <Q> No it is not used in English and it would not be understood. <S> You can use the expression: Talk <S> privately or in private . <S> in private : Not in public; secretly or confidentially. <S> (AHD) <A> In the past, " four-eyes " was a common playground taunt a child might use to insult another child who wore eyeglasses. <S> an offensive way of talking to someone who wears glasses. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> There are several similar idioms you can use: <S> Keep this between us. <S> Keep this on the qt ("quiet"). <S> Keep this on the dl ("down low") <S> Keep this hush-hush . <S> Not everyone will be familiar with these idioms, so to avoid confusion you can use the literal "speak privately". <S> Update: <S> Let's talk away from prying eyes . <S> (thanks to not store bought dirt for the suggestion) <A> In comments you've been told that such an idiom as talk under four eyes doesn't exist in English and if used it wouldn't in any case convey your intended meaning. <S> Instead you can use the word alone : <S> We need to talk alone . <S> or You and me, we need to talk. <S> Alone . <S> This is a colloquial way to convey the sense of a private talk. <A> If you want to keep with a figurative and somewhat visual expression, there is an alternative in English, which is " between you, me, and ________ " where the blank is filled in with a nearby inanimate object. <S> Common examples include the wall, the fence-post (gate-post for those across the Atlantic), or the bed-post. <S> The implication is that there will be three things who will observe the conversation to follow. <S> None of those things will ever discuss that conversation. <S> Example of it might be used: <S> Bob: Have you heard anything about the new neighbors? <S> Alice: <S> Well, just between you, me, and the fence-post, I have learned they moved here because their son was kicked out of three schools. <A> Another possible term is " sub rosa " from Latin for "under the rose". <S> For example, "This conversation is sub rosa ". <S> Most (but not all) native English speakers should understand it. <A> No, this expression is not used in English. <S> In addition to the suggestions above, many might understand the Latin expression <S> sub rosa <S> (literally "under the rose"), which has the same meaning. <S> Also, Americans of age 50+ will understand (and probably smile) at the phrase <S> "let's pull down the cone of silence" (a running gag from a 1960s comedy show). <A> I think if addressing the person you want to share something confidential with keep it "between us" would be the most natural way to say this is English conversation. <S> We do not have a (commonly used) idiom for this. <S> When in the company of others and addressing them, you can also say "Can you give us a minute [in private]?"
| No, it's not an English idiom. As others have said, "four eyes" could easily be confused with an insult, so best avoided.
|
What does "slap" mean in this context? From Grace Dent on Television: Harlots, Housewivs and Heroines - a 17th Century History for Girls, BBC4 | The Independent : They branded Diana, and still do, an hysterical, diva-ish and paranoid woman, but Diana wasn't paranoid about Camilla and the royal unspoken code of marriage, she was absolutely slap , bang on. What does slap mean in this context? <Q> His answer to the quiz was slap-bang on . <S> That said, one would not usually refer to a person as being: slap-bang on. <S> Please note: the term is slap-bang <S> [right, as in right in the middle of] and usually referring to a THING, not a PERSON. <S> Slap-bang is used to intensify: the dog was slap-bang in the middle of the road. <S> The other term: to be bang on means to be right. <S> slap-bang on merely makes it stronger. <S> So, if you want to join /bang on/ <S> the verb to /slap-bang/ the adjective, the best way would be: slap-bang on . <S> That said, it is very odd to say that: Princess Diana was slap bang-on. <S> The only meaning here would be: <S> She was right about the royal unspoken code of marriage. <S> That means: <S> She knew that if Charles could have Camilla, then she Diana was perfectly justified (slap-bang on or right about) about having that lover of hers (I forget this name). <A> "Slap-bang on" is a BrE colloquialism that means (more or less) "exactly", or "right". <S> For example: They tried to take the tube and landed slap-bang in the middle of the daily rush of commuters. <S> In this case it means that while Diana was branded by the media as "paranoid", she actually was correct that Prince Charles was romantically involved with Camilla. <A> I wonder if this is a personal quote or a misquote because it isn't grammatical. <S> " They branded Diana, and still do, an hysterical, diva-ish and paranoid woman, but Diana wasn't paranoid about Camilla and the royal unspoken code of marriage, she was absolutely slap, bang on." <S> They branded and still brand Diana, as an hysterical, diva-ish and paranoid woman. <S> However , Diana wasn't paranoid about Camilla and in regards to the unspoken royal code of marriage, she was absolutely correct. <S> "Slap" and "Bang on" are slang expressions that simply mean <S> exactly correct (at least in the opinion of the speaker/author). <A> If you look at the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, Slap , and look in the adverb section you can see definition 1.1. <S> 1.1 <S> Exactly; right: <S> Princess Diana was correct in her suspicions about Camilla Parker Bowles. <A> As a "Yank from across the Pond" it seems to me the UK slang "slap-bang" is akin to our own "dead-center" (fairly self-explanatory). <S> We also have the slang "dead-on" which means perfection . <S> The problem seems to be the conflation of "slap" with "bang on" being a somewhat odd combination as I read it. <S> Over here the closest thing to "slap-bang on" might be "dead-on center" in US slang. <S> This is not a very common usage but you may occasionally hear it none-the-less. <S> Both would mean "perfectly correct" in the final analysis.
| If a thing is slap-bang on , it would mean "exactly right".
|
What is the correct term "back-end", "back end" or "backend"? I have a question. What's the correct term? Back-end , Back end or Backend I'm a software back-end developer I'm a software back end developer I'm a software backend developer <Q> I don't think you're going to be corrected or admonished for using any of these three. <S> Google understands you perfectly no matter <S> how you type it. <S> Wikipedia features all three as well. <S> Personally, I'd write it as 'backend' or 'back end' as I'm not a fan of over-hyphenating (excuse my hypocrisy) unnecessarily. <S> (NGram removed) <S> The NGram essentially supports the argument that you'll find all three in a lot of places, and when I was Googling to test my own theories, a number of large tech sites appeared in each variation of spelling I searched for, leading me back to my first point: <S> Any of these is acceptable. <S> Choose one <S> you like and get coding. <S> EDIT: <S> The NGram was misleading. <S> Thanks for pointing that out in the comments. <A> when used as a noun, as for example "I am working on the back end of a project", and Spell it as back-end when used as an adjective, as for example "The back-end technologies for this project will be Apache, MySQL and PHP." <S> Hyphenating compound adjectives is common in English, and both the links above use the hyphenated form for adjectival use. <S> Having said that, I agree that many software developers won't know the difference or care: if it doesn't show as a spelling error when typed into a computer, there is no problem. <S> And if "backend" fails this test many will assume it's not in the computer's dictionary by accident. <A> From the Microsoft Style Guide : <S> back end, back-end <S> Don't use if you can substitute a more specific term, such as server, operating system, database, or network. <S> Two words as a noun. <S> Hyphenate as an adjective.
| You can Spell it as back end
|
A word for a person who struggles to alway come off as deep and smart The word should carry a sense of "pretending", "struggling" to sound deep, in terms of thoughts, especially using fancy words and/or belittling the ideas of others. Can you think of that word or something close? Update: This is the context I'm using the word in: The way he spoke was not of a preacher's. It was devoid of pre-arrangement, fancy words, redundancy, over-used citations, dogmatism and pretention . <Q> Perhaps you're looking for pedant : <S> pedant <S> n <S> 1. <S> a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning. <S> 2. <S> a person who overemphasizes rules or details, esp. <S> in teaching. <S> 3. <S> a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense. <S> TheFreeDictionary, Random House Me, I've always tended to refer to such people as pompous asses . <A> If you're looking for an adjective, try "pretentious". <S> Edit: <S> The word "pretentious" generally has negative connotations: it is used to describe someone who is trying to seem more important, educated, or cultured than he/ <S> she actually is. <S> See the FreeDictionary definition. <S> Also, regarding the additional context you provided: the sentence in your update gives me pause. <S> First, "the way he spoke was not of a preacher's" is not grammatically correct. <S> "Preacher's" is possessive (presumably modifying "way"), but you're also using it as the object of the preposition "of" (which also modifies "way"), so you wouldn't do both. <S> You could try "the way he spoke <S> was not that of a preacher", or, better, <S> "he did not speak in the manner of a preacher". <S> Second, the word "preacher" may give the wrong impression. <S> When I think of "preacher", I think of someone who conducts religious services and, in the context of speaking, delivers sermons. <S> In the U.S., these sorts of preachers are not generally seen as pretentious or prone to using overly-complicated words, at least not by most Americans. <S> In other words, the second sentence does not support the first. <S> Third, you used "pre-arrangement" and "citations". <S> Citations don't have anything to do with a manner of speaking; a citation is generally a written thing. <S> And I'm not sure what "pre-arrangement" means in this context. <A> Perhaps the word sciolist would be useful? <S> It's very uncommon though, so few people would understand you. <S> I don't believe english has one single word that conveys that exact meaning, at least not one well known. <A> Self-aggrandizing might suit what you are looking for: <S> The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation <S> It is not specifically about intelligence, but it might be what you need.
| The adjective pretentious may be somewhat close as well. In place of pretention there you could substitute pedantry .
|
Is it correct? "in a small hole on one of the Baker Street sidewalks" I want to say, Ray lived in a small hole. the hole is on a sidewalk. and the sidewalk location is Baker Street. Is the following correct? are the prepositions (in & on) correct? The mouse lived in a small hole on one of the Baker Street sidewalks . I imagine it as something like this <Q> The mouse lived in a small hole on one of the Baker Street sidewalks. <S> Are the prepositions correct? <S> Yes, assuming we want to describe his dwelling as a "hole". <S> We don't know what's behind the door, or how roomy the space is. <S> It may be something just barely big enough for the mouse to sleep in, or it may be something far more spacious. <S> Technically speaking, in the latter case, he doesn't really live in the hole; instead, he goes through the hole to get into his home. <S> But I think the sentence works fine as-is: idiomatically, we can use in to describe the place where a critter lives, and on to describe an address. <S> If I was going to reword the sentence, I might do so as follows: <S> The mouse lived in a small hole on one of Baker Street's sidewalks . <A> Since you are showing a small doorway, one would not usually imagine a "hole" behind it <S> The mouse lived in a small hole on one of the Baker Street sidewalks. <S> instead possibly The mouse lived in a small room with an entryway on one of the Baker Street sidewalks. <S> Your usage of in and on are correct. <S> Cute picture, looks like a child's story. <A> In this case, at least for the opening sentence, you might describe the mouse's home as "A small (furnished) hole off of a Baker Street sidewalk". <S> But "a small hole" is not very evocative. <S> I would use more descriptive language. <S> Consider this description of Bilbo Baggin's "hole" from "The Hobbit": <S> "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. <S> Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. <S> There's much more, but you get the idea. <S> You can start with "a hole" and then elaborate, or indicate (as I did with "furnished") that it is an actual living space and not just a wild animal's den .
| The mouse lived in a small room with a front door on a Baker Street sidewalk.
|
Is there an order for two continuous adjectives? Is there a rule for an order for two continuous adjectives? For example, If I want to say the warm house of the Scottish a) " Scottish warm house" b) " Warm Scottish house" then is there one form that's better that the other? Or are there any difference between the above sentences? <Q> Scottish warm house assumes that there is something called a "warm house" and it is Scottish whereas Scottish hot house would be a "hot house" in Scotland, "hot house" is a specific term. <S> warm Scottish house assumes there is something called a "Scottish house" which is "warm" either in temperature or character. <S> Since there is usually not something called a "warm house" <S> the second is preferable. <S> tall, white, warm, Scottish house would be a usual ordering for those adjectives, other permutations are possible, but this one sounds most natural to this native speaker. <S> There is no set rule for which adjectives should appear in which order. <A> The British Council for English states <S> We usually put a general opinion in front of a specific opinion: Nice tasty soup. <S> A nasty uncomfortable armchair <S> A lovely intelligent animal <S> Now the point they also make is that Usually we put an adjective that gives an opinion in front of an adjective that is descriptive: a nice red dress a silly old man those horrible yellow curtains <S> In this statement, red and yellow describes the colour of the dress and curtains respectively, and old is describing the man's age. <S> warm, Scottish Warm, Scottish house Addition to answer Think of it this way... A cold brick room could be understood differently to a brick cold room . <S> The reason being that a cold brick room will be understood to be a brick room which is cold, however a brick cold room could be understood to be a cold room (a room used as a cold storage room, for example, in a shop or restaurant) made of brick. <S> This is why it is important for the correct order of adjectives to be used to prevent misunderstanding. <A> As a non-native speaker with, hopefully, some flair for the English language I would say that "Scottish warm house" might be interpreted as "house that is warm in a Scottish way", whereas "warm Scottish house" is less likely to be interpreted in that way. <S> This in addition to the answers by @Chris and @Peter.
| If the adjective Scottish is descriptive, (which it is as it is describing the location of the house), then the correct order of the adjectives you are using is
|
I don't understand this pun about chickens and math [math teacher] your homework looks like chicken scratch, but you got them all correct [later at home] I think she's on to us, mathmachicken I didn't get the above chicken pun. <Q> chicken scratch <S> Illegible handwriting resembling the marks left by chicken feet on the ground <S> : can't read his chicken scratch on the grocery list <S> In other words, the teacher is saying that the student's handwriting is difficult to read, but that the answers are all right. <S> Mathmachicken is a combination of mathematician and chicken . <S> The joke is that the mathematician chicken actually did the work, resulting in literal chicken scratch. <A> The joke is based on the premise of "chicken scratch" which means the writing is illegible. <S> This is a counting mathmachicken <S> There used to be a similar chicken on display in NYC's Chinatown chicken <S> played tic-tac-toe <S> This is not to be confused with math-mc-chicken which is the math kids do when they make golden chicken nuggets disappear <A> , they study all kinds of math and come up with their own). <A> It's a bit of light, play-on-words humor to make most people (who understand puns) to chuckle. <S> There is no deeper or nefarious meaning.
| " Mathmachicken " sounds a bit like " mathematician ", which is a person who does math (okay, not really, they do much more than just that
|
(Train / Subway) Station Vs (Train / Subway) Stop - Difference between (AmE / BrE) Is there a difference between a (train / subway) station and a (train / subway) stop in the US?Is there a difference between UK and US? E.g. what do you call it in the US and in the UK subway system: The train will stop at next ( stop / station ). (In a train route and not underground system) The next ( station / stop ) is e.x. "XYZ" (In underground transportation system) <Q> US perspective from doing a lot of train and subway travel. <S> "Station" and "stop" refer to different things. <S> A station is a building where people embark and disembark, wait for trains or greet arriving passengers, possibly buy tickets, etc. <S> A <S> stop is a location where people embark and/or disembark. <S> A station would normally be a stop, but a stop isn't necessarily at a station. <S> As a practical matter, every underground subway stop has to be a station. <S> It isn't unusual for train stops to be at just a platform with little in the way of improvements beyond rain cover and benches, especially for local, above ground commuter train stops. <S> At one time, it was possible for someone to disembark from inter-city trains at a standard stopping point in the middle of nowhere in a rural area. <S> I suspect that is no longer done, both for liability reasons and because you can't manage a modern train service if you allow those kinds of stops. <A> In Russia a subway is mostly underground and trains are on land. <S> In the underground there are only stations. <S> So every stop is a station. <S> A station is mostly a building where you can buy tickets and wait and eat and keep your luggage while a stop can be just a platform or a small house and a platform. <S> Usually it's much smaller than a station! <S> The announcements however differ: Subway: - The nest stop is <S> station X. or The next station is X. Train: <S> - The next stop is X. <A> I can only give you the Australian perspective as I've lived in Melbourne and never in the UK or the US. <S> When I would travel on the metro/underground the announcement would say: "The next station is...". <S> The last station on the line would be announced with "The next station is... <S> This train will be terminating at..." <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKWPC6joSRI <S> On a tram in Melbourne you would hear "The next stop is..." <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBdVwjgmGPM&feature=youtu.be&t=5m50s Possibly there is some variation between countries.
| While on train there are both stations and stops.
|
"Ball" and "bowl" do they really sound the same? To my non-native ears, they always do even though the dictionary says otherwise. Do you say the two words in the same way in your speech? Additional information that might be useful: I understand and recognize the difference between the two. It's just the difference seems to vanish in fast-paced native speech. I'm asking about whether native speakers ignore the somewhat subtle difference in their casual fast-paced conversations, and produce the two words/sounds in the same way. I wanted to confirm whether that was true or I was just hearing things. My native language is Arabic. I can tell whether the speaker's accent is American, British, Canadian, etc., but honestly, both Brits and Americans gave me the same experience. I can determine from context which word is meant. Because my ears are not well-trained to hear a British accent, the difference is almost impossible for me to grasp in British casual fast-paced speech. <Q> English has a lot more vowels than most languages, so most learners need to re-train their ears to recognize the additional vowels. <S> In both British English and American English, the difference between ball and bowl is small, but significant. <S> It is easy for native speakers to recognize because their ears are trained to do so. <S> The same long vowel occurs in law - /lɔː/ <S> in BrE and /lɑː/ in AmE. In bowl , the vowel is a diphthong, which means that there is a glide between two different sounds. <S> The same diphthong occurs in low - /ləʊ/ <S> in BrE and /loʊ/ <S> in AmE. <S> You can see the difference clearly in this spectrogram of a British English speaker saying ball and bowl. <S> In the first word, ball, the long vowel is the same all the way through. <S> In the second word, bowl, the diphthong sound changes, starting at the red cursor line. <S> Regarding your comment about casual, fast-paced conversations: when people speak casually, and when they speak quickly, the parts that lose clarity are the function words: the little words that provide the structure for the language. <S> Take the word and , for example: the strong form is /ænd/, but most of the time we use the weak form /ənd/. <S> As speech gets progressively faster and/or more casual, it becomes /ən/ and finally /n/. <S> Meanwhile, the important words- nouns like ball and bowl- are usually stressed, and don't soften up in the same way. <S> The central vowel in a stressed word is about as protected as you can get. <S> You might get some de-stressing if the noun is preceded by an adjective (the red ball) or when it's part of a compound noun (a fur ball), and this might weaken the clarity a little, but not, in my opinion, enough to make it impossible to discriminate for a native listener with the same accent. <A> I'm non-native speaker too. <S> I think ear-training is important. <S> In America English, there is obvious difference between [ɔ] sound and [o] sound. <S> The [o] sound has a hidden [w] sound ending, sounds like "Oh", produce it by bringing your lips forward and mouth from opening to closing. <S> The [ɔ] sound sounds like "Awe", produce it by keeping your mouth round. <A> They are definitely different. <S> My wife (a native Mandarin speaker) has said “ball” for “bowl” in contexts where it was confusing, and initally learned some words wrong because she didn’t hear it correctly (e.g. a “light ball”). <S> I disagree with the ascessment that they are so similar that native (American English) speakers can confuse them in listening. <S> “oh” is said with rounded lips, and the sound in “ball/hall/call” is not. <S> Does “on“ (put on a hat) and “won” <S> (she won the contest) sound or spoken the same to you? <S> (Other readers: if so, which accent is that?) <A> As an illustration, I worked with a person who grew up in New Jersey. <S> I heard him try to teach my sister how to bowl (at a bowling alley). <S> Roll, ball and bowl all ended in what sounded like "...owl". <S> I can see how that could be very confusing to someone from another language basis.
| In ball , the vowel is a long vowel: that means that it sounds the same all the way through.
|
"That man was I." or "That man was me." - How to choose the pronoun after linking verbs? How to choose the pronoun after linking verbs? We must put the same word after the linking verb that we would put before the linking verb, mustn't we? Do you know who was the man under the mask? that man was I . Another example: But not one of them knew or guessed that if there was a man on this earth who knew better than everyone else that I was ridiculous, then that man was I , and that what I found all the more annoying was that they didn't know ... The Gambler and Other Stories But I found a lot of examples where people had used it as following: There was no way to prove — actually prove, really prove — that that man was me . The Illustrated Man So, what are the rules and exceptions? <Q> When I was a child, we were taught to say, "It is I." Now, most people would say, "It is me." <S> Language changes and because of that, it also changes any dialogue in novels. <S> Older/ or historical novels will reflect language in use at the time the novel was set in. <S> Today we'd use, "That man was me." <S> Or, "I was that man." <A> The matching rule you describe in your question ("We must put the same word after the linking verb that we would put before the linking verb") is correct, as far as it goes, and for a certain definition of "correct". <S> It is the usage that was traditionally prescribed; the justification is that a linking verb like "to be" does not take a direct object (like the verb "to see") but takes what is called a predicative complement that describes the subject. <S> As you see in your examples, some people still apply this rule in current usage. <S> (I say "as far as it goes" because the matching rule doesn't, for example, provide clear guidance about which form to use when the subject is in the genitive case, as in "my being ???" <S> (we can't say *"my being his") or when there isn't any explicit subject, as in "to be ?? <S> is punishment enough". <S> I asked a question about these situations on ELU: “Being [he/him] is not easy.” <S> Which is prescriptively “correct”? ) <S> The thing is, most English speakers don't speak in a way that conforms to the matching rule. <S> In general, in ordinary modern speech, linking verbs like "to be" are always followed by the objective form of a personal pronoun. <S> Exceptions: <S> I specified "personal pronoun" for a reason. <S> This does not apply to the interrogative or relative pronoun "who/whom". <S> The special objective form "whom" is not normally used at all in ordinary modern speech; instead "who" is used as a subjective and objective pronoun. <S> So the traditionally prescribed form "Who am I" remains indisputably correct, and "Whom am I" is pretty indisputably wrong. <S> When a personal pronoun comes directly before the relative pronoun "who", many speakers tend to keep the personal pronoun in the subjective case. <S> It's a bit unclear <S> why, so I'll just give an example: " <S> It is I who [did X]" is apparently more common than "It is me who [did X]". <S> Information taken from Barrie England's answer on ELU , which itself has as the source the ‘Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English’. <A> There isn't really a rule or exception. <S> You can also use something like that man <S> was I , or that man was he . <S> However, the second form is considered highly formal and somewhat archaic. <S> It may be used in writing, but it's fairly uncommon in speech.
| Almost all speakers will use That man was me .
|
How appropriate is "Are you kidding me" in a speech in class? Can I say Are you kidding me? in a speech in class or is there a politer way of saying this? EDIT: Is it okay to use this phrase if I want to express that I'm surprised of a poll? <Q> I can't answer that exactly without more context. <S> It is informal, but contains no curse words or insults. <S> Acceptable: <S> The UN sustainability report suggests that Sub Saharan Africa will run out of fresh water by 2021, leaving thousands to die of thirst. <S> Are you kidding me? <S> Can we really stand by and let this happen? <S> Unacceptable: <S> Your boss comes up and tells you that in order to make the big deadline everyone will have to work late tonight, and you respond with <S> Are you kidding me? <S> If you're in a language class it depends on the teacher. <S> It's not rude, but its not "eloquent" either. <A> It's very hard to give a general answer just from that information. <S> "Are you kidding me" is quite an informal idiom, but depending on the nature and overall tone of your speech it could be anywhere from perfectly appropriate to completely inappropriate. <S> There are many more formal ways to express incredulity - such as "I find it hard to believe" or "It is unfathomable that..." <A> "Arguably, what does something have to do with whatever the subject is ." <S> "I have trouble believing, this information , because..." <S> “I see what you’re saying/ why people think this, but…” "I disagree with that point because..." <S> If your subject is controversial, like a religion class, err on the side of caution. <S> Do not even remotely ask if the person is kidding or joking. <S> Just politely say, " I think this (your argument) is true because... <S> " If you don't think they are kidding and you want to politely disagree, "I'm sorry <S> but I disagree." <S> Then explain why. <S> If you are being asked to add work/another paper to your workload, "That is adding a lot of work. <S> Is this a priority for you?" <S> Don't ask the boss if s/ <S> he is kidding you. <S> "The results of the poll surprised/shocked/took me by surprise because..." You could add, if you want smiles and perhaps a laugh, " <S> I mean are you kidding me? <S> I can hardly believe that person was elected in spite of all we know about him!"
| I doubt an audience would take offense if it were used rhetorically, but like anything you need to be careful.
|
How do people count weeks or months? I have been wondering, how do most English speakers count weeks and months? Do they count them as "week=7 days" or "week=1 calendar week", "month=30 days" or "month=1 calendar month"? For example, you started living somewhere on 5 January 2017 now it is 20 January 2017. What would be the more normal answer? I have been living here for 2 weeks (about 14 days passed) or I have been living here for 3 weeks (this is the 3rd calendar week) Another example: What have you been doing for the last two weeks? Should I understand it as 14 days from now back (not including today) or Two calendar weeks and if it's two calendar weeks, which two weeks? This current week which is not over yet + last week, OR full last week + the week before last week? Thank you, please try to explain this to me it is driving me nuts. I forgot the usage as well in my own language, so thinking about it as I would use it in my native language will not help me much :/ Please, this is no joke, I am serious about this and I feel VERY SAD that I do not know the proper usage. <Q> There is no hard rule here. <S> People can and do use both methods. <S> In casual speech people will frequently count by whole weeks, and round up. <S> The listener will accept the ambiguity, as a precise count of days is probably unimportant. <S> But if there is reason to emphasize the precise number of days that have past, you can give a number of days instead. <S> In some instances, people will give a number of hours covering multiple days (e.g., "in the last 36 hours/48 hours/72 hours I have been doing X.") if they want to put even more emphasis on the passing of time. <A> As your answer hints, after two weeks have elapsed, we can look at this in one of two ways. <S> We can either indicate how long you have been living there: <S> I have been living here for two weeks. <S> or else we can say it with a more forward-looking slant: <S> I'm entering into my third week of living here. <S> However we would not say: I have been living here for three weeks. <S> because that wording generally implies how much time has already gone by since the time when the event happened. <S> Similarly, if a tennis match started at noon, and the fifth set is just getting underway at 2PM, we can say: <S> This match has gone on for two hours now. <S> or: <S> This match is entering its third hour. <A> 7 days = <S> 1 week <S> So 14 days = 2 weeks <S> Yes, you would say I have been living here for 2 weeks now. <S> It is the amount of time that has passed since you arrived. <S> (a fortnight means two weeks) <A> The context here is very important and dictates what is implied by each variation. <S> For example, in a casual context, say you're catching up with a friend, the exact number of days doesn't matter, and in fact someone would be much more likely to say a couple weeks or a couple weeks or so which means approximately 14 days. <S> It seems hard to imagine someone in this context caring whether you mean 12 days or 15 days when you're talking about how you've been. <S> Or whether it happened two calendar weeks ago or two weeks ago from today. <S> If you're in a work context and someone asks you on a Thursday <S> What have you been working on for the last two weeks? <S> You can be pretty confident that they mean the previous calendar week as well as the current calendar week because that's traditionally how businesses account for work, by calendar weeks. <S> However, if they ask that same question on a Monday, you may assume that they are asking about the previous two calendar weeks not including the one you're in, simply because you've had no time this week to do any work yet. <S> If you moved here exactly 14 days ago, you might say I've been living here for two weeks Or even I've been living here for exactly two weeks <S> Which denotes a sort of 2 week anniversary. <S> If you moved here slightly more or less than 14 days ago, you might say I've been living here for a couple weeks <S> or I've been living here for about two weeks <S> Basically the context will dictate the specificity, and if it's casual English, the likelihood is that someone will not be looking for specifics unless they ask.
| Kind of related, but only tangentially; you could also say I have been living here for a fortnight now.
|
What can "ride straight" possibly mean in this? So I've stumbled across the phrase while reading Agatha Christie's Five Little Pigs : "Our firm, of course, has known many generations of the Crales. [...] Country squires, all of them, thought more about horses than human beings. They rode straight , liked women, and had no truck with ideas. [...]" I've looked the word "ride" up but I'm still confused. Does it have something to do with their personality or it's just simply about riding horses (in a straight line)? I'd really appreciate it if you guys could help me figure this out, and yes, English is not my first language. <Q> It means to ride to the hounds (in a fox hunt) without taking a circuitous path in order to avoid obstacles such as ditches and hedges; riding straight to the action is emblematic of a robust forthrightness of character. <S> It is analogous to being a straight shooter in American English. <S> Compare this excerpt from an 1865 story : <S> "What a good fellow Galton is", he began; "he has all the qualities and all the qualifications that both men and women like." <S> "He can ride straight to hounds, and hit a bird if he aims at it", she replied laughing. <S> "Women—and men too—like a fellow who can ride and tell the truth without swerving", he answered. <S> "There is an impression abroad that we weak-minded women 'go in', as you call it in your slang, for the athletic," she rejoined. <A> The modern idiom "to go straight" means to stop being a criminal and obey the law: <S> He decided to finally give up his life of petty thievery and go straight . <S> This use of "ride straight" clearly has a different meaning, and one that's old-fashioned and/or limited to British English. <S> My interpretation without further context is that their personal and social views were simple and conservative -- they had a particular view of the world and didn't allow distraction from new "ideas" about how the world should be. <S> Full text of the paragraph: <S> Our firm, of course, has known many generations of the Crales. <S> I knew Amyas Crale and his father, Richard Crale, and I can remember Enoch Crale-the grandfather. <S> Country squires, all of them, thought more of horses than human beings. <S> They rode straight, liked women, and had no truck with ideas. <S> They distrusted ideas. <S> But Richard Crales wife was cram full of ideas-more ideas than sense. <S> She was poetical and musical-she played the harp, you know. <S> She enjoyed poor health and looked very picturesque on her sofa. <S> She was an admirer of Kingsley. <S> Thats why she called her son Amyas. <S> His father scoffed at the name-but he gave in. <S> The "rode straight" sentence is used to contrast with the following sentences about Richard Crales' wife, who is apparently a very different sort of person. <S> My guess is that this contrast will be important to the story, at some future point. <A> He does not care for fripperies or time wasting or distractions. <S> A similar phrase which is used to this day would be " He's a straight shooter ": Often used to describe a business person or sales person, meaning his deals are trustworthy, he speaks plainly (does not speak with lies and manipulation, does not speak elaborately with an aim to confuse). <S> He is not " crooked " (which means dishonest or deceitful),
| "He rode straight" is not talking specifically about riding, but general attitude. I believe this is a vestige of hunting lingo, to ride straight to hounds , hunting being a typical sport of the country squire.
|
Proper word for last tooth in row All humans have two rows of teeth. What is proper word for teeth at the ends of the tooth rows? "Last tooth" sounds strange. As if a person has lost all teeth except one."Tooth at the end" - too long.Is there one unambiguous adjective for such teeth? <Q> In English, we describe teeth in terms of how far forward or backward they are in the mouth. <S> We have two "front teeth" in each row. <S> The opposite of these would be the " furthest back teeth ". <S> The group of teeth at the back of the mouth also have a technical name, molars. <S> For many adult humans, the furthest back molars are the third molars, which are commonly called " wisdom teeth ". <S> Many others have these teeth extracted at some point (or lack them for other reasons), leaving the second molars as the teeth furthest back in the mouth. <A> If you don't have a wisdom tooth, you can call it a back tooth. <A> The back set of large teeth are called molars and the furthest back is called your wisdom teeth <S> but one would already need to know this to understand. <S> I believe you are referring to #8 or #9 in the diagram.
| If you have a wisdom tooth in a row of teeth, you can call the tooth at the end either a back tooth or a wisdom tooth.
|
when to used had been and have been My friend just answered to one of my important questions.Now how should I reply to him? That question had been in my head for a long time, finally, I got my answer or That question has been in my head for a long time, finally, I got an answer. Basically, I am confused with had and have. Since that question is not anymore in my head after having got an answer, what should be used? (I am also confused whether it is possible to use having instead.) <Q> You should use example two, although you may want a semicolon instead of the first comma. <S> Has been indicates a past condition which continues to the present. <S> See also this Quora entry . <A> I would say "that question has been" (or "I have had "); it denotes that at the moment of speaking, it was still at the forefront of your thoughts, and now that you have your answer, it can fade away. <S> When you look back on it in the future, you can say "it had been on my mind for a long time until you got your answer". <A> The first is the "pluperfect" tense. <S> The second is the "perfect" tense. <S> The "pluperfect " (said 'ploo-perfect') <S> tense is used to refers to things which had already completed in the past. <S> "Ten years ago, she had already graduated from Fancy University." <S> In the second one, you are trying to use the perfect tense. <S> In Latin, the perfect tense was used with things which happened in the past and were now complete. <S> As before, "She has graduated from Fancy University," except that with this tense it just means that it happened before now. <S> The best illustration of the pluperfect I've heard of was a Roman consul who was speaking to his dinner guests, and was informed that two assassins had been caught trying to poison him. <S> After he left to deal with that, he returned and announced, "They have lived." <S> (meaning that they were no longer living).
| Had been indicates a past condition which no longer exists.
|
How can I tell someone that they are not allowed to express their opinions, in English? Imagine you are discussing about a matter and someone else interferes and takes the side of the second person you were discussing with. Although it would be blunt, but I need to know the precise equivalent of this in English. Here are some translations of mine: You don’t have a voice in this matter. You don’t have the right to an opinion in this matter. Both of them get any specific hit rate neither in Google nor Ngram. The second one is exactly what we say in our language. So are they correct and natural in English so that I can substitute them with a better alternative? <Q> Both are acceptable, though the first one has connotations that might make it not work in this context. <S> If someone says they "don't have a voice" in a matter, the implication is that this is a bad thing. <S> The person being shut out of this conversation would probably phrase it that way, or someone who feels that their government or employer doesn't listen to them. <S> A more common way to phrase it, as the person who is shutting them out, would be <S> You don't have/get a say in this. <S> Another would be <S> This is none of your business. <A> If you need to explicitly tell the person their opinion is not wanted, you might use Thank you for your thoughts, but we need to decide this on our own . <S> with emphasis on "we" and "our own", is a way of saying other opinions are not wanted or sought. <S> You might also just say <S> Thank you for your opinion/ideas, we will keep it in mind. <S> and just ignore the rest of it. <A> I think it depends on if you are trying to be polite or matter-of-fact. <S> If you were talking to your boss, or a respected elder, or good friend, neither of those work. <S> Both are grammatical and fine for every other purpose. <S> For anyone who I wanted to stay happy with me, it could be considered to be unfriendly or disrespectful. <S> If it was my boss or friend, how about: <S> "I'm sorry, but this time the choice is mine/ours to make." <A> My mother, British English, would say in this situation: <S> "Don't put your oar in!" <S> Meaning, I assume, "we're arguing perfectly well without your input" or more simply and rudely "shut up!" <A> I think regardless of whom this statement is directed to, being direct is the best way to go. <S> If you would like to discuss it with me at another time, that can be arranged. <S> " <S> I find this content neither rude nor unclear. <S> And it is a closing to further discussion at that time. <S> You needn't say 'at another time' if you are not willing to have that discussion, but it does open the possibility that you will talk about it later.
| "I must be direct with you in this matter and tell you: Your thoughts or opinions are not welcome in this context.
|
Can we use the phrase "so-called" in its positive sense (or neutral) when refereeing to a widely adopted thing? Let's consider the context below: we have an "old technique" which is widely adopted by several researchers. now, you propose a new one. you might say: We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than the so called "old technique". My question is that weather or not I can use "so-called" in such a context. I was thinking to "widely accepted" or "broadly adopted" though. However, this question struck my mind. <Q> (His so-called wife is really a paid escort.) <S> It can be used to express one's opinion that a name or term is inappropriate. <S> It doesn't always mean a negative, but your audience would need to know your context to understand it. <S> So if you want to be certain that your comment is not seen as a negative one, use your other phrases instead. <S> Both "widely accepted" or "broadly adopted" work. <A> No, I don't think so called would be interpreted in a neutral or positive manner. <S> The very purpose of those words is to show disagreement with, or express the irony of, a phrase. <S> If you don't want to do either, just leave it out. <S> We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than pre-existing techniques. <S> If you wanted to add widely accepted to that sentence, prior to "pre-existing", you could. <S> Not knowing the topic, I cannot say that any such modifier would actually add anything useful, though. <A> First, you would not put the phase old technique in quotation marks. <S> The rule is you can say so-called , or you can use quotation marks to indicate so-called, but you don't use both. <S> As one Grammar page says: Use quotation marks to denote so-called or to show that a word is not being used in its literal sense. <S> [emphasis added] <S> Second, you would only use so-called if there was something about the phrase old technique that was not literally true. <S> So, if one technique was developed two years ago and the other just two weeks ago, you could argue that the word "old" is misleading, because the technique is still relatively new. <S> However, I'd say that in one of these two ways: We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than the so-called old technique. <S> or (and I like this one even better): <S> We propose a new technique under which fault analysis becomes more tractable than the "old" technique. <S> Here, old is put in quotation marks to warn the reader that the technique is not really all that old; it's more like comparatively old. <S> If that's not what you're trying to say, though, then widely accepted may be better. <A> No. ' <S> so-called' has negative connotations. <S> The implication is that the item you are referring to is not actually the thing that it is called. <S> E.g. you give someone a present <S> and then, after an argument, demand it back : "Here! <S> Take your so-called gift!" <S> "My so-called boyfriend cheated on me." <S> "After she gave me the money, she later said that I owed her. <S> So much for her so-called generosity!". <S> Edit: <S> Actually, 'negative' may be too stronga word <S> e.g. : "Remember Martha, my so-called enemy at work? <S> She spoke up for me today!" <A> I like soi-disant , but it only applies to entities (like people and companies) that call themselves something.
| Do not use the words so-called AND use quotation marks – that is tautology. To me so-called means it is contested.
|
Using 'can' for possibility I wonder if it is possible to use 'can' to signify possibility in the sentence below. I understand that 'could' or 'might' are more suitable here. The context is that we are expecting Jack to call today. The phone is ringing. It can be Jack. What is the difference in the meaning if we compare with usage of 'could' or 'might'. <Q> This is an interesting question because logically, it seems like "can" wouldn't necessarily break any grammar rules, but it sure sounds wrong. <S> Willow Rex's comment on the question seems to have the right ring to it. <S> I suspect that there is some context in which "can" would sound right. <S> But the issue seems related to tense. <S> This is my theory: <S> "Can" is about possibilities. <S> There is a "trick question" used to teach principles of probability. <S> Say you ask someone the question <S> , "I just flipped a coin; what is the probability that it came up heads?" <S> Most people would say 50%. <S> But the answer is actually that it is either 0% or 100%. <S> Probabilities are about the possibility of future events, not things that have already happened and the actual results are final. <S> That same principle applies to the phone call. <S> A specific person has placed the call and that is the only person it can be, there are no other possibilities. <S> We just don't know who it is. <S> We will discover who it is when we answer the phone (a future event). <S> That also parallels how we think about who it is. <S> We don't think in terms of who theoretically originated the call, we think in terms of who will be at the other end when we pick up. <S> So knowing who it is is a future condition. <A> Can is mostly synonymous with allowed to - not only in the sense of "someone is giving me permission to X" but also in the sense of "someone/something is giving me the ability to X." The phone is ringing. <S> It can be Jack. <S> This would only work if, for example, we are playing a game and the person writing this already knows the outcome, and wants to let the other players know that "Jack" is an allowed possibility. <A> The phone is ringing. <S> It can be Jack. <S> As far as you know, Jack is physically able to call you. <S> It could also be anyone else able to dial a phone. <S> No signal of likelihood, simply possibility. <S> The phone is ringing. <S> It could be Jack. <S> Jack is not only able to physically call you, but you are expressing at least a slight likelihood of it being him. <S> The phone is ringing. <S> It might be Jack. <S> This is sort of the opposite of the first case. <S> You do not know if Jack is physically able to call you or not. <S> But you think it likely that he call you around this time. <S> The difference in connotation between could and might probably varies as much with vocal intonation as dictionary meaning. <S> Perhaps there are also regional variations. <S> Let's compare three first-person cases to minimize unknown factors. <S> I can do that. <S> I can do that! <S> I have the physical ability to do that. <S> As before, neutral on likelihood. <S> The exclamation mark adds a degree of realization. <S> I could do that. <S> I could do that! <S> This becomes heavily context variant, and if spoken, intonation dependent. <S> With the period, and no other context, it is almost as if you are silently adding, but I won't . <S> With the exclamation mark, it again becomes a positive realization. <S> I didn't think I could, but I can! <S> I might do that. <S> I might do that! <S> Again this would be context variant. <S> An exclamation mark doesn't seem to change actual meaning that much. <S> In either case you believe yourself to be (or will be) physically capable with some degree of likelihood. <S> Stressing might in a certain way, though, can reverse it with an unstated, <S> but I might not .
| "Can" is present tense and "could" is future tense, which makes "could" the appropriate word.
|
Meaning of the word "bromide" in "an additional charge for special presentations (e.g. bromides)" From " The thirty-nine steps " by the Institute of Translation and Interpreting ("Questions you need to ask yourself when undertaking atranslation"): Does this word "bromides" relate to "charge"? I doubt it. Does it relate to "special presentations"? Does it mean: "for instance, a presentation about bromides"? Or is there some other sense? I looked up "bromide" in the dictionary and found that it can mean "a platitude" or "a dull person with conventional thoughts". I can't apply this meaning here, but maybe it is used in some way? <Q> The only sources I've been able to find are a few instances in the British National Corpus. <S> In a source identified as "[Miscellaneous articles about desk-top Pub]. <S> Budget, Henry and et al. <S> u.p. <S> , n.d., pp. ??. 4427 s-units." (1985-1998) there are the following: supplied a typeset bromide and quoted 20 ex delivery for the job. <S> While all the other samples were clean edged both of those from The Setting Studio were torn off larger pieces of bromide. <S> If we had actually wanted to use them we would have had to do some tidying as the area of the bromide was somewhat less than A4. <S> Bromide <S> # a photographic print made on bromide paper. <S> The only disadvantage in moving across is the fact that you need to process the resulting film or bromide photographically <S> And in another source, identified as "[RAFA journal and miscellaneous info]. <S> u.p. <S> , n.d., pp. ??. 1811 s-units." (no date), we see Please supply final film/artwork in the following format: # Positive Film # Negative Film # Bromide (Please tick one box) <S> At first sight, this interpretation doesn't seem to make much sense, but if you read it in the context of other nearby "steps": <S> Will there be an additional charge for complex layout? <S> e.g. multiple font changes, complex tables… <S> Will there be an additional charge for unusual difficulties? <S> e.g. poorly legible text, contact with foreign informants <S> … I'm pretty sure that this is what it means. <S> (Note that this is a British document). <A> The OP's quote is written in the technical language used within the book printing industry. <S> "Presentation" means the physical form of the material to be supplied to the printer. <S> "Bromide" means a photograph printed on silver bromide paper. <S> Before computers and desktop publishing, the contents of a page containing several images and printed text would be printed on separate pieces of paper, then assembled into an image of the complete page and re-photographed. <S> Silver bromide prints had a fine grain size, a strong (often described as "cold") black color, and high contrast, which was more suitable for this process than other printing papers that were commonly used by photographers for "artistic" reasons, with lower contrast and a "warmer" slightly reddish or brownish tint. <S> In other words, the quote is a reminder to check if somebody - either the originator of the material supplied, or the book printing company itself - will have to do additional work to prepare the available materials for printing, at extra cost. <A> Colin Fine has the right idea. <S> A "bromide" was a generic name for a photographic print in Australia <S> and I guess throughout the commonwealth though specifically it referred to one made with bromide paper. <S> As a Finished Artist, compositing artwork and typography for print publication before the use of computers was widespread, 1987 or so, I often used a bromide camera. <S> See the image of the "repro camera" on this linked page . <S> The negative paper came in large flat packs and was fixed to a glass plate at the top of the camera, firmly held in place by a heavy weight or vacuum. <S> The artwork was placed below and illuminated by the side lights, similarly sandwiched flat by glass and vacuum. <S> The size of the reproduction was set by cranking the artwork up and down (or pushing buttons on very fancy cameras) in relation to the lens. <S> After the right exposure (and all the usual photographic tricks applied - over/underexposure, moving, screening etc.) <S> the film paper could be sandwiched with a piece of print paper and was processed through a bath machine, basically a series of rollers bringing the paper into contact and through chemicals that handled development. <S> After washing the finished image was used. <S> Both positive and negative repro paper and film was available. <S> Large dot matrix screens could be used as an intermediate step in the photograph to process continuous tone images into dot matrix images for single-color reproduction. <S> The common use case for the bromide camera in finished art was taking a messy pastiche of black and white images prepared with white gouache (white areas) and rubylith (red-colored film, clay-colored paint <S> both photo-opaque - so black areas) and bits of glued- or waxed-down paper and reducing them to a nice flat image at the correct size ready for sending to a printer. <S> Another use was for preparing large-format black & white reproductions for display in meetings. <S> In the bureau I worked at this kind of job came up fairly frequently, sometimes we even prepared model-name registration plates for car model launches, mounted to registration-plate-sized foam board. <A> I cannot be sure, but this sounds to me like the word "bromide" probably means link an element. <S> So, if the seminar is on chemistry, the person asking is inquiring if there's an additional charge for particular talks, for example, one on bromides. <S> There might be another on isotypes, or some other speciality. <S> Well it seems I was wrong and that "Bromide" means a photograph printed on silver bromide paper.
| I think "Bromide" here means a kind of photographic print.
|
For Not Been Able to I had to write a letter and I wrote the sentence: For not been able to come to your birthday Is this sentence wrong? Is this version right/better: For not being able to come to your birthday English is not my native language. Thank you in advance <Q> Both sentences are missing something. <S> Try this: " Sorry for not being able to come to your birthday." <S> Or, "For not being able to come to your birthday, I blame myself alone ." <S> The second version has a question mark but not the sense of being a question: "For ... birthday?" Try: " What do I owe you for ... birthday?" <S> Perhaps you needed to explain your letter by putting a note on the envelope, or the subject line of your email message. <S> Then the fragment sets up your reason for the letter. <S> It would be as though you are answering the question "Why do I need to apologize? <S> " <S> Because I missed your party." <A> The first sentence is incorrect. <S> The second is correct, or you could say: For not HAVING BEEN able to come to your birthday. <A> The second sentence needs a subject: <S> "I am sorry for not being able to come to your birthday" <S> However, there are many other ways to say it: <S> I'm sorry for not coming to your birthday. <S> I'm sorry I couldn't come to your birthday. <S> Instead of <S> "I'm sorry" and "come" <S> you can use synonyms: <S> Forgive me for not being able to be there at your birthday party. <S> I apologies for not being able to attend your birthday party. <S> Unfortunately, I couldn't celebrate your birthday with you. <S> I'm sorry. <S> I'm so sorry that I couldn't join the birthday party.
| The first sentence is purely wrong while the second one sounds unfinished. You can also intensify: I'm deeply sorry that I couldn't come to your birthday.
|
How should I use "ask" in "reported speech"? Question: Mother said to me, "You had better to take an umbrella with you. Possible answers: 1.Mother asked me, that I had better to take an umbrella with me. 2.Mother asked me to take an umbrella with me. 3.Mother asked me that I should take an umbrella with me. 4.Mother asked that you take an umbrella with you. If I change this sentence into reported speech, which of the sentence is suitable? <Q> When your mother says "you had better", it's not a request- <S> it's a fairly forceful polite suggestion- <S> almost an order, so ask (which is a request) isn't really appropriate. <S> In sentences 1 and 3, you have either retained "had better" or replaced it with "should", so you can use the verb <S> say 1) <S> Mother said that I had better take an umbrella with me. <S> 3) <S> Mother said that I should take an umbrella with me. <S> Note that in 1) had better required an infinitive without to . <S> For sentence 2, tell would work nicely to convey the idea that it's an practically order: 2) <S> Mother told me to take an umbrella with me. <S> Sentence 4, when you report speech that's addressed to you, the personal pronoun changes from second person <S> you <S> to first person I . <S> 4) <S> Mother asked that I take an umbrella with me. <S> This is grammatically correct, as ask can take a that-clause, but it's very formal (something that a lawyer might say) and it is still a request, not firm advice. <S> You can the verb to suggest, or better recommend : both require a that-clause, and the latter conveys the idea of strong advice rather than a request: 4) <S> Mother recommended that I take an umbrella with me. <A> My mother asked me to take an umbrella with me. <S> This is the only grammatically correct statement you gave. <S> Mother asked me, that I had better to take an umbrella with me. <S> When you say "My mother asked me", you require a to infinitive, which you didn't supply here. <S> Mother asked me that I should take an umbrella with me <S> This breaks the same rules as the first one, missing a to infinitive. <S> Mother asked that you take an umbrella with you <S> Because you are talking to someone, the "you" in this context would be taken as meaning them, so really this says: "My mother asked that you take an umbrella", implying that your mother wants the person you are talking to to have an umbrella, not you. <S> Personally, I would say: My mother asked me to take an umbrella <S> As this eliminates confusion of who you are talking to, makes a clear statement that your mother asked you to take an umbrella, and is shorter than your original statement. <A> The sentences 2 and 3 are grammatical. <S> The sentence #1 is ungrmmatical. <S> You use an infinitive without to after the phrase "had better". <S> As for the sentence #4, mother is talking to you, not the person you are talking to. <S> So you should use the sentence #2 instead. <S> But you had better use the following sentences in reported speech: <S> Mother said I had better take an umbrella with me. <S> Mother advised me to take an umbrella with me. <A> "You had better take an umbrella with you." <S> [no to sign before the infinitive] <S> And with the advice put in reported speech, the construction tell + object + to-infinitive <S> is used (one of the numerous sources) . <S> So, the grammatically correct sentence would be Mother told me to take an umbrella with me. <S> If the head sentence was Mother said to me: "Please, take an umbrella with you", the choice would be Mother asked me to take an umbrella with me. <S> Cut to the chase, in reported speech use ask for requests, and tell for advice (and orders), the alternatives for the latter being the verbs advise, recommend etc.
| "You'd better do something" is used to give advice which, if you follow it, may prevent some possible negative consequences.
|
An idiom or phrase that means "make the enemy remember this defeat" Can someone translate this phrase from Urdu to English "Hum Dushman ko maza chaka dain gy" ہم دشمن کو مزہ چکھا دیں گے The literal English of this phrase is "We Will let the enemy enjoy the taste of his defeat", but there should be a proverb of it in English which I am unable to find. It is used in battle field by the leaders to encourage their soldiers for war and make them passionate to win. It can also be used in daily life to let someone know that we can defeat our enemy for sure in a way that the enemy will remember his defeat forever and he will not be able to fight or even think of fighting against us. Thanks <Q> I think it's more common and idiomatic if you use the following sentence: <S> We'll teach you/the enemy a (good) lesson. <A> The OP's vivid description can be summed up in either a word or with an idiom humiliate <S> VERB <S> Make (someone) feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and pride: <S> ‘They stripped him of his dignity and tried humiliating him by showing him throughout the world.’ <S> The noun form, humiliation , can also be used to great effect. <S> ‘Now it seems Scotland is determined not to endure such humiliation again.’ <S> ‘they suffered the humiliation of losing in the opening round’ <S> You can make someone suffer humiliation (noun) <S> A person can be soundly defeated and feel humiliated (adjective) An opponent can humiliate the adversary (verb) licking <S> informal <S> A heavy defeat or beating: ‘when his father found him, Ray got the worst licking of his life’ <S> You can give someone a licking , or the worst licking of their life. <S> lick the dust <S> "They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him and his enemies shall lick the dust." <S> bring somebody/something to their knees <S> Sanctions were imposed in an attempt to bring the country to its knees. <S> The strikes brought the economy to its knees. <S> Use this British English metaphor to say that someone was severely beaten in a competition, race, or game e.g. <S> He was brought to his knees , or to threaten somebody; e.g. We shall bring you to your knees , A more informal equivalent would be make mincemeat of somebody <S> (British English) to defeat someone very easily in an argument, competition, or fight <S> E.g. <S> The invading army made mincemeat out of our troops. <S> The following American English idiom could be used for someone who boasted victory but was then defeated (in a competition or election) and proved wrong. <S> eating crow <S> Eating crow <S> is an American colloquial idiom, meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proven wrong after taking a strong position. <S> Crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proven wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow. <S> Oxford Dictionaries provide this example of usage <S> ‘You will be eating crow for following a leader who has no intention of following through with his promises.’ <A> We will make them taste defeat. <S> This is probably the most direct translation into English. <S> I'm not sure if it is common <S> but it would be understood. <S> Other, similar expressions: <S> We will grind them beneath our boots <S> We will grind them into the dust/dirt. <S> Or the ever-popular: <S> We will kick the shit out of them. <S> Military commanders are free to use all kind of colorful expressions, though. <S> If you watch modern war movies, where the commanding officer is making a speech, you will hear all kinds of interesting phrases. <A> In english, let can mean either allow or make sure that . <S> If the latter, and you are going to actively remind the enemy of their defeat (or a friend about some personal victory), you can use the expression rub someone's nose in it . <S> Paul didn't get into the team, and John's been rubbing his nose in it ever since.
| An enemy, or person who licks the dust is someone who is defeated, and is made to grovel, it was first used in the Bible
|
Feedback "Till yet" - Is it correct? If I want to ask about Feedback till the present day, Is "Feedback till yet " valid grammatically or Feedback till now is more appropriate? What are the applicable rules? Please share the right resource for this as I googled but couldn't find relevant resource. <Q> You wouldn't use "till yet", you would use "'til now" as 'til is an abbreviated form of until. <S> Alternatively you could say "Have we had any good feedback yet ". <S> till yet is completely incorrect and never used. <S> Hope this helps. <A> Compare with an explicit expression of duration like "from Monday to Friday" or "since Thursday. <S> " <S> I haven't done anything yet. <S> I haven't done anything since Thursday. <S> I haven't done anything from Monday to Friday. <S> You couldn't say "I haven't done anything until from Monday to Friday" or "I haven't done anything until since Thursday", for example. <A> More idiomatic ways of saying your sentence fragment would be "Feedback to present", "Feedback so far", "Current Feedback", or "Feedback up to now". <S> *"Feedback till yet" is wrong and will likely baffle a native speaker.
| Yet is not really a time expression, but rather a fuzzy duration expression, so you can't use it after until (or the shortened form 'til , sometimes misspelled till ).
|
Someone who can't abide a joke against themselves A direct excerpt from a book: 'They can laugh at jokes; they read every book by P.G. Wodehouse and love his quiet humour; they can enjoy a joke against you. What they cannot abide is a joke against themselves.' I'd like to know if there is a specific word(noun, adjective) for such people. I don't know how else to further explain my question. Pretty much everything is stated in the excerpt. Post Answer EDIT: I'm not looking for words related to sensitive-brittle natured or synonyms. Such people enjoy joke on others but not on themselves. Maybe I'm being too specific, but such people are not at all sensitive, thin skinned or else they wouldn't be making jokes on others. <Q> There's a very specific idiomatic usage for OP's context... <S> someone can dish it out but he or she can’t take it <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> someone easily criticizes other people but does not like it when other people criticize him or her: <S> Example: <S> He’s mad at me for teasing him – he can dish it out, but he can’t take it! <S> There's also the closely-related: <S> If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ... <S> which often carries more the sense of if you can't cope, you should leave the work to someone who can , but I wouldn't think it unusual if I heard that said to someone who complained about being the butt of too many "office banter" jokes. <S> I certainly can't think of one, and I think it's highly unlikely <S> there's a single-word adjective to describe <S> exactly the kind of person OP describes. <S> It's just too specific. <A> Thin skinned Google Dictionary synonyms: <S> sensitive, oversensitive, hypersensitive, easily offended, <S> easily hurt, touchy, defensive "you can't benefit from constructive criticism if you're going to be so thin-skinned" <A> You have a few options: <S> Brittle <S> This implies that the person is "inflexible" and prone to "snapping" at people, and probably would not enjoy being made fun of. <S> Humorless <S> Can't take a joke <S> A phrase used to describe someone who does not enjoy jokes. <S> This phrase usually implies a "practical" element to the joke, i.e. a prank. <S> Sensitive <S> Someone who reacts very strongly to mild stimuli. <S> This would be used to describe someone who reacted with anger to you making jokes about them. <S> Keep in mind that almost all of these are pejoratives, and likely to make an upset person more upset if you use them. <S> I'm sure we all have experiences of people who are very rude, and try to excuse it as "humor" and complain about your reaction as if you are "overly sensitive". <A> How about UPPITY meaning not inclined to be tractable or deferential.
| Someone who doesn't like jokes much at all.
|
Repeating HAVE (or other auxiliary verb) in one sentence My question is the following: Is it correct to use the auxillary verb HAVE only one time in the following type of a sentence: "I HAVE written a letter and I sent it" or should I repeat the auxillary verb like in the following sentence: "I HAVE written a letter and I HAVE sent it" <Q> No, you don't need to repeat it. <S> The perfective auxiliary throws us into the near past (have/has) or distant past (had), and the rest of the sentence is clearly locked in that time by context. <S> By repeating the auxiliary it stresses each activity specifically. <S> So, "I've written the letter and I've sent it. <S> " implies you went to all the effort of writing it, and then all the effort of sending it. <S> Whereas, "I've written the letter and sent it. <S> " implies a more fluid action of writing and sending the letter. <S> In fact, the more compact you make it, the shorter the action is presented. <S> So, "I've written and sent the letter." sounds complete and brief. <S> To make it clearer, I'll implement two past participles (that way we know the 'have' is affecting both of them): <S> "I've come home and done it already. <S> " 'Have' applies to both past participles. <S> Saying, "I've come home and did it already." sounds unnatural and jarring. <A> I have written a letter and sent it. <S> You can also say: I have written and sent a letter. <A> In this context the perfect tense indicates an existing condition , to emphasize some action is done . <S> A <S> : I don't think you sent that letter I asked you about. <S> Did you even write it? <S> B: <S> Yes, I have <S> written that letter, and I have sent it. <S> While it is not necessary to use "have sent", the context suggests that you want to emphasize that you took care of both actions. <S> Otherwise the simple past tense would be sufficient: <S> Yes, I wrote the letter and I sent it.
| It's not necessary to repeat the same auxiliary and the same subject in the sentence presented, for example:
|
What is the sports hall in schools called in English? What is the sports hall in schools called in English?I've translated from my language and the translation is "sport venue", but the according to the picture on Wikipedia I suspect that it is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the name of the sports hall in schools, such as in the following picture: <Q> That would be an (indoor) "gym" or "gymnasium". <S> From Wikipedia : A gym , short for gymnasium , is an open air or covered location for gymnastics, athletics, and gymnastic services. <S> The word is derived from the ancient Greek gymnasium . <S> They are commonly found in athletic and fitness centers, and as activity and learning spaces in educational institutions. <S> "Gym" is also slang for "fitness center", which is often an indoor facility. <A> In British School, that would be more likely to be called a 'Sports Hall' than a 'Gym'. <S> In Britain, one tends to think of a 'Gym' as a room with weights, and machines, rather than a large hall. <A> In the US, we definitely call the pictured facility a 'gym,' or 'gymnasium.' <S> We also very often refer to the room with weights and such as 'the gym,' though never 'gymnasium,' which would refer to the 'sports hall.' <S> The room with weights and such is often referred to as 'the weight room' in schools. <S> However, when referring to a fitness club, we also call that 'the gym,' colloquially. <S> I'd never heard the term 'sports hall' before reading this post, though it makes sense. <A> I'm nearly 42 and British. <S> We also used to call it the gym and that was because it also had equipment in it like crash mats and ropes and bars. <S> My school had another structure that was vast and used for sport with a sloped roof and was called the dutch barn, but that was so school specific <S> I think anyone who went to my school is now going ' <S> she went to my school' in their heads. <S> so sports hall or gym are both fine <A> A Grammar School (Selective secondary school age 11-18) in Yorkshire 1971 to 1978 it was called the "Sports Hall"
| Sports hall is the term I would use for an indoor space for sport in a school with floor markings.
|
Choosing the word: learn or study There is a picture of a boy who is in class. In the picture the teacher is dictating a text, and the boy is writing it down. The children are asked to describe this picture in one sentence: (What's he doing?) - He is... Which verb is correct here, learn or study ? Or both are correct? (The children don't know the difference between these two words yet, but they know that "to learn" means 'to get knowledge or skill' and "school" is a place where they gain more knowledge.) To learn – to gain knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something. To study – to read, memorize facts, attend school, etc., in order to learn about a subject. Source <Q> A student who is writing down what the teacher is saying, or who is taking notes about the teacher's lecture, is not studying . <S> Studying is the careful and attentive reading of written material about a particular subject, or the close examination of an object. <A> There is a picture of a boy who is in class. <S> In the picture the teacher is dictating a text, and the boy is writing it down. <S> 'Studying', when used to describe an action or activity of an individual (i.e. not in the meaning of 'the state of being a student'), usually puts a focus on things they do on their own . <S> As the teacher is prominent here, 'studying' is not a good choice. <S> 'Learning' implies that the boy's knowledge or skill are actually increasing. <S> This is possible, but not necessarily true based on the description of the picture. <S> So, while neither 'learning' nor 'studying' are good answers , 'learning' is the better choice , because it may be true. <S> As per userr2684291's comment, 'writing' is technically better than both <S> if answers beyond 'learning' or 'studying' are allowed in the question, although it might be seen as a facetious answer. <A> The dictation is a part of educational course, so it would be 'studying'. <S> Not 'learning', because nobody knows if that test or exercise really made the boy learn something. <S> I rather like <S> *He is doing his dictation. <S> * <A> Learning refers to anything like learning to ride or sing or cook, but in terms of study it all related to something printed on paper.
| The boy is learning , which is the acquisition of knowledge.
|
What could be the meaning of this phrase given below taken from one statement of purpose? The phrase - "Moreover, I will be able to perfect my character by assimilating what is useful out of my knowledge of Canadian culture, science and distinct approach toward problems." It is an excerpt from a statement of purpose of an engineer who is applying to graduate school. EDIT: I do understand every word of this sentence. But, I do not understand the connection of 'able to perfect my character by assimilating' and 'what is useful out of my knowledge of ...'. <Q> I agree with Anonymous Penguin: there’s something about the original phrasing that makes it hard to guess what the author meant. <S> So this isn’t really an explanation of standard English so much as one Anglophone’s guesswork. <S> But from what you say, I wonder whether you’re stumbling on the word “ assimilate .” <S> When an immigrant disuses foreign habits and takes on the style of the local population, we sometimes say that he has assimilated (in sense 2). <S> But I don’t think that’s what the author meant. <S> I think that he was using the word transitively (in sense 1), to refer to adding something to his soul in order to become greater. <S> Moreover, In addition,I will be able to <S> I willperfect my character become a better personby assimilating by addingwhat is useful usefulout of my knowledge knowledge to my education,of Canadian culture, particularly Canadian culture, science, science,and distinct approach and distinctively Canadian waystoward problems. <S> of solving problems. <A> When "perfect" is used as a verb, it means to complete the development of something. <S> I guess the original meaning is "to make perfect", but in practice it's used to mean more like "to develop to a high level". <S> So you might say, for example, "Dr Jones built the first prototype of this machine but Dr Smith perfected it." <S> In this case, the writer is saying that he is going to fully develop his character. <S> In context, that's a very odd choice of words. <S> A person's "character" is normally understood to mean the ethical side of his personality. <S> Like, "Fred is a man of great personal character" or "When he claimed that I lied he deprecated my character" (i.e. he insulted me) or "One of the primary goals of our school is to guide children to develop strong character". <S> It seems unlikely that knowledge of Canadian culture and science would improve one's ethical standards. <S> To "assimilate" is to absorb something into a whole. <S> You assimilate the food you eat. <S> An immigrant might be assimilated into the culture of his new home. <S> So if he is assimilating what is useful from Canadian culture, etc, he is absorbing this knowledge into his own mind or personality. <S> The phrase "Canadian culture, science and distinct approach toward problems" is a little ambiguous. <S> Does he mean Canadian culture, Canadian science, and a distinct Canadian approach toward problems? <S> Or does he mean Canadian culture, and then science in general, and his own personal distinct approach toward problems? <S> So a simpler way to say this would be, "I will be able to make myself a better and more ethical person by absorbing knowledge of Canadian culture, science and distinct approach toward problems. <S> " <S> In my humble opinion, the wording is unnecessarily sophisticated. <S> It sounds like he's trying to impress the reader by using big words. <A> I think the applicant is trying to say that learning about Canadian culture and science will make him/her a better person. <S> It is not clear if he means Canadian science or science generally. <S> He might mean that he wants to combine these with his own distinctive approach to problem solving, or that he wants to learn a distinctly Canadian approach to problem solving. <S> The phrasing is not good so the meaning is ambiguous. <S> Option 1: <S> Option 2: <S> Learning about Canadian culture, science, and problem solving methods will make me a better person. <S> Whichever option the author means, he will discard the not-useful parts of what he learns. <S> I think it might be unethical for you to post more of the statement or to say anything about the applicant's origin, which I do think might be relevant. <S> Anyone who has a different or better interpretation should post a competing answer. <S> I am guessing that the applicant is from a non-English speaking background, possibly an Islamic culture, applying to a Ph.D. program in Canada. <S> I Googled "how does one perfect ones character?" <S> and the top hit was this link . <S> Near the top of the page four prayers are quoted, and in one of them the supplicant asks God/Allah to "perfect my character. <S> " Someone raised Christian in the middle of the U.S. (for example, me ) doesn't think perfection is something one can achieve in this world, so would never write such a sentence.
| Learning about Canadian culture and science and integrating that into my distinct approach to problem solving will make me a better person.
|
Which would be proper between "have seen" and "saw" and why? A man in a buffet restaurant suddenly recalls something irritating and frustrating, so the man gets anxious because of it and he starts to move around in a circle mumbling by himself. After several seconds of doing that, the man pulls himself together and realizes he is acting weird and stops moving and asks himself this question. "Oh, my god. I am acting weird. I wonder if a lot of people have seen me act weird ." "Oh, my god. I am acting weird. I wonder if a lot of people have seen me acting weird ." "Oh, my god. I am acting weird. I wonder if a lot of people saw me act weird ." "Oh, my god. I am acting weird. I wonder if a lot of people saw me acting weird ." Which would be nicer here and why is it? Any explanations would be appreciated. :) <Q> " <S> Oh, my god. <S> I am acting weird. <S> Would there be a lot of people who saw me acting weird?" <S> That is grammatically correct but still sounds weird to me. <S> I am in North America, so it could be a regional thing. <S> I'd say, "Oh, my god, I am acting weird(ly). <S> I wonder if a lot of people saw me acting weird(ly)?" <S> Adding the ly is grammatical but in common usage -- most people do drop the ly. <S> On Edit: The phrase nicer is confusing. <S> I think you mean, better . " <S> Nicer" means kinder/friendlier. <S> " <S> Better" means more accurate/in common usage/a good choice of wording. <S> The use of acting means you must use the word weird ly. <S> This is my opinion. <S> I doubt that it matters grammatically, but to my ear, it simply sounds better. <S> I think you need one of our grammar gurus to explain it. <A> Acting weird is a gerund, gerunds can be subjects of a sentence:Acting weird is a problem teenagers have. <S> Playing tennis is fun. <S> Same thing. <S> Act weird cannot be the subject of a sentence. <S> i.e. Act weird is x. <S> That is not grammatical in English. <S> Difference between acting weird versus act weird as an object: <S> People saw me [once] act weird [a single act].People saw me acting weird. <S> [saw the behavior constituted by acting weird as it unfolded] <S> People have seen me act weird [in the past, unspecified, people saw me perform an act of weirdness] <S> People have seen me acting weird [in the past, unspecified, people saw me performING weirdly as it unfolded]. <S> Oh, my god. <S> I am acting weird. <S> I wonder if a lot of people saw me act weird. <S> Those sentences are grammatical individually but do not work as a pair . <S> was acting weird , saw me acting weird or act weird, for example, would work as a pair. <A> have seen me act weird. <S> have seen me acting weird. <S> In this context, the use of the present perfect ("have seen") indicates a life experience . <S> In other words, the man is asking if anyone has had the experience of seeing his odd behavior at anytime in the past . <S> Since the context is related to the single, most recent incident, this doesn't make sense, and you should not use the present perfect. <S> saw me act weird. <S> saw me acting weird. <S> It's not wrong but also not quite right for your intended meaning. <S> Meanwhile, "saw me acting weird" (the present progressive) indicates an action in progress, and sounds more like he's referring to the most recent incident. <S> So, to answer your question: I wonder if a lot of people saw me acting weird. <S> works best in this context. <S> In a different context, any of the others could be correct.
| "Saw me act weird" indicates that they saw the entire action, and so in context it sounds like this is something he does all the time , either now or in the past.
|
Is internet considered a way of broadcasting? Wikipedia definition of Broadcasting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting "is the distribution of audio and/or video content or other messages to a dispersed audience via any electronic mass communications medium" Doesn't that mean internet is a method of broadcast? <Q> Yes, the internet is way of broadcasting, but it may be different to what traditionally was called "broadcasting". <S> In fact, for different devices to communicate to each other, there is specifically something call a broadcast protocol in the TCP/IP transport layer. <S> All it means is that many devices can be sent messages at the same time. <A> No. <S> Not from a technical standpoint and not from the traditional definition of the word. <S> The definition you quoted continues "... <S> typically one using the electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves), in a one-to-many model." <S> A TV or radio broadcaster is sending out (casting) radio waves in all directions (broadly) for the listener to pick up. <S> The internet works in a different model. <S> An internet site waits for readers to come to it, and retrieve information by requesting it specifically. <S> This is why distributing messages on the internet is typically referred to as publishing -- the internet better fits the model of a newsstand or bookstore where information waits to be retrieved. <A> No; broadcasting requires that ... <S> anyone with the appropriate receiving technology and equipment (e.g., a radio or television set) can receive the signal. <S> (from your wikipedia page) <S> The internet does not meet this definition, because it requires you to have a service provider. <S> You can't just fire up your computer and start getting internet content; you have to connect to a network, and that network must register you as a participant by issuing you an address, before you can access web-based information. <S> In a true broadcasting arrangement, it's possible that nobody doing the broadcasting would have any idea how many people listened * , because the broadcast is strictly a one-way transmission; I send, you receive. <S> The internet requires an active two-way connection. <S> * <S> Of course, actual broadcasters go to great lengths to estimate the audience for their broadcasts, but they use other technologies to do so.
| To add further technical detail, there is such a thing as broadcast internet traffic (one network client sending a message to all users on a network), but it is used only in special circumstances.
|
How common is the use of the word "tee" for T-shirt in the UK or the US? How common is the use of the word " tee " for T-shirt in the UK or the US? I'm asking it because I saw it firstly on the site of a chain of clothing in the UK (see attached picture) I found on Oxford dictionary that it is in informal use (see definition No. 3). But still it's interesting to know how common it is in use. I'm afraid also to say to someone that I bought for him "tee" and he will think that I'm talking about tea... <Q> It's a common abbreviation term in advertising, but you generally wouldn't use it in speech the way you mention. <S> A native speaker would most likely say "I bought you a tee shirt." <A> From a British perspective "Tee" is a very American thing. <S> Doing a quick search on Google UK for "tee" brings up 100% US-based websites, and searching for "T-Shirt" brings up UK-based fashion shops (online & high street). <S> Browsing a few of those sites from the home page they all have sections for "T-Shirts", but none of them have a section for "Tees". <S> Interestingly though, searching within some of those sites for "tee" does bring up results. <A> In the US, I hear tee used stand-alone more often from women than men, but maybe that's because I'm more likely to be talking about clothing with women. <S> It's not as common as t-shirt, but it's not at all strange for me to say, for example, "do you know where my purple tee is? <S> " It's usually clear from context what I mean—for example, if I'm digging through the laundry without a shirt on while asking the previous question or if one of my kids asks about the weather <S> and I say "I think you'll be fine in just a tee." <S> It's hard to get a sense of spoken patterns from a written record, but there are a lot of blog posts (like this one ) and tweets (like most of these ) that mention things like "jeans and a tee" or "my favorite tee" without using the full tee-shirt, so <S> I don't think I'm alone in sometimes using the shorter form. <S> Also, in some places tee is countable, so it would be unlikely to be confused for the beverage <S> —for example, I would say "I got you a tee " but "I got you <S> some/a cup of tea ". <S> In places where the beverage is also countable, it would be more important to rely on context (especially if the tea is green or the tee is hawt !). <S> You don't need to use the shorter form, though; it's always safe and acceptable to say t-shirt in full. <A> The use of the word "tee" is somewhat common orally, but it generally isn't written. <S> If you want to avoid confusion you should say "I bought you a T-shirt" or "I bought you a shirt". <S> Either one of those should communicate what you mean to say without fear of confusing the item of clothing with the popular drink. <A> I,m old (ish) and British. <S> I have never EVER used the word "tee" to describe a T-shirt. <S> Does that help? <A> «I'm afraid also to say to someone that I bought for him "tee" and he will think that I'm talking about tea» <S> So don’t. <S> You are clearly a more careful and thus clear speaker, since you thought about this at all. <S> If you establish the context first you can omit the -shirt . <S> Q: <S> What kind of shirt should I wear? <S> A: The “T”. <S> or I packed 5 shirts for the trip: 3 “T”s, a polo, and a button-down just in case we go someplace nice for dinner. <S> But as a careful and clear speaker, you would not say something like <S> I bought Dad a “T” for his birthday. <S> devoid of any context that you are speaking of shirts.
| Anecdotally, I have never heard anyone say "Tee" aloud, except when referring to the drink "tea". Unless the word “shirt” would be repeated in close proximity (like in the 2 nd blockquote), there is no need to drop it from “T-shirt”.
|
What is exactly a pet peeve? A user has Pet peeves include unreadable code (from poor formatting) and in-line styles. in their description. Thanks to WordReference , I know that a pet peeve is "a particular and often continual annoyance". But who do the pet peeve annoy? In my case, is the user annoyed by in-line style, or does the user annoy someone else by using in-line style? <Q> This user is the one who is annoyed. <S> It sounds like you found this on some kind of profile/description page. <S> In these kinds of pages, it is not uncommon to write abbreviated sentences. <S> The statements included in the profile page are usually about yourself. <S> The complete, implied sentence is <S> My pet peeves include unreadable code (from poor formatting) and in-line styles. <S> Generally, when you talk about your own pet peeve, you will say X is a pet peeve of mine. <S> My pet peeve is X. <S> This means that X annoys you. <S> This abbreviated style is similar to what people (stereotypically) have on their dating profiles: Likes long walks on the beach. <S> (= <S> I like long walks on the beach.) <S> Dislikes liars. <S> (= <S> I dislike liars.) <A> For example, if someone is irritated by the misuse of the words 'there' and 'their' in writing, they would say they have a pet peeve when it concerns those words. <S> A usage example might be, <S> "It's a personal pet peeve of mine when someone does not hold the elevator doors open." <S> or "One of my pet peeves is when people write for all intense and purposes , rather than intents ." <S> Anything that can be pointed to as a minor source of irritation, which is likely to occur with some regularity, can be described as a pet peeve. <S> In the case of your example, the pet peeves are annoying not to the people who commit the errors, but to those people who care that code is reachable and that in-line styles are not used. <A> To put it simply, a pet peeve is something that you particularly dislike. <S> This idiom is similar in spirit to the expression of French origin bête noire . <S> For example: I like Chinese electronic products because they're dirt cheap! <S> But, on the other hand, they are one of my greatest pet <S> peeves because every once in a while they break on you as soon as you pull them out of the box thereby wasting your, though not huge, but still hard-earned money. <S> As for the example you provided, don't you find it annoying when you open up a source code file in your text editor and realize that the formating is so atrocious that you just can't read it? <S> Don't you hate that? <S> Well, most people do. <S> And that's why a poor code formatting style is considered by many programmers and coders one of their biggest pet peeves. <S> What I personally consider one of my biggest pet peeves on this website is when people downvote your question or answer without explaining why they did that. <S> Don't you hate that? <A> A pet peeve is something that is really annoying and disturbing for you. <S> For something to be a pet peeve it has to annoy you more than it does other people. <S> A common pet peeve example: People chewing with their mouths open. <S> If you see someone chewing with his mouth open, and you feel annoyed, you want to leave that place because you are irritated, we can say it's your pet peeve! <S> It is explained in more detail in this video: https://youtu.be/5MAu3nam-xU
| A pet peeve is something that annoys the person in possession of it.
|
“In the bus” or “on the bus” “in the bus” or “on the bus” I know that, when we travel by bus we say, “I am on the bus”, but how about for objects, for example There must be a cell-phone charger in the bus. Or There must be a cell-phone charger on the bus. <Q> It's a good question. <S> I'd have to say either can be correct -- <S> as you point out, people ride on the bus, but this doesn't necessarily apply to objects that can be inside the bus. <S> It's more a matter of preference and of context. <S> Examples: I can't find my phone? <S> Did you leave it in/on the bus? <S> There's a kid's song, it goes something like, " <S> The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round' <S> " <S> I'm going to get there early to make sure we get a seat on the bus. <S> To a certain extent, objects that are part of the bus are on the bus, and those which can be removed are either in or on the bus. <S> But I don't think this is any kind of rule , and there may be exceptions. <A> I don't believe there are any rules about this. <S> I humbly disagree with the example above <S> I can't find my phone? <S> Did you leave it in/on the bus? <S> Most people would almost always say they left their phone "on the bus". <S> The only time I can think when we (USA) say "in the bus" is when there is some need to distinguish it from "outside of the bus. <S> " <S> The example that almost instantly popped in my head is when taking a bus on a camping trip: <S> I don't like sleeping in a tent, so <S> I think I'll sleep in the bus instead. <S> Not only are we implying "not outside the bus," but there's also a sense that the bus has been parked. <S> Furthermore, "on" would be perfectly acceptable in this situation. <A> When you ride on a bus, usually you are in the bus. <S> If you use There must be a cellphone charger on <S> the bus <S> it would mean somewhere within the bus either someone might have a charger or the bus company supplied one for general use on the the bus. <S> in the bus describes the location relative to the bus on the bus describes something which is accompanying the bus during its travel. <A> You usually use the preposition "on" in front of "a/the bus" whether you are talking about someone or something. <S> The use of the preposition "in" is far less commom (Longman Dictionary). <S> So we should avoid using the "in".
| The charger itself would be considered to be in the bus.
|
Are commas necessary before and/or after a possessive appositive? Which is correct: It's my daughter's, Mary's, birthday. It's my daughter, Mary's, birthday. It's my daughter, Mary's birthday. It's my daughter Mary's birthday. <Q> I think this is one of those questions that only an expert can answer. <S> So I asked and @userr2684291 sent me to grammarbook. <S> Thanks! <S> However, in common usage, we can share what we see . <S> I don't see what a comma adds to any of these examples. <S> Mary + daughter need no separation. <S> They aren't listed. <S> There are no separate thoughts that are being joined. <S> If today is Mary's birthday, we can say it a few ways. <S> It is Mary's birthday. <S> It is my daughter's birthday. <S> It is my daughter Mary's birthday. <S> Okay I went and asked. <S> LINK <S> Rule: <S> When the noun preceding the appositive provides sufficient identification on its own, use commas around the appositive. <S> Example: My friend Harvey is an animal lover. <S> Explanation: <S> My friend is not a precise identifier because one may have numerous friends. <S> Example: <S> Harvey, my friend, loves animals. <S> Explanation: <S> Harvey is a precise identifier. <S> So: It is my daughter Mary's birthday. <S> (You have more than one daughter.) <S> It is my daughter, Mary's, birthday. <S> (You have only one daughter.) <A> The first one because the name is an optional information <S> so you need to mark it off and <S> your sentence has to make sense without it, too, hence you need the possessive 's with the word daughter. <S> It's my daughter's, Mary's, birthday. <S> It's my daughter's birthday. <S> Although personally I'd use em dashes here to avoid having commas so close to apostrophes. <S> It's my daughter's—Mary's—birthday. <A> It's my daughter's, Mary's, birthday. <S> <- This one is wrong. <S> It's either "my daughter's birthday" or My daughter Mary's birthday - never <S> "My daughter's Mary's. <S> " <S> It's my daughter, Mary's, birthday. <S> <- This might not be technically wrong, but it is very awkward. <S> It's my daughter, Mary's birthday. <S> <- This is wrong. <S> It's two unrelated phrases when you put the comma there <S> "It's my daughter" and "Mary's birthday. <S> " <S> It's my daughter Mary's birthday. <S> <- This is the most natural. <S> This is how I would write it. <S> For what it's worth, I'm a native speaker and a Librarian.
| When an appositive is essential to the meaning of the noun it belongs to, don’t use commas.
|
What does it mean for someone to be "held to low(er) standards"? Like, for example: Women/Poor students are held to low standards I'm confused whether it means, not expected to be as good as other groups, or mistreated, or something else Extra context: Too often, students of color and students who face challenging circumstances don’t receive the support and encouragement they need to succeed. They are held to lower standards because of a Belief Gap between what society believes they can achieve and what they truly are capable of when we believe in them. <Q> "Hold some to low(er) standards" means that you expect less from someone (for whatever reason). <S> Take for example a native speaker and a foreign speaker. <S> If a native speaker gave a presentation and uses poor grammar/pronunciation, it would likely be not well received, and he might get criticized for it. <S> If a foreign speaker made those mistakes, it would probably be overlooked by the audience with some goodwill. <S> He is held to lower standards with regard to his language skills. <S> Note that "holding someone to lower standards" can be neutral (as above), but can also be derogative. <S> It can be used to show that you think someone is inferior. <S> In your concrete case, it means that instead of helping people of color to better themselves <S> it's just accepted that they are inferior and no help is offered. <A> Years ago when the authorities first started testing IQ in younger school children <S> , it was 'proven' that lower income people had lower IQs. <S> In the beginning that was taken at face value until some smart-enough person figured out that the children were equally as bright, but had different life experiences. <S> You can't be asked what a washing machine does/is, if you don't have one available to you. <S> Humans do tend to think in generalities. <S> I taught Special Needs kids. <S> The most common assumption about a Down Syndrome person was/is that they are stupid. <S> So people talk down to them and lower their expectations for things like behaviour or paying for merchandise. <S> I can tell you that in my own experience DS people are smart enough to know you <S> /we don't understand and that they can get a free ice cream, a seat on the bus or get you to tie their shoes -- simply because of how they look. <S> Sure, they have a challenge that makes learning different <S> and no, they aren't geniuses, but they can be as bright as an 8 year old. <S> Plenty of 8 year olds look after their siblings, cook and work. <S> So, when some people hold other people to lower expectations, they hold back a lot of possible experiences and opportunities from those other people based on their own false assumptions. <A> I think that this is a risky idiom. <S> Read without context, it simply means that someone is considered to have done adequate work having done lesser work, or have behaved adequately when they otherwise would have not had they been someone else. <S> For example: As a teacher, you are held to a higher standard of ethical public behavior than most other people. <S> For example, even if most people break the law and smoke marijuana, you, as a teacher, should not. <S> So, the phrase "held to a lower standard" is a play on words, a kind of joke, and even an insult. <S> Additionally, the somewhat unstated ethos in the United States is that everyone should be treated equally, and that equal standards should be applied whenever possible. <S> Thus, any exception to this is suspect, and requires explanation. <S> Moreover, many people would say that, if a person didn't have an "equal opportunity" (another politically loaded idiom), that the responsibility to help equalize the situation falls, not only on the individual, but society at large.
| The phrase, "held to a lower standard", however, is a play on "held to a higher standard", which is often used as a kind of compliment.
|
Meaning of 'What are they upto?' I had heard this from someone who was saying this to her dogs. As 'upto' has different meanings and those meanings do not fit in this sentence. So what does it mean ? <Q> "Upto" is not a word, but two separate words, "up to": <S> What are they up to ? <S> To be up to something means to be doing something. <S> It often (but not always) carries a connotation of mischief or adventure. <S> In this context, the owner was asking what the dogs were doing, with the suggestion that maybe they were getting into some mischief or adventure. <A> "What are they up to?" (note space between "up" and "to") means "What are they doing?" <S> With the dogs being near enough for her to speak to them, she might be implying that the dogs are doing something sneaky or disobedient. <S> This could also just be cutesy talk (like baby talk) to beloved pets, similar to "Who's a good dog?" <S> or "Who is my snoogie-woogums?" <S> This sort of nonsense talk involves asking questions with obvious answers and silly pet names, just as a way to interact with the dog (or baby). <S> Her tone of voice would be your key to deciding whether she is suspicious of the dogs or being playful toward them. <A> 'Up to' is two words, not one. <S> 'What are they up to?' <S> means 'what are they doing?' <S> For example, if you saw some strangers outside your neighbour's house looking at all the windows and doors, you might wonder what they are 'up to' – are they planning to break into the house, or are they there for some other reason? <S> However, this is not always the case. <S> You might also use it if you see someone doing something <S> but you don't know why, <S> or you just want to know what they are doing. <S> For example, if I walk into the kitchen and my mother is there, she might ask me 'what are you up to now?' <S> She is not suspicious of me, but she is just interested in me and what I'm doing. <S> Another potential situation for this phrase: if you meet an old friend for the first time in years, you could ask them 'What have you been up to?', meaning 'What have you been doing with your life?' <A> In this context, like in "what's up? <S> " <S> , I think that the word "up" means "happening". <S> Hence, "what's up?" means "what is happening?". <S> "What are they up to?" means "What are they doing?".
| It often (but not always) implies that the person asking the question is suspicious and thinks that someone is trying to do something bad.
|
What does she mean by "can I claim them as dependent"? In this commercial TurboTax 2017 TV Commercial "Kathy Bates Scary Dependents" (Official :45) TV ad she says there are kids in her house and if she can claim them as dependent. But I don't understand what she means by that and I got even more confused that the assistant responded "unfortunately you can't but you can deduct some of your moving expenses."Is it even related? <Q> Here, a dependent is a technical term used for tax purposes. <S> From the IRS, Module 4: Dependents A dependent is a person other than the taxpayer or spouse who entitles the taxpayer to claim a dependency exemption. <S> Each dependency exemption decreases income subject to tax by the exemption amount. <S> For 2014, the exemption amount is $3,950. <S> The term "dependent" means a "qualifying child" or a "qualifying relative." <S> The page then goes on to list some criteria. <S> If she can claim the kids as dependents, then she can receive tax exemptions. <A> This is more a question about how taxes work than how english works. <S> When you "claim" something on your taxes, it means you are stating that you are entitled to a reduction in your taxes for a particular reason. <S> There are many reasons for it, and one of them is having children who rely on you for care. <S> The assistant is saying, that legally, the children in her home do not qualify as dependents, and she may not claim them on her tax forms. <S> But, she may claim her moving expenses. <S> I really can't explain this much further without getting into a detailed explanation of income taxes and income tax witholding. <A> She wants to get tax return by claiming those kids as her dependents. <S> She asks whether she can show those kids, in the eyes of the law, as hers in order to get benefits or reduction while paying her taxes. <S> For your second question, the customer service lady tells her that she can not claim those kids as hers, and by "getting deduction for moving expenses <S> " she means that there might be another way to get some economic benefit by showing the money she spent on moving. <S> Hope <S> it helps <S> ;)
| A taxpayer cannot claim a dependency exemption for a person who can be claimed as a dependent on another tax return. A "dependent" is someone who relies on you for support, like a non-working spouse or a child who lives with you.
|
What preposition to use for an object that's melting? Example sentence: We stood before the bonfire watching the bottle melt __ flames. I thought among was the word, but if you search for melt among X on Google you get zero results. What the correct preposition? <Q> I think the preposition you want is into : <S> TFD shows: melt into something to melt and change into a different state <S> All the ice cream melted into a sticky soup . <S> Oxford Learner's Dictionary shows a more figurative usage: <S> melt into something to gradually become part of something and therefore become difficult to see <S> Once the introductions had been made, she melted into the background . <S> So, if you mean to say that the bottle started to literally melt and then gradually be consumed by the fire (I am imagining a plastic bottle here), then you could indeed say: <S> We stood before the bonfire watching the bottle melt into flames. <S> For the record, I thought your original was just fine, although I would have used an article: <S> We stood on the hill watching the sun melt into the burning clouds. <S> Some people had trouble with this, but I think they were thinking too literally. <S> A sentence like that could be used to describe a sunset like this: <A> Thanks for updating the example; it's clearer now. <S> To melt among the flames is OK, but if you mean "in the middle of", a better choice might be amid or amidst . <A> To melt can be transitive or intransitive. <S> In its transitive form, it's either: <S> We stood before the bonfire watching the flames melt the bottle. <S> or We stood before the bonfire watching the bottle being melted by the flames. <S> Now I see what you meant when you said you wanted to use "among" with the intransitive form of "to melt", but I don't think it's idiomatic.
| If you means the bottle slumps down into the flames, or turns into flames, then into is a good choice.
|
"To go in for sport" or just "to do sport"? At school I was taught that the collocation "to go in for sport" should be used when speaking about doing sport (e.g. to go in for karate). Is it widely-used nowadays? <Q> Don't use the expression. <S> It is not common in spoken or written British English. <S> It may have had some limited use in schoolboy slang from the 1930s. <S> However, a google search shows the use to be largely limited to Russian speakers. <S> It seems that this is a case of Russian textbooks copying each other, rather than referring to actual usage in English. <A> At first glance I confused your expression with "to go in for the sport (of it) " which means to join in for the excitement (the sport ). <S> One can certainly "do sports" for " the sport of it", but if a person is participating in sports the plain way to say this is they do karate <A> The phrase to go in for karate sounds old fashioned to me. <S> The meaning is clear, though. <S> [school context] <S> I do karate on Tuesdays and Fridays. <S> [at a private facility; though you could use "take karate" here as well] I practice karate on weekends with friends. <A> Looking at it on COHA (Corpus of Historical American English), the number of instances recorded per decade are: 1900s <S> 451910s <S> 451920s <S> 521930s <S> 781940s <S> 411950s <S> 531960s <S> 431970s <S> 361980s <S> 361990s <S> 182000s <S> 18 <S> So it would appear to be on the way out.
| Depending on context, it is more common to say: I will be taking karate. I suggest you don't use it. To me "go in for" is a rather colloquial and a bit old-fashioned way of saying "like doing", with a hint that the activity is a bit strange.
|
More common - two weeks vs three weeks I really want to close this topic but I just want to make some little poll or just tell me what you think would be more commonly said in such case. Today is Friday (10.2.2017) I started my youtube channel 24.1.2017 and uploaded 5 videos since then. (I would say i have that channel for 2 two weeks, though it is going to be three after this one ends, i would not say three yet because it is not full three.) What is more correct to say today or would be correct to say yesterday (Thursday) if I wanted to mention all my 5 videos ? A. I have uploaded 5 videos in the last two weeks. B. I have uploaded 5 videos in the last three weeks. For me, A sounds more correct, like I understand that since that date(24.1.2017) it is more than 14 days, it is i believe 17-18 days so almost three weeks, but I would not say in the last three weeks because it is not full three weeks yet, because than it would not fit with (these videos were uploaded two weeks ago). If I said in the last three weeks (I would think some videos were uploaded 3 weeks ago.) Do I understand it like many people would? What do you think? What you would say? Like I know every language can be a little different in this but I just want to make sure how it is used in English usually or more commonly. Thanks for help and I apologize that I cannot stop thinking about this logic :/ <Q> For me the text "in the last two weeks <S> " means not more than two weeks. <S> For the purpose in the question I might write <S> "I have uploaded 5 videos in just over two weeks" . <S> All the other forms I can think of take more words to qualify the "two weeks" to indicate a few days more than two weeks. <S> Using the text "in the last three weeks <S> " means not more than three weeks <S> and so matches the ideas wanted by the question. <A> I think the correct sentence would be option B. <S> Since you have uploaded a video more than 2 weeks ago, say 16 days ago, as on the day you are publishing this text, you can mention that "I have uploaded 5 videos in the last three weeks". <S> As an analogy to support my view, you mentioned that "I would think some videos were uploaded 3 weeks ago", which is true. <S> If its been, say, 16 days, since your first video upload, it also means that it has been more than 2 weeks , hence its been around 3 weeks. <S> This is my opinion. <S> It can differ from person to person, because, anyone is free to view the period of more than 2 weeks but less than 3 as either 2 weeks or 3 weeks. <S> There is no completely wrong view. <A> In my view "in" means "within" in this context. <S> Therefore, logically, a more elaborate statement would be "I have uploaded five videos within (a span of) three weeks". <S> This is shortened to "I have uploaded five videos in the last three weeks". <S> Given the timeline and subject matter, one could say that your intent is conveyed reasonably or does not suggest dishonesty. <S> However, if you want to be more accurate and/or honest, you can say (as per answers given by others), "I have uploaded five videos in just over two weeks". <S> The intent in the latter version is communicating that the timeline is closer to the fourteen-day mark vs a twenty-one-day mark.
| I might write "in just over two weeks" to indicate a small number of days more than two weeks but less than three weeks.
|
Can I use "there" twice in the same sentence? There is many food there. There is are many food foods there. Is the above sentence correct ? <Q> Your use of 'there' twice is fine. <S> However, your use of 'many' is wrong, as 'food' is singular. <S> In most contexts, you could use 'much' instead. <S> That would be gramatical here: <S> There is much food there. <S> but that doesn't sound great to a native English speaker - instead, simply <S> There is a lot of food there. <S> Use 'many' for plural nouns <S> e.g. <S> There are many pizzas there. <A> There are many foods there. <S> Food in this use is plural <S> so you need <S> are instead of is . <A> The word there can have multiple uses or meanings. <S> [There is/are] is a way to express existence . <S> [there] can also express location . <S> These sentences use both meanings, and there's nothing wrong with that. <S> Many foods [exist] [in that location]. <A> 'There, there' is in itself a phrase used to comfort someone; http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/There,+there <S> It's also a brilliant Radiohead song; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AQSLozK7aA
| Using the word there twice in this example is fine and perfectly common and understandable.
|
Is "Billie said he is hungry" a correct alternative to "Billie said I'm hungry"? I understand that said is usually used with reported speech alone, and that told is used with an object. I just want to make sure that the sentence "Billie said he is hungry" is correct. <Q> Billie said he is hungry. <S> Billy said I am hungry. <S> The former sentence expresses that Billie is hungry, whereas the latter indicates you are hungry. <S> If you put the sentence #1 in direct speech as follows, both the sentences will convey the same meaning: <S> Billie said, "I am hungry" (direct speech) = <S> Billie said he is hungry (indirect speech). <S> As for the use of said and told, both can be used in reported speech. <S> The "said" is used without an object, whereas the "told" is used with an object as follows: <S> Billie said he is hungry. <S> Billie told me he is hungry. <A> The sentence is correct but it has a different meaning than the other one. <S> Billie said he is hungry <S> means Billie is hungry. <S> On the other hand Billie said I'm hungry <S> means that I am hungry. <S> You can make it work though. <S> Billie said "I'm hungry" <S> Billie said he is hungry <S> These two may have the same meaning depending on the time in the context. <S> Of course a quotation like this is a bit harder to convey in speech than in text <S> but I can imagine a situation where it can work. <A> The whole point of your question is about punctuation. <S> Billie said he is hungry. <S> (Or better: Billie said he was hungry) is reported speech and in this sentence "Billie" and "he" represent the same person. <S> It means that Billie is the person who is/was hungry. <S> Billie said I'm hungry. <S> is reported speech and in this sentence "Billie" and "I" represent two different people. <S> If you are the one uttering the sentence, then "I" stands for you (Azul). <S> Billie said: "I'm hungry". <S> is direct speech, the quotation marks (" ") indicate that "Billie" and "I" represent the same person. <A> However, it would also be okay to write either: (1) " <S> Billie said I'm hungry" (2) "Billie told us he is hungry" <S> Your sentence is better than the first, because (1) risks confusing the reader (is Billie saying he is hungry, or that the speaker is hungry?) <S> You could remedy this confusion with punctuation, as Laure mentions. <S> You would also be okay to write (2) since, as you mentioned, it's being used with an object ("us"). <S> Just keep in mind that while any of the three are acceptable, your sentence is the clearest and most natural-sounding, and therefore the best choice.
| Both the sentences are in indirect speech, but they are different in meaning; they aren't interchangeable. Yes, "Billie said he is hungry" is correct.
|
Finding the appropriate word (related to selling and buying) I'm trying to find a verb that means "To persuade the seller to sell something with a lower price" For example, John went to buy a new phone. He had 200$. The phone was 240$. So he tried to buy the phone with 200$. <Q> You could use: haggle: <S> He haggled with the store to get the price down to $200 (this is more colloquial) <S> negotiate: <S> bargain <S> : He bargained with the seller to lower the price. <S> "Barter" is related but it actually means something else: trading two commodities for each other without currency. <S> I.e. "John bartered for the phone with his designer purse." <S> The first two imply success unless you qualify it afterwards, i. e. "... <S> but the store refused to lower the price." <S> "Bargain" in this context has a slight implication of failure. <A> Another possibility is to talk the seller down , as in John tried to talk the seller down to $200. <S> (This may be a specifically American usage, from what I can see.) <A> I'd use "bargain" - "He tried bargaining with the seller by offering $200." <S> I think bartering is often used to mean an exchange that doesn't involve money (e.g. Bartering a kilo of flour for a kilo of sugar"
| He negotiated with the seller to reduce the price to $200 (this is more formal)
|
Is it okay to use the phrase "try and"? Is it grammatically correct? e.g. "I will try and answer ..." I read the following sentence in English Grammar in Use book (App). I will try and answer any questions you ask. Why don't they use the following? (it is much common): I will try to answer any questions you ask. Is there any difference in meaning? Update: I noticed that a lot of books and news websites are using this phrase: Although Katty will try and answer as many questions as she can. BBC He puller would have a chance to try and answer the question on her own ... The Multiplayer Classroom <Q> "Try to" and "try and" have the same meaning. <S> It is often asserted that "I will try and answer your questions" means "I will try and I will answer your questions" and that "try and" somehow promises that the trying will be successful. <S> However, this claim isn't supported by actual usage: when people say "try and", they almost invariably mean exactly the same thing as "try to". <S> "Try and" is felt to be rather informal (and <S> some people will insist that it is grammatically incorrect), so "try to" is normally used in more formal contexts. <S> See, for example, this video from Merriam Webster's Ask the Editor . <A> The first way is spoken just as often as the second way, however I think the second way is written more. <S> I often say I'll try and get that finished , but I usually type <S> I'll try to get that finished . <S> The first way has a slightly friendlier tone. <S> Using and like this seems like just one of those things that doesn't make a lot of logical sense in the language. <A> I will try to answer any questions you ask. <S> means what it says, the expected outcome is an answer. <S> I will try and answer any questions you ask. <S> is slightly different, since an explanation may usually be given for the train of thought in trying to arrive at an answer, though the final answer may not be revealed at the end. <S> Consider the difference between <S> Let's try to see how we can agree on this. <S> Let's try and see how we can agree on this. <S> The former objective is reaching agreement, the latter is more a negotiation to explore how agreement can be met. <A> It's a mistake in the book. <S> For some reason, and in some circles, it is sadly becoming commonplace to say/write "try and" instead. <S> It's somewhat ironic to see this error in a book about teaching grammar! <S> I'm not sure I'd trust it to teach any such thing. <A> "I will try and answer any questions you ask. <S> " is equivalent to "I will try and I will answer any questions you ask. <S> " The statement is really an overreach because if you don't know then you don't know. <S> Saying "I don't know" isn't really an answer. <S> So you're promising more than you actually might be able to provide. <S> "I will try to answer any questions you ask" is the better sentence to me. <S> You're not over promising.
| Both of you sentences are usually undertood to mean the same thing, however I think there is a subtle difference. The correct phrase is: I will try to answer any questions you ask.
|
"None of the kids were hungry" Or "None of the kids was hungry" Were is used with plural pronouns The kids were hungry. And we can add "None of": None of the kids were hungry. But I read a lot of articles and books use "was" with "None of": None of the kids was injured. None of them was so unconcerned about the state... At that time none of the men was being troubled ... So, in formal english, What should we use with "none of"? "was" or "were"? <Q> Both sentences are grammatical. <S> When you use the phrase "none of" in front of a plural noun or pronoun, you can use either a singular or plural form of a verb. <S> However, the plural form is common both in formal and in informal English. <S> The singular form is formal and isn't much used. <S> Besides, if there's an uncountable noun or a singular pronoun in front of the "none of", you use a singular form of a verb after it (The Free Dictionary). <S> For examples: None of the wheat was ruined. <S> Yet none of this has seriously affected business. <A> The key here is that there is actually a plural and singular sense of none. <S> Rule : <S> It has a plural sense (“not any”) as well as a singular sense (“not a single one”). <S> When none is followed by of, look at the noun in your of phrase (object of the preposition). <S> If the object of the preposition is plural, there is more leeway. <S> Most of the time, but not always, you will want to use a plural verb. <S> For example: None of the cakes were finished. <S> Noun is plural, use plural verb . <S> None of the cake was left. <S> Noun is singular, use singular verb . <S> None of the food has spoiled. <S> Noun is singular (and in a special class of uncountable words like 'luck' or 'water' that have no plural form). <S> Use singular verb . <S> Hope that helps! <S> Source <A> Taking your example: The kids were hungry. <S> Adding "none of" to the beginning changes the sentence structure. <S> None of the kids was hungry. <S> In the first sentence, "kids" is the subject and is clearly plural. <S> Therefore, a plural verb is called for. <S> In the second sentence, "none" is the subject, and "of the kids" is now an adjective phrase, with "kids" as the object of that phrase and therefore the antecedent of "none". <S> To determine whether a singular or plural verb is needed, it just has to be answered whether "none" is singular or plural. <S> One might consider "none" as assuming the same number as its antecedent (making it plural in this example, and context dependent in general), or as simply a contraction of "not one" or "no one" (making it always singular). <S> Compare with this example, in which using the plural verb would be incorrect: <S> Not one of the kids was hungry. <S> You may get different answers depending on culture and region. <A> The other answers are really useful, but I want to share more details that may help to understand this subject. <S> I highly recommend this article to understand this question and its answers: <S> Subject-Verb Agreement Rule 8. <S> With words that indicate portions—e.g., a lot, a majority, some, all —Rule 1 given earlier in this section is reversed, and we are guided by the noun after of . <S> If the noun after of is singular, use a singular verb. <S> If it is plural, use a plural verb. <S> Examples: <S> A lot of the pie has disappeared. <S> A lot of the pies have disappeared. <S> A third of the city is unemployed. <S> but also there is this note within the article NOTE <S> In recent years, the SAT testing service has considered none to be strictly singular . <S> However, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage: "Clearly none has been both singular and plural since Old English and still is. <S> The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen in the 19th century. <S> If in context it seems like a singular to you, use a singular verb; if it seems like a plural, use a plural verb. <S> Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism. <S> " When none is clearly intended to mean "not one," it is followed by a singular verb. <A> Good question. <S> The answer is definitely "were". <S> Using "was" in those cases all sounds like slang or a slight southern accent. <A> So, in formal english, What should we use with "none of"? <S> "was" or "were"? <S> In formal English it should be "was", the subject of your sentence "one of the kids" is singular. <S> You'll often hear people use "were", because to their ears the plural noun next to the singular verb sounds wrong.
| If the object of the preposition is singular, use a singular verb. The word none is versatile. I would venture that in speech and informal writing, more people will say "were", but in formal writing, more would write "was". At least in today's common American vernacular, for this example, neither choice is awkward enough to be considered 'wrong'.
|
What does 'frequent meal' mean? They are debating about meaning of this sentence here (Japanese): The soup is a frequent meal. I don't know the meaning of frequent meal. So I tried to search it for Wikitionary , but I couldn't find it. What does frequent meal mean? Or is it incorrect? They almost suppose 'a frequent meal' means: A food what's provided ...and the other user says it's an antonym of emergency food . <Q> ....I think they aren't sure what they mean. <S> Most of those sentences sound very odd to me. <S> I wouldn't say "The soup is a frequent meal." <S> "The soup" indicates a soup made in one batch... <S> that then becomes a "frequent meal?? <S> " I'm picturing a giant batch of soup eaten over weeks and weeks.... <S> "They make soup frequently" ect - all basically mean the same thing - soup is a habitual meal for them. <S> Not sure where on earth they get the idea it has anything to do with emergency rations... <A> The soup (which has been specified already) is a frequently eaten meal. <S> If the author knows proper English, then we can assume that using "the" (the definite article) is intentional, and is referring to a specific soup, one which was probably named earlier. <S> (It doesn't have to be a single batch of soup. <S> "Definite" isn't the same as "singular".) <S> However, if this is an imperfect translation or something from someone not good at English, it could be a misuse of "the". <S> I would guess that if the soup has been introduced already, the word "the" is intended because it's referring to that same soup, and that soup is eaten frequently. <S> Of course, if the author just doesn't know English that well, then it's hard to know precisely what they mean without greater context, and I got a 404 retrieval error when I tried to visit that URL <S> so I can only guess. <A> It's perfectly correct english to say "soup is a frequent meal". <S> It can mean many things depending on the context. <S> Here are some ways it can be used <S> Her diet is limited, soup is a frequent meal. <S> The sentence above indicates that this person ends up eating soup a lot (and JUST soup) for a meal. <S> Workers have very limited time during lunch. <S> Soup is a frequent meal. <S> Similar to above. <S> Soup is a frequent meal <S> By itself the sentence implies that soup is used as one of the meals not just regularly, but quite often. <S> How often is it repeated as a meal is vague, and in this sentence structure is no indication of the supposed eater of the soup becoming tired or bored of soup just because it's being eaten frequently
| I would say "they eat soup frequently" "Soup is a frequent meal at their house"
|
dreams in the present tense I have heard that you can talk about the content of movies and novels in the present tense. If you had a dream two weeks ago, could you talk about it today to someone in the present tense? Generally speaking, can you talk about your dreams in the present tense? <Q> You can talk about movies or books in the present tense because if you re-watch a movie or reread a book, the content remains the same. <S> In other words the content of the movie in present time remains the same as when you watched it so you can use present tense. <S> The only exception to this would be if you have a dream that re-occurs (repeats), in which case you might use past tense to talk about past occurrences and future tense for anticipated future occurrences, but unless you are talking in your sleep while actually having the dream, you won't use present tense. <S> If there are elements of your dreaming (for example a specific location that repeats in different dreams you have), you might use present tense when talking about that repeating element. <A> Not entirely sure I understand your question, but... <S> You can speak generally about your dreams, which might include those from two weeks ago, using the present-tense form of "dream". <S> For example: "I dream about strange things sometimes. <S> In a dream two weeks ago I was in the 23rd century." <S> But what I think you may be referencing is someone speaking in the first person. <S> A person speaking colloquially about a dream they had two weeks ago might use the first-person present tense to describe events in the dream: "Two weeks ago I have this crazy dream. <S> It's dark. <S> Then it's not. <S> I walk into a vast arena. <S> Everything is really quiet <S> and then all of the sudden <S> -BAM! <S> I get hit in the face by a photon blast. <S> " <S> Hopefully this helps! <A> There is no difference in 1st-person storytelling or 3rd-person storytelling in spoken English. <S> I know that native speakers almost always speak from 1st-person view. <S> (I heard it many times myself) <S> If you had a dream last night and you can tell it today like you are there (in your dream) right now or like you were there yesterday and watched from aside . <S> I see this dream yesterday. <S> There's this woman <S> and she comes up to me <S> and she kisses me <S> and I feel so lost; I don't know what to do. <S> I saw a dream yesterday. <S> There was a woman. <S> She came up to me and kissed me. <S> I was so lost; I didn't know what to do.
| Generally in most dreams you have the dream only once and when you talk about the dream it occurred in your past, and so you must use past tense.
|
What do we call this part of the room? What do we call this part of the room? I am looking for the correct word for this part of the room. I have always called it a “low-roof room”. However, I am not sure whether it is correct. <Q> loft (n.)floor consisting of open space at the top of a house just below roof; often used for storage Source <A> An intermediate floor is known as a mezzanine Described as: The lowest balcony or forward part of such a balcony in a theater. <S> A low-ceilinged stor(e)y between two other stories of greater height in a building, usu. <S> built immediately above the ground floor, esp. <S> when the low story and the one beneath it form part of one composition. <S> Collins English Dictionary <A> In the UK we would refer to it as a mezzanine. <S> I am not presently allowed to up vote otherwise I would have. <S> Lofts/attics are usually enclosed spaces above the 'living' areas. <S> Balconies are usually only exterior (unless in very old/large houses). <A> I can think of loft - a space at the top of a building under the roof used for storing things and usually entered by a ladder, or sometimes made into a room for living in; an upper floor or room <S> However, In Russia we call it " второй ярус " - second storey , some people call it " надстройка " - <S> superstructure or " второй уровень " - second level <S> and I've also heard people refer to it as " upstairs ". <S> Such rooms are called " two-level rooms "
| I think most English speakers would refer to that as a loft .
|
When someone is deviating the main subject of a discussion Imagine a person who is part of a discussion changes the focus by starting a train of thought considered irrelevant and in this manner deviates the route of the discussion into other / irrelevant subjects or tangential comments. You want to ask them to focus on the point of the discussion and restrict their comments to the point at hand. Bringing up this question I am going to find the closest verb which can be used when you want to ask someone not to "deviate" the topic at hand. Note: I do not need any idiom. I need a natural verb for the case meaning "deviate". [I don't know whether the verb "deviate" works here by itself or not.] I found the verbs bellow. Please let me know which one in natural in this sense and of they both mean something else, then please tell me what is the most natural one: Please don't deviate the subject of the discussion. Please don't wander away the subject of the discussion. Please don't wander off the subject of the discussion. <Q> I wouldn't use the phrase "please don't" at all because it sounds negative and critical. <S> Correct verbs are focus, stay (on target), return (to the agenda), apply (oneself) or concentrate. <S> However, I often use phrases like That is certainly interesting, you can take that offline <S> Okay, well good point, now where are we on the agenda? <S> Thank you for raising that <S> but we are pressed for time <S> so let us return to the current topic Good point, I will take note of that now <S> if we could return to topic Time is short <S> so I'd like to please stick to the agenda <S> That is interesting for several reasons, however I'm looking for something to take the discussion forward <S> People lose focus for a reason, maybe their train of thought is relevant, maybe they have a risk that has not been highlighted or addressed. <S> By using phrases like "Please don't deviate" you are trivializing their points and likely putting them down in public. <S> Therefore they will be less inclined to re-focus on your discussion even after you have asked. <S> So listening to their concerns, commenting or asking them to 'take it offline' will allow you the control of the situation such that when you say "let us now return to the intended topic of discussion", you are likely to have gained the co-operation of everyone involved. <A> To make your three sentences more idiomatic, when one deviates, one deviates from something <S> Please don't wander off topic. <S> Please don't wander away from the topic of discussion. <S> "Off topic" is an idiom, the second sentence is saying you don't want the speaker to wonder in that direction <S> A more imperative way of saying it is <S> Please try to stay on topic. <A> ... <S> the closest verb which can be used when you want to ask someone not to "deviate" the topic at hand. <S> Imperative: <S> Don't change the subject. <S> Interrogative: <S> Can we stick to the subject?
| Please don't deviate from the subject/topic of discussion.
|
I'm having to work vs. I have to work How I'm having to work , in the following sentence, is different from I have to work ? The course is more demanding than I expected and I'm having to work harder than I ever have before. <Q> The difference between " have to " and " having to " is the same as between the Present Simple and the Present Continuous . <S> have to - something that we are obliged to do regularly; for a long period of time. <S> ( personal note : there's a shade of unwillingnessand disgust to what is under obligation) <S> Consider these examples: <S> I have to read books to get educated. <S> (It's important that I read them <S> otherwise I'll be silly) <S> I am always having to do the dishes after the parties. <S> (I don't like washing the dishes after the parties but <S> I have to do it) <S> However, " have to " with the latter sentence will be correct too. <A> Here, in the sentence, I am having to work <S> means the person is required to work; while I have to work means the person is working, but he's not expected to work (at least, that's not implied). <S> This is what I inferred from the question. <S> I am not completely sure of its accuracy. <A> The use of the "having to do" form may be appropriate when the speaker intends to draw attention to the limited duration of the obligation, for example: <S> My roommate broke his collarbone the other day, so I'm having to help him dress and undress, to water his flowers, make his bed, and do a few more things for him before he recovers. <S> At the same time, since the "have to do" form is nearly always correct, using it would really be the safest choice for learners in any context, in my opinion.
| having to - something that we are obliged to do regularly but for a limited time period
|
Word describing someone who wants/needs an authority? As far as I know, "authoritarian" is mostly used to describe the power itself ("an authoritarian ruler", for example). However, are there any similar word to describe someone who wants/need an authority to function properly? <Q> This is not necessarily a negative, although it has some negative connotations. <S> His whole life he had been a follower -- he never sought out a leadership position and always avoided the spotlight. <S> A more negative way to say this, for a group of people who act as followers, is to call them "sheep" . <S> You lot are just sheep , always nodding your heads and agreeing to whatever your candidate says. <S> Don't you ever think for yourselves? <S> A more positive way to express this is "disciple" , meaning someone who follows a leader in order to learn from them. <S> The popular yoga teacher went everywhere with a group of disciples in tow. <S> There are other words as well, just look up the synonyms of "follower" . <A> subordinate dependent lower subsidiary <S> tributary ancillary <S> Can you find what you are looking for in these words? <S> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/subordinate <A> Subservient Subservient suggests one who craves someone to direct them. <S> From Merriam-Webster : 3 : obsequiously submissive : TRUCKLING
| Someone who needs or requires some authority figure in their life can be referred to as a "follower" (as compared to a "leader").
|
Do we have to use IT when the thing is being mentioned just before. It is confusing because in Spanish we don´t have IT “I am sending you an audio which IS new to you.” Or“I am sending you an audio which IT´S new to you” “The first option IS the correct one” - or “The first option IT´S the correct one.” This war IT is going to be a very long war! OR This war is going to be a very long war! <Q> The problem lies in comparing English with Spanish, or with any other language. <S> Some learners have the tendency to believe that their native language sets the rules and is the only one with some logic, and that all other languages are illogical because they don't follow the rules they take as the norm. <S> In answer to your question, if the noun or a relative pronoun referring to the noun are present, it is ungrammatical to include "it" after them. <S> The fact that "it" has no translation in Spanish does not make it invisible. <S> Then, the correct sentences are: <S> I am sending you an audio which is new to you. <S> ("which" already refers to the noun "audio") <S> The first option is the correct one. <S> (The noun "option" is there, so using "it” after it is ungrammatical. <S> However, if you refer to that option again, you can use "it": "The first option is the correct one. <S> In fact, it 's the only one that can work in this case.") <S> This war is going to be a very long war (OR "a very long one," to avoid repeating "war"). <S> Now, if reference needs to be made to the same war again, then you can use "it": "This war is going to be a very long one. <S> It can last for years." <A> English word order is Subject - Verb - Object. <S> Subjects and objects can be nouns. <S> It is a pronoun - a pronoun takes the place of a noun. <S> and it should not be there. <S> The first option IS the correct one <S> The subject in this sentence is "the first option", so you don't use it . <S> If we mentioned "the first option" before, we can use it in a second sentence to avoid repeating "the first option" over and over: <S> I looked into the first option. <S> It is the correct one. <S> (It = " <S> the first option") <S> You can use a technique called an "appositive phrase" I think as a form of emphasis or making sure someone knows what you are talking about. <S> A comma is needed to make it clear. <S> The first option, it is the correct one. <S> In real speech, the speaker would place emphasis on the word it , because the reason she would say this is to make sure you understand he <S> /she means "the first option" instead of something else. <S> Which is a relative pronoun, so it functions as a "connector" between clauses and a pronoun in the sense above. <S> I am sending you an audio which IS new to you. <S> Which already refers to "audio" as well as links <S> "I am sending you an audio" and "[it] is new to you" so specifying it is redundant and doesn't work. <A> The correct choices would be: I am sending you an audio which IS new to you. <S> The first option IS the correct one <S> This war is going to be a very long war! <S> If you want to use IT , the the first sentence can be modified as follows: <S> I am sending you an audio. <S> IT is new to you. <S> Use <S> IS or WAS along with IT for present or past tense, respectively. <S> Do not use IT without a verb. <S> Additionally, you can use IT'S instead of IT IS . <A> I am sending you an audio which IS new to you. <S> This is correct. <S> I am sending you an audio which IT´S new to you. <S> This is incorrect. <S> This is easier to see if we simplify the contraction: I am sending you an audio which IT IS new to you. <S> The word it represents the subject, and we do not repeat the subject in a simple sentence. <S> However, if you joined two sentences, you would need it: <S> I am sending you an audio; it is new to you. <S> This is correct, as two complete sentences (each with a subject and a verb) are joined with a semicolon.
| If the noun is there, you don't need it It is not compulsory to use IT while referring to something.
|
Use of articles with adjectives Consider the sentence Did you see the guy in red shirt? Is it absolutely necessary to specify a shirt or the shirt ? <Q> Yes, sort of. <S> Other classes include, possessive pronouns and nouns ( <S> e.g. my, your, John's) and demonstratives ( <S> e.g. this, that). <S> Something, often an article, has to grant that shirt a sort of relative presence in the universe. <S> Thus the red shirt , a red shirt , John's red shirt , that red shirt -- they all work. <S> What does not work is red shirt with no word summarizing how it fits in the universe. <S> I understand that certain other languages do not require determiners. <S> Or rather, context or some grammatical structure besides determiners accomplishes the same purpose. <S> It is difficult to imagine a language which had no way of differentiating that red shirt from Tom's red shirt from <S> any red shirt . <S> Inspired by Satnam's answer, let's look at plural nouns: <S> Do you see boys in red shirts? <S> Note that neither of the plural nouns has an obvious determiner. <S> How can that be? <S> It would appear English sometimes uses the context of plurality to apply an invisible or assumed determiner. <S> The words any , the , and some would be good candidates. <S> These vary in subtle ways: <S> Do you see any boys in any red shirts? <S> The possibility exists that there are no red shirts, and perhaps not even any boys. <S> Do you see the boys in the red shirts? <S> Both boys and red shirts exist. <S> Do you see some boys in some red shirts? <S> This case has strong implications that there may be girls or adults, and that some of the boys' shirts may not be red. <S> Neither of the first two rule out those possibilities though, nor does this case require them. <S> Any vagueness of meaning could have been avoided by choosing actual determiners instead of leaving it to the listener or reader to decide. <S> But if it doesn't matter to the author/speaker, so be it. <A> Yes your noun "shirt" in this sentence absolutely needs to have an article, either one would work depending on the context. <S> The definite article is most likely what you want, but again that totally depends on context. <S> For example: A policeman ran up, sweating heavily. <S> " <S> Did you see a guy in a red shirt? <S> " he asked between breaths. <S> Indefinite article make the referenced noun (red shirt) less specific. <S> She looked at her friend and smiled. <S> " <S> Did you see the guy in the red shirt? <S> " she asked mischievously. <S> Definite article makes the referenced noun (red shirt) very specific. <A> In your sentence, it is necessary to use either of the articles. <S> MadGab explained very well the difference in usage of ' a ' and ' the '. <S> My answer is mostly concerning the use of the definitive article ' the '. <S> When you say Did you see the guy in the red shirt? <S> you are adding some information which is specific to the shirt the boy is wearing, i.e, it's red. <S> In other words, you are talking about a particular shirt. <S> If you say, Do you see the boys in red shirts? <S> putting ' the ' is optional as in this case, 'red shirts' is more of a general thing. <S> If however, you choose to put 'the' in this sentence also, it would communicate that you are pointing to a particular ' group ' of shirts, all of which are ' red '.
| A determiner , which includes articles, has to be there.
|
What adjective to use to refer to the number of people who inhabit an apartment? I thought you could say something like this: We were having dinner in our three-people apartment. ( We are the three people who live in the apartment.) But Google doesn't yield results for three-people apartment . What's the correct way of saying it? <Q> I'm going to summarize the answers given so far. <S> The more important point: in English, We don't usually pluralize the noun in compound adjectives . <S> So six-foot ruler <S> Three-Dog Night four-door car. <S> Less important, in most English-speaking countries, housing units are characterized by the number of bedrooms they have: it's a three-bedroom apartment, a four-bedroom house. <S> How many people you put in each bedroom is up to you. <S> Auditoriums and vehicles of land and air are characterized by the number of seats they have -- a two-seat sports-car, a 100-seat jet, a thousand-seat theater -- even though you can only put one person in a seat. <S> Only tasks, small watercraft, and for some reason tents are characterized by the number of people they hold: a one-person job, a three-man canoe, a two-person pup-tent. <A> You can say "We were having dinner at our apartment. <S> We live there on a triple sharing basis" or "We were having dinner at our triple room in the apartment". <A> "Three-person" might be correct, but I would not expect to hear this as an expression in normal conversation. <S> " <S> Three-person IVF" is the only time I've ever heard it used. <S> In NAm, we say things like, "Our apartment is a 3-bed(room), 2 bath."
| The three of us are having a dinner party at our apartment.
|
"barely formed" vs. "only formed" — equivalent in this context? On CNN today: It deprives Trump, who has no foreign policy experience and a barely formed national security team... Furthermore, any specific case that one should use barely instead of only and vice versa? <Q> Barely means "hardly at all" or "scarcely", while only means "exclusively", or "singularly". <S> In terms of their definitions, the two words are no more interchangeable than the words "some" or "none". <S> Also, "only formed" is not an adjective phrase you would use in English. <S> However, you may have seen something like "His team was only formed very recently." <S> In that case only is being used for emphasis. <S> Similarly, you might hear something like "only a little bit" which is similar in meaning to "barely at all". <S> Again, only is being used for emphasis. <S> That's about as close as you'd get to seeing these words used interchangeably. <A> A better synonym, I think, would be newly : <S> It deprives Trump, who has no foreign policy experience and a newly-formed national security team... <S> The word <S> barely in this news article is emphasizing that Trump's national security team was only recently assembled and therefore they are relatively inexperienced working in their current roles. <S> This interpretation aligns with this Macmillan definition: barely ( adv. ) <S> used for emphasizing that something happened only a very short time before something else <A> The word only cannot modify modifiers which are formed from the past participle of the verb. <S> The food platter was only touched . <S> ungrammatical, without further context that might show an ellipsis The food platter was barely touched . <S> Little of the food had been eaten. <S> If only appears next to a past participle, it modifies the predicate, not <S> the predicate adjective: <S> The car was only scratched, not dented. <S> barely modifies modifiers which express the idea of state or condition . <S> If something is barely legible , it is very difficult to read because it is almost illegible. <S> You can make out the words on the page but only with considerable difficulty. <S> If something is barely audible , it is something you must strain to hear. <S> It is so quiet that you might not hear it if you were not listening for it. <S> When only modifies an adverbial modifier, the modified word expresses time . <S> The team was formed only recently . <S> barely formed , because of the meaning of formed , does not express mere recency. <S> It expresses the idea of a marginal degree of formedness. <S> The state of being formed has been only marginally attained. <S> The team has not really fully taken shape. <S> It is still in the process of taking shape, coming together, not yet acting fully as a team. <S> The team is just a little better organized than disorganized. <A> Please note the subtle difference in the two meanings of barely. <S> For one, it is used for emphasizing that something happened only a very short time before something else. <S> This meaning is quite close to your interpretation of ' only formed '. <S> In another sense, ' barely ' is also used for saying that something almost does not happen or exist, or is almost not possible. <S> This meaning is more synonymous with words like ' scarcely ', ' hardly ' and so on. <S> So, depending on which meaning of ' barely ' fits your context more appropriately, you can pick and choose. <S> If it's is the first one, you may (again, be cautious with your context) use it interchangeably with ' only '.
| The word barely is not synonymous with only in this context.
|
Is this sentence correct? "A lot of sugar have been added to the milk." Is this sentence correct? "A lot of sugar have been added to the milk."Please explain it. <Q> A lot of sugar have/has been added to the milk. <S> The quantificational noun "lot" is number-transparent, which means that the whole noun phrase takes on the number of the noun that is complement of the preposition "of", which in this case is the non-count "sugar". <S> Since non-count nouns like "sugar" take singular verb agreement it follows that the verb must be the singular "has". <A> No, sugar is an uncountable noun , and A lot does not quantify it, so it takes has : <S> A lot of sugar has been added to the milk. <S> However, if you quantify it, you may say: Two cups of sugar have been added to the milk. <A> Although I think that BillJ's answer is probably a correct way to look at this issue, it seems a little technical. <S> It's possible to look at this sentence another way and understand it with fairly basic, high-school level grammar. <S> The subject of this sentence is "a lot", which is singular. <S> Therefore, the verb should be "has". <S> A lot has been added to my milk. <S> " <S> Of sugar" is an adjectival prepositional phrase, modifying "a lot". <S> It's telling you what kind of lot has been added. <S> Using 'lot' in this sense is somewhat idiomatic, in that a 'lot' is an article or set of articles for sale at an auction. <S> ( MW ) <S> Although it's become so common to use it in this fashion that the idiomatic usage is probably more common than the original one. <S> It has this definition: a considerable quantity or extent <S> (MW) <S> So, A considerable quantity has been added to my milk. <S> What kind of considerable quantity? <S> A considerable quantity of sugar . <S> Regardless of how you look at it, you should use "has". <S> It's an informal usage anyway, so the exact technical details aren't that important. <A> You could use "have" with the countable word "sugars" or similarly "sugar crystals". <S> In the context of tea or coffee, you may ask for 3 sugars, where it is implied you are talking about specific units of quantity like cubes or packets.
| No, the verb should be the singular "has".
|
Word for "money contributed monthly by a group of people so that each month one collects the total sum" I don't know if this culture exists in English speaking countries, but in my country a group of people would contribute a set sum of money every month so that each one of the group receives the total sum of the group's contributions. This is some kind of a lending system to which people resort so they can use the money collected to get married or buy a car or similar things. Is there a word for this? <Q> This sounds like pooling to me. <S> Sometimes people can pool their resources. <S> M-W defines the word as: pool ( v. ) to combine (as resources) in a common pool or effort <S> whereas Cambridge defines this as: pool ( n. ) <S> a number of people or a quantity of a particular thing, such as money, collected together for shared use by several people or organizations: <S> Everybody puts some money into a common pool. <S> We need a reserve pool of cash, just to be on the safe side. <S> Note: In many English-speaking countries, this usage of pool often refers to a gambling pool, where people put money into a "pot" that the winner collects; such pools often are related to sporting events. <S> However, the word could also be used in the way you describe: <S> Let's all pool our money together so that there will be a fund to draw from when one of us has to plan a wedding or a funeral . <A> If I understand you correctly, this form of financial scheme is known as: rotating savings and credit association . <S> From Wikipedia : A rotating savings and credit association ( ROSCA ) is a group of individuals who agree to meet for a defined period in order to save and borrow together, a form of combined peer-to-peer banking and peer-to-peer lending. <S> F.J.A. Bouman described ROSCAs as "the poor man's bank, where money is not idle for long but changes hands rapidly, satisfying both consumption and production needs. <S> " They are also known as tandas (Latin America), partnerhand (West Indies), cundinas (Mexico), 'Hagbad (Somaliland)'susu (West Africa and the Caribbean), hui (Asia), Game'ya (Middle East), kye (계) <S> (頼母子講) (Japan), pandeiros (Brazil), juntas (Peru), or quiniela . <A> Examples: <S> Money pools: <S> a centuries-old savings tool reinvented Among the local resilience initiatives being taken <S> are green dollars, timebanks and now savings pools. <A> In India, I have heard this called a 'chit fund' and it is considered an example of a 'cooperative lending society'. <S> From Wikipedia quoting Indian legislation: A transaction ... under which a person enters into an agreement with a specified number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money (or a certain quantity of grain instead) by way of periodical installments over a definite period and that each such subscriber shall, in his turn, ... be entitled to the prize amount. <S> From the Oxford online dictionary , close to the above definition: <S> An institution which accepts savings at interest and lends money for house and other purchases <A> In South Africa, we call them Stokvels . <S> Technically not English, but it has become a common word for English speakers in SA. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokvel <A> I think you're talking about a susu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susu_(informal_loan_club) , and although I couldn't find that word in any English dictionaries, I can confirm that some people do just use that word in English, and some English speakers know what it means.
| The most common term for this sort of thing is savings pool or money pool . (South Korea), tanomosiko
|
What is the difference between she wrote and she was to write? This is the sentence: Clare Atkins was to write two more books about her experiences in Africa before her death in 1967. Did she write the books? Or did she intend to write them, but she died before she could write them? <Q> When referring to was to <S> you mean someone had the intention to do it, but for whatever reason failed to do so. <S> The 'before her death in 1967' indicates she had the intention to write the books <S> but she died before she could do so. <S> If you say wrote , it is a fact that someone has written something <S> and it has already happened. <A> In the sentence Clare Atkins was to write two more books about her experiences in Africa before her death in 1967. <S> was to write means that she intended or planned to write the books. <S> Also, the sentence alone does not help infer if she died without writing or not. <S> In literature, if she had completed the 2 books, the sentence would have been: Clare Atkins went on to write two more books about her experiences in Africa before her death in 1967. <S> This sentence would imply that she did indeed write the books. <S> Although the first sentence does point to her having planned to write the books and dying before having written them, it's not explicitly stated. <S> A supporting sentence in either direction can alter the meaning of the sentence. <S> For e.g.: Clare Atkins was to write two more books about her experiences in Africa before her death in 1967. <S> She did complete both the books, as planned. <S> Clare Atkins was to write two more books about her experiences in Africa before her death in 1967. <S> Unfortunately, she could not live to complete both the books. <A> It is also a way of saying "went on to write two more books". <S> The books were not merely planned, but completed. <S> At the time we are now speaking of (in our narrative), those two books were in her future. <S> An example . <S> And another .
| On the other hand, she wrote means that she completed the action or the plan.
|
What can be said about something that one has to get used to in order to start using it at its best? Here's a question (a part of a made-up conversation): "What unusually shaped guitar you were playing on at the concert! Did it take you long to get used to it?" My question: Would it be idiomatic to use "guitar" as the subject, answering: A new guitar always takes some time getting used to. Or A new guitar always takes some time to be gotten used to. Or In the phrase "to get used to something", should that something always be the object? It always takes (one) some time to get used to playing (on) a new guitar. What another alternative is there for me, if there is one, regarding the idea I'd wish to express using the above idiom? <Q> It is quite acceptable to use guitar, and you can use either the -ing or a to-infinitive <S> (I prefer the infinitive) <S> You can also use "it" (as a "weather it") <S> It takes some time to get used to a new guitar. <S> The passive form "be got/gotten used to" seems ugly, I wouldn't use it, but it is grammatically correct too <S> For example in a site about purchasing a mattress <S> they say "A new mattress takes time to get used to, so we recommend spending at least 30 nights sleeping on your mattress... <S> " So this structure is used by native speakers. <A> You could try the phrase "break [something] in" or "break in " <S> It means to use something until it is comfortable. <S> The changes could occur in the object itself, or the user. <S> Ex. <S> I just bought these new leather shoes. <S> It will take me a few months to break them in. <S> (Perhaps the shoes will become supple and adjust to their owners feet after months of use) <S> I'm going to break in my new mouse in this AI game before I head to a PvP game. <S> (The mouse itself likely does not undergo any changes but the user will become accustomed to using it) <S> Of course you can use guitar: <S> It always takes time to break a new guitar in. <A> to get used to is being used as a verb , and verbs act on objects . <S> get is an overused word in the English language, and in the case of get used to it takes the place of far more descriptive words, such as acclimate , accustom , acquaint , adapt , or adjust . <S> For example: A new guitar always takes some time to adapt to. <S> A new guitar always takes some time to adjust to. <S> and you adjust to something , <S> so you get used to something . <S> That something is always the object , because adapt , adjust , and to get used to are the verbs . <S> In spoken English, the immediate focus of the conversation usually determines how the sentence is constructed. <S> So if the focus is the guitar , it comes first in the sentence: <S> A new guitar always takes some time to get used to. <S> If the focus is more on the person , the person comes first: <S> He always takes some time to get used to a new guitar. <S> Sally always takes some time to get used to a new guitar. <S> If the focus is on the time it takes : <S> It always takes some time to get used to a new guitar. <S> Regardless of the structure, the guitar is the object because it is being adapted to , adjusted to , or gotten used to .
| A new guitar takes some time (to get/getting) used to. You adapt to something
|
Which one is true or better? With this sentence, I'm talking about an experience I never had: I've never had a motorcycle. or I never had a motorcycle. Two of them look correct, but I think there is a difference between them. Can you explain to me what the difference is between them if they are correct? <Q> You're looking at the difference between the simple past tense : <S> I never owned a motorcycle. <S> and the present perfect tense : I have never owned a motorcycle. <S> The simple past is explicitly limiting your statement to the past, implying quite clearly that "I never owned a motorcycle in the past". <S> There is no indication of the current state of affairs. <S> However, with the simple present tense you are including the present in your statement, saying in effect "in my lifetime, I have never owned a motorcycle." <A> "I never had a motorcycle" is used, most commonly, when you're talking about the past. <S> Example: <S> "I never had a motorcycle when I was younger." <A> The difference between: 'I've never had a motorcycle'. <S> and, 'I never had a motorcycle.' <S> has to do with the differences between spoken UK English and spoken US English as well as the difference between the simple past tense and the present perfect tense. <S> According to this source , Americans use the present perfect tense less than speakers of British English and a British teacher might mark wrong some things that an American teacher would say are correct. <S> As an Australian where UK English is the standard, I have often noticed this difference in action myself when I've watched films and television programmes from the USA in the past, as I am more familiar with hearing and speaking UK English- given that I live in Australia. <S> Such differences became more noticeable to me once I had begun teaching English to ESL students from China. <S> Some additional examples are given below from the same source : US <S> Did you do your homework yet? <S> Brit. <S> Have you done your homework yet? <S> US I already ate. <S> Brit. <S> I’ve already eaten. <S> In British English, ‘have got’ is often used for the possessive sense of ‘have’ and ‘have got to’ is informally used for ‘have to’. <S> This is much less common in American English. <S> Brit. <S> I’ve got two sisters. <S> US I have two sisters. <S> Brit. <S> I’ve got to go now. <S> US <S> I have to go now. <S> There are a number of other minor grammatical differences between US and UK English too.
| "I've never had a motorcycle before" is more commonly used in present terms, like when you're talking to someone.
|
How to understand the land distance when it is referred in “blocks”? How to understand the land distance when it is referred in “blocks”? Example sentence: I seldom travel more than a block or two by foot. I came across this word many times in books and in videos. However, I don’t know how I should understand it. I am from an Asia country. We don’t measure distance in “blocks”. And also, do you think non-native speakers of English shouldn’t use these types of words because these are jargons which should be avoided? <Q> A city block in this context is a pre-planned unit of buildings, normally rectangular, surrounded by roads on every side. <S> This is the US city of Phoenix. <S> It's built in the desert, so it has an extremely orderly structure. <S> You can see here the arrangement of the city in square or rectangular blocks - it's units like these that are the source of the informal distance measure. <S> The size of a block will vary from city to city, or between parts of a single city. <S> It often depends on what type of structures the block contains (a block containing individual houses will be narrower than one holding skyscrapers). <S> An average distance for a block could be considered something like 100 metres or so. <S> Other parts of the English speaking world do not have any equivalent of these city blocks. <S> For instance, this is Birmingham, a relatively new city in England: <S> As for whether a non-native should use informal terms like these, it certainly pays to be careful. <S> Make sure you thoroughly understand what the word you're using means in the context and culture you're in. <S> As you've seen, an American would understand what you meant by a "block", while a Brit would give you a strange look. <S> But don't stress it, either - most people are pretty decent about giving non-native speakers the benefit of the doubt. <A> If you're walking down a sidewalk along a particular street a "block" is just the distance along the sidewalk from one street to the next. <S> Using blocks is very typical when referring to distances in a city. <S> It obviously doesn't make sense in a rural setting. <S> Using the word block is fine for non-English speakers so long as you use it correctly. <S> But remember that "English" isn't a single language. <S> American English and British English are not exactly the same. <S> The word mismatches can lead to some bewildering conversations. <S> An English engineer was brought to the US to work on a project. <S> He asked a female sectary for a "rubber" The female turned red as a beet and left her desk to find a manager. <S> What he wanted is known as an eraser to Americans, whereas Americans think of "rubber" as being slang for a condom. <S> The English engineer wasn't trying to be funny or crude, he just made an cultural faux pas. <A> Just to add on to the above answers, which seem helpful regarding the meaning of block, English people do use expressions such as go for a walk "round the block" (around the area/nearby group of houses) <S> so would understand something like "he lives a few blocks from me"
| Block as a measure of distance is largely an American phenomenon, a result of America's famous grid-planned cities.
|
The usage of "Open" As I know, "Open" can be used as a Verb or an Adjective For example, we say I'm opening the door , but do we say The door is opening ? <Q> The door is open. <S> That is the state or condition of the door. <S> The door is opening. <S> The door is in the process of becoming open. <S> When the door is finished opening, it will then be open. <A> Yes, you are right, open can be either an adjective or a verb. <S> But that's not the issue, it's a matter of transitivity of the verb. <S> Open is an Ergative verb, it can be either transitive or intransitive depending on the context. <S> So that means, both sentences are correct, just the difference is <S> the latter doesn't answer <S> "Who opens the door?" <S> question. <S> And I agree with Willow Rex in his comment that he said it's particularly used if it's an automatic door. <A> The present participle is used like an adjective with an auxiliary verb ("is", in this case) to indicate its current status or activity. <S> And as user178049 points out, to open can be used either transitively or intransitively, so it's correct to say either I am opening <S> the door <S> (I am performing the action of making the door open) <S> The door is opening (the door is performing the action of becoming open)
| Yes, open can be a verb, and opening is the form of the verb called the present participle .
|
Usage of 'could' in the past and future tense Excerpt from Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice': "You could not make me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who would make you so." Form the context of the book it seems that here 'could' is being used in the future tense. I would like to know more about this kind of usage, as when I think of "You could not make me happy", it seems the usage is in the past tense. Also in the past tense we could have also used "You could not have made me happy." Please comment/elaborate about these two usage of 'could' in the past as well. Thank you <Q> It is not future: it is timeless. <S> "It is not possible for you to make me happy". <S> You can't necessarily tell which use is which just by the words: you need to take the whole context into account. <S> For example, suppose a divorced couple are discussing what went wrong with their marriage. <S> If one says "You could not make me happy", they would probably be referring to the actual past ("You were not able to make me happy"); though it still could be the timeless non-past as in this example. <A> Yes, could if often used this way. <S> "Could you please make me a cup of tea? <S> " I do not have tea. <S> I want tea. <S> Is it possible for the person I am asking to make me tea. <S> In the Austen example, Elizabeth is saying that in her opinion, Darcy is incapable of making her happy and that she is incapable (it is not possible) of making Darcy happy as well. <S> Could means is it possible? <S> from Google Dictionary: <S> could verb past of can used to indicate possibility <S> "they could be right" used in making polite requests <S> "could I use the phone?" <A> English can indeed get a little confusing when you start looking at all the different time <S> tenses you can imply in a sentence, depending on the grammar you employ. <S> I will use your example (future tense) sentence and re-write it to show differing tenses: <S> "You could not make me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who would make you so." <S> The use of 'could', 'would', or 'will be' all imply future tense. <S> The past tense version would be: <S> "You could not have made me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who could have made you so." <S> In this version, adding "have", "had" or "was" to 'could', or 'should' shifts the sentence into past tense. <S> The present tense version of the sentence would be: <S> "You can not make me happy, and I am convinced that I am the last woman in the world who can make you so." <S> "Can" may be used either as future or present tense, but using "is" or "am" almost always implies present tense. <S> One of the confusing things about these sentences is that her use of the words "I am convinced" actually sets that specific part of all of these example sentences into present tense; in other words she is convinced (in the present) that in the (past, present, or future, depending on the sentence version used) she (was, is, or will be) unhappy with him, and he with her.
| "Could" is historically the past of "can", and in some contexts has that meaning; but (like most or all of the past tenses of modals) it can also be used timelessly.
|
Things you have (eat or drink) while drinking alcohol Is there a word to describe things you eat or drink while consuming alcohol? We usually eat something like chips, cucumbers, olives etc while drinking especially with strong types of drinks like vodka (mostly because it makes it easier to drink) or when we'd like to take a while drinking and probably getting drunk at the end. Intending to have a wild drunk night, a couple of pals get together with a bottle of strong alcoholic drink in the woods. Joe takes out glasses and the bottle and says, OK Jack. What you waiting for? Go get the [ word ]. Come on! What is it?... Oh, You didn't forget to get the [ word ]. All you had to do was to drop by a supermarket and get some [ word ]. Or someone pour you some liquor. You drink a bit and say, Wow it's a bit strong! Have you got some [ word ]? Anything will do. <Q> I'm not sure we have a direct analog, for food <S> we only consume with alcohol, but the word Snacks would apply. <S> They mean small food items to be consumed, not as a meal. <S> Chips, cucumbers, and olives would definitely apply. <S> Serving a similar purpose, people frequently mix other liquids in with hard alcohol to make cocktails that taste better. <S> We would call those Mixers <S> And sometimes people have a drink on hand that they drink after consuming hard alcohol to get rid of the lingering taste, and that is what we would call a Chaser <A> In the U.S. (and Canada), appetizers, referring to anything served before a meal, is the most common term for hors d'oeuvres. <S> Light snacks served outside of the context of a meal are called hors d'oeuvres (with the English-language pluralization). <S> LINK <S> It doesn't have to be served with alcohol. <S> any of these can be used, including specifics. <S> We're having 'crawfish and beer', or 'wine and cheese'. <A> There is also a synonym for snacks , munchies , in AmE. Dude, don't tell me you forgot the munchies. <S> The word can also mean a sudden desire eat, as with the use of marijuana. <A> Consider drunk food . <S> It's more colloquial than a "real" definition, but I think it fits. <S> Here's a usage from an article ( 23 best drunk foods ): Drunk Food <S> Drunk food is what you [eat] ... <S> in the misguided hope that it’ll absorb whatever alcohol hasn’t yet made it into your blood stream. <S> (You can also, of course, eat the food during a night of drinkingSorry <S> there's not a more "official" source <S> , it's pretty colloquial (USA), but it may fit your use.) <A> In the UK, it depends how posh you are. <S> If you have a cook or use outside caterers , you will have them make canapes : <S> at a pinch, you could buy some ready-made from Marks and Spencer's . <S> Ordinary people have nibbles : a pack of peanuts, rice crackers or crisps bought from a supermarket and poured into a bowl. <A> No, there is no good English equivalent for закуска. <S> This is probably because the drinking culture in English-speaking countries is very different from that of Russia. <S> There is typically much less food involved. <A> To indicate alcohol consumption, consider adding modifiers like bar or party. <S> E.g. bar food or party appetizers. <S> Or specifically mention the alcohol. <S> OK Jack. <S> What you waiting for? <S> Go get the finger foods to go with the beer . <S> Come on! <S> What is it?... <S> Oh, You didn't forget to get the bar snacks . <S> All you had to do was to drop by a supermarket and get some party appetizers . <S> Finger foods describes the kind of foods you're discussing, which you eat with your fingers. <S> If someone said bar snacks to me, I'd be thinking of salted peanuts. <S> That's the thing that I've seen set out at a bar to encourage people to drink more. <S> Bar food would bring to mind a particularly greasy meal, e.g. chicken wings, fries, or nachos. <S> Party snacks would include things like chips. <S> Hors d'ouevres reads fancier to me <S> , e.g. stuffed olives, bacon-wrapped oysters, or canapes. <S> I'd expect hors d'ouevres to come from a caterer or a serious cook. <S> Wow it's a bit strong! <S> Have you got some finger foods ? <S> Anything will do. <S> Note that if you mean pickled cucumbers rather than sliced cucumbers, we'd usually just call those pickles. <S> When I hear cucumbers, I expect fresh cucumbers. <S> I mention that because I would think pickles would fit better as an alternative to olives or chips, which tend to be salty.
| Bar Food, appetizers, hors d'oeuvres, nibbles, snacks, finger foods, munchies, bar nuts -- Sliced cucumber or olives might make it as finger foods.
|
The minutes of the Stockholders Meeting "was" or "were"? What is the correct verb The minutes of the Stockholders Meeting was presented and discussed or The minutes of the Stockholders Meeting were presented and discussed Should it be was or were ? <Q> " The minutes of the Stockholders Meeting were presented and discussed" is the correct sentence. <S> The subject 'minutes ' is plural, and it should take a plural verb ( were ). <S> Minutes , also known as protocols or, informally, notes, are the instant written record of a meeting or hearing. <S> They typically describe the events of the meeting and may include a list of attendees, a statement of the issues considered by the participants, and related responses or decisions for the issues". <S> (from Wikipedia ) <S> minutes <S> plural noun : the written record of what was said at a meeting (from the Cambridge Dictionary ) <A> Trousers are always spoken as if plural. <S> INCORRECT: <S> I put on my gray trouser. <S> I have your trouser. <S> CORRECT: <S> I put on my gray trousers. <S> I have your trousers. <S> Unlike them, the minutes of a meeting are a list of events, whereas the report of the minutes of a meeting is a [singular report of a] list of events. <S> (e.g.) <S> The meeting was called to order at 9:03am. <S> The treasurer's reportwas reviewed by Treasurer Mnuchin. <S> Motion by Chao to accept the report. <S> Support by DeVos. <S> Approved. <S> Motion by Pence to accept the minutes of the August meeting. <S> Support by Pompeo. <S> Approved. <S> You can clarify by adding an object: <S> Attached are the minutes of the meeting. <S> Attached is a copy of the minutes of the meeting. <S> The minutes are in your mailbox. <S> The report of the minutes is in your mailbox. <A> However, when "minutes' is taken to mean as a single "report", it should take a singular verb. <S> Examples: <S> The Minutes of the previous meeting (Report) was approved and adopted by the group.
| The minutes/issues/topics of the previous meeting "were" discussed or deliberated upon by the members of the group. "Minutes"or "issues or topics" when understood and discussed individually at a meeting, is considered plural and therefore the term takes a plural verb.
|
Can adjectives modify a pronoun like "rich they", "poor you" and "beautiful I"? I want to modify a pronoun with adjectives like "rich he", "poor they" and "beautiful I". Can I do that? For example, can I say "I saw rich him driving a supercar", "Poor you can't buy foods enough", "Smart they graduated from a famous university"? <Q> A good question! <S> No, you can't (normally) put an adjective before a pronoun. <S> All of your examples sound incorrect and non-fluent. <S> But there is one way that you can correctly put an adjective in front of a pronoun: as an exclamation. <S> For example, Poor me! <S> or Lucky you! <S> which is like a way of saying "How unlucky I am! <S> " or "How lucky you are!" <A> There might be a possible use for it: if you use it as some kind of "alias" for different outcomes. <S> It's hard to explain, so I'll just present an example <S> : You find a suitcase full of money. <S> You can either take it and become rich, or take it to the police and stay poor. <S> "Rich you" could buy expensive things and live comfortably. <S> " <S> Poor you" would have peace of mind because he did the right thing. <S> It's not orthodox, but it isn't wrong either (as far as I know). <A> (Wrong) <S> I saw rich him driving a supercar. <S> If you have not referred to him before then you should use: <S> I saw a rich guy/person/friend/neighbour driving a supercar. <S> If you have referred to him before then you might consider: I saw him driving a supercar. <S> Such a rich guy! <S> The key is to identify what you want to focus on, and the order you wish to convey the information or your opinion. <S> (Wrong) <S> Poor you can't buy foods enough. <S> " <S> Foods enough" is incorrect and should be "enough food". <S> Probably what you want is: <S> You are poor and can't buy enough food. <S> If you want to emphasize the relation between the cause and consequence, you can use: You, being poor, can't buy enough food. <S> Or: <S> You, as a poor person, can't buy enough food. <S> But note that all three sound quite rude if you are really talking to a poor person. <S> And in a generic sentence only the first is suitable: <S> If you are poor and can't buy enough food, you can collect food stamps from the government. <S> (Wrong) <S> Smart they graduated from a famous university. <S> If you have previously referred to those smart people then use: <S> Those smart people graduated from a famous university. <S> If you are talking about them for the first time then use: <S> Some/Many smart people graduated from a famous university. <S> If you want to be implicitly link smartness to the fame of the university (possibly sarcastically) then use: They, smart people, graduated from a famous university. <A> Possible alternative sentences that use correct English grammar: <S> I saw a rich guy; he was driving a supercar. <S> There was a guy I saw; he must be rich because he was driving a supercar. <S> You are so poor you can't buy enough food. <S> They were smart; they graduated from a famous university. <S> You can replace any semicolon in the example sentences above with a period if you are willing to use multiple sentences rather than just one. <A> One of the ways you can do this is in the exclamation, "Poor you!"But be aware that this means "you are unfortunate," not "you have little money." <S> You could stretch this even further and use "poor you" as the subject of the sentence, "Poor you can't buy enough food. <S> "But <S> this is only suitable for informal writing or speech, and it is not easy to know when you can get away with using such an expression. <S> As a general rule, I would advise you not to try, at least until you have a much better ear for the language. <S> Moreover, the sentence does not mean what you thought it meant: its meaning is close to the more formal sentence, "You are unfortunate because you can't buy enough food." <S> The opposite of "poor you" is "lucky you," not "rich you."
| As already noted, there are a few very limited circumstances in which you can modify a pronoun with an adjective.
|
What does "deadly" mean in the phrase "deadly secrets"? In this audio file , at 0:55, what does deadly mean? Causing or likely to cause death Complete The textbook says 1, but I think 2 is correct. Source: The ILI English Series, Intermediate 1, Student's book, Page 101 <Q> It's 1. <S> You can have a 'deadly silence' meaning 'complete silence', and there are phrases such as 'dead ahead', 'dead stop', 'dead on time' that mean completely/exactly <S> /totally, but 'deadly' and 'completely' are not, in general, synonyms. <A> The word <S> deadly in the phrase <S> deadly secrets is often used figuratively, not literally, to mean a secret which would bring about someone's downfall if it were revealed. <S> It would be a fatal blow to their reputation. <S> It can also be used to refer to something that threatens health over the long term. <S> An article in a health magazine might be entitled The Seven Deadly Secrets of Fast Food <S> It can also be used literally, to mean "fatal". <S> He received a deadly wound. <A> IMO, deadly in 'deadly secrets' stands as life taking. <S> Deadly secrets <S> : The secrets which can be fatal/cause death of person who come to know about it. <S> And about the options you gave, I'll choose 1. <S> I agree that, This again is dependent on usage of this phrase in sentence.
| A 'deadly secret' is one which if learned by the wrong people would lead to someone's death.
|
Can you "carry a child" in your womb? Can I use "carry a child" to replace "carry a pregnancy"? Are there any single-word verbs I can use in this sense? Surrogacy is an arrangement or agreement whereby a woman agrees to carry a pregnancy for another person or persons, who will become the newborn child's parent(s) after birth. <Q> You would not normally use the term "carry a pregnancy" in everyday English. <S> It is very common to hear the phrase " to carry a child " or " to carry child ". <S> The example you cited appears to be a technical definition that uses the more formal medical language "to carry a pregnancy", but again you would generally not use this phrase in everyday writing or speech. <S> Other common ways of referring to a pregnancy: to be expecting <S> (She is expecting.) <S> to be pregnant <S> (She is pregnant.) <S> to be with child <S> (She is with child.) <A> Simply, yes. <A> For a single word verb with the same meaning, you can use gestate . <S> From Collins Dictionaries: (transitive) to carry (developing young) in the uterus during pregnancy <S> ‘How incredible would it be to gestate a baby and spawn it? . <S> Times, Sunday Times (2013)’ <S> I should point out that this is a technical-sounding term. <S> In casual conversation it will usually sound tongue-in-cheek, like the example above. <S> This joking sort of usage is how I've mostly used it ("I can't do the dishes, honey <S> , I'm too exhausted from gestating all day"). <S> It would fit in your academic-sounding example, though: <S> Surrogacy is an arrangement or agreement whereby a woman agrees to gestate (a[n] embryo/fetus/baby/child) for another person or persons, who will become the newborn child's parent(s) after birth.
| It is common to say "carry a child" as a euphemism for being pregnant.
|
Are these sentences grammatically and logically correct by using "miss not doing something"？ I came across this sentence today, I’m the oldest child in my family and have missed not having an older sibling to lean on. I don't think the sentence is right,because miss is mostly a transitive verb which means not be able to catch, have or experience something. So it would be conflicting in meaning if somebody "misses""not doing something". That is, the writer actually has an older sibling. However,that would be impossible. I tried to google and found some more sentences like, I missed not having my parents full attention... Another time I may have missed not having a full kitchen and dishwasher. ... I'm really confused. Could anybody help? <Q> Your understanding of the word miss is incorrect. <S> I have never seen it mean not to be able to . <S> In this instance it means emotionally <S> notice the loss or absence of . <S> So the phrase, have missed not having an older sibling , means you really would have liked to have an older sibling, and you feel that absence. <A> The phrase not having... has nominal weight, so to speak, and thus can serve as the object of transitive missed . <S> The negation does not eliminate the nominal (noun-like) force of <S> the -ing form of the verb, although it makes this sentence somewhat strange. <S> He missed sharing time with her. <S> She missed chatting with her sister. <S> P.S. <S> The speaker could have said I missed having an older sibling. <S> but without "I was the oldest child" to make the context clear, that statement could imply that the speaker at one time did have an older sibling. <S> I missed having an older sibling to confide in, after my brother went off to university. <A> Usually, the verb miss means to fail to do, have, catch, hit, notice, etc. <S> Sometinmes, it's used to mean to regret or feel sorry. <S> So the phrase "miss not having" means "regret not having". <S> The phrase is an ambiguous phrase. <S> So "have missed not having an older sibling" may mean: You haven't failed to have an older sibling. <S> you have regretted not having an older sibling. <S> The phrase is rarely used because of its ambiguity.
| The speaker is using missed idiosyncratically to mean "felt the sense of lack or loss that results from {the absence of that which is missed}".
|
"I've not" vs. "I haven't" — is one preferred? I sometimes see teens type: I've not... Instead of typing: I haven't... What can you say about it? <Q> Both are correct, just the difference in emphasis. <S> If you want to emphasize the negative, don't contract not and vice versa. <A> In the USA, I would say that "I haven't" is far more commonly heard. <S> The use of "I've not" sounds a bit more proper and old-fashioned. <A> They are equal. <S> Neither is preferable. <S> It is your choice, depending on which you like. <S> A professional, like a speechwriter, might have a stronger preference based on more complex criteria, but for most people, there is no difference. <S> If you are feeling particularly bold, you might try I'ven't <S> Which is a contraction of "I have not". <S> That one isn't "accepted", but most native speakers will understand the meaning, and some accents pronounce "I have not" close to "I've'nt".
| As has been already stated, they are both contractions of "I have not," and neither is incorrect.
|
Why does "Do you think your shit don't stink?" idiom use "don't" for uncountable noun? Ok, shit is an uncountable noun . But in this idiom , people use " don't " for " shit " Ex: Do you think your shit don't stink? Can we say " Do you think your shit doesn't stink? " or we have to say " Do you think your shit don't stink? " <Q> This lack of number agreement is a common feature of regional dialects; it is usually "corrected" during elementary school, where accepted standards are taught. <S> An adult who speaks this way is typically someone who has not had much schooling or who did poorly in school, or an educated person who is deliberately using patois . <A> It's just a vulgar slang, so the grammar doesn't matter. <S> We actually have another version with the correct grammar and it has its place in Dictionary.com <A> Even though it is slang, the proper phrase uses "doesn't." <S> Using "don't" with singular nouns is just a common usage mostly among younger people. <S> It is not grammatically correct. <S> However, it is slang and shouldn't be used in formal communications. <A> You can say "Do you think your shit doesn't stink?", and it is grammatically correct, but it won't have the same effect. <S> "Do you think your shit don't stink?" is an African American Vernacular English (AAVE, also known as Ebonics) phrase. <S> AAVE verb conjugation doesn't need number agreement for present tense .Verb <S> conjugation doesn't use the Standard English third person singular form, except for the verb "to be" . <S> So, "shit doesn't stink" is correct in Standard English, but in AAVE, "shit don't stink" is correct.
| To clarify, using "don't" in place of "doesn't" is very popular, at least in the US and mostly in spoken as opposed to written language.
|
I will do talking vs. I will talking In the first episode of Big Bang Theory Leonard says "I will do talking". But as a learner i could not understand what is the difference between "talking" and "do talking". Thanks in advance. <Q> There are a few grammatical errors in the question, but I think what you're asking is the difference between "I will talk" and "I will do the talking". <S> The desire is to control the message; make sure the right things are said in the right way <S> and nobody says something contradictory. <S> "The talking" refers to that inevitable speaking. <S> So, "I will do the talking <S> " means I'll be the one, and the only one, responsible for doing it. <S> I will talk <S> could be used in a number of different ways, generally to inject order into a discussion or indicate a willingness to talk. <S> For example: It provides some order to the conversation so only one person is trying to talk at a time. <S> It announces that I'll talk next. <S> It can be an "ice breaker". <S> You have a bunch of people in a setting, supposedly there to talk about something but nobody wants to go first. <S> So one person volunteers to go first and says, "I will talk". <S> It could indicate willingness to "cooperate". <S> For example, the police have a suspect and pressure them to confess or give up details about the crime. <S> The perpetrator would signal agreement to do that with "I will talk" (i.e., about the crime). <A> First of all I'll just assume that you mean: <S> I'll do the talking. <S> The person saying this usually wants the other person/people to stay silent in a subsequent conversation/interaction. <S> Ex. <S> Rob and Chad are smoking marijuana when they hear a knock at the door. <S> Chad: <S> Oh fuck, its the cops. <S> Rob: <S> Jesus, calm your tits, Chad. <S> Chad <S> : I have a college scholarship, dude. <S> I can't get this on my record. <S> Rob: <S> Just sit down. <S> I'll do the talking. <S> In the upcoming conversation with the police at the door, Rob indicates to Chad that he will take the lead in the conversation and only expects that Chad stays silent. <A> I'll do talking. <S> I'll talking. <S> Both of them are ungrammatical. <S> Regarding the former, the correct phrase is "do (all) <S> the talking", not "do talking". <S> According to McMillan, when somebody do the talking, they deal with a difficult situation by talking or explaining things. <S> For example: When we get in to see him, you'd better let me do the talking. <S> As for the latter, the 'will' is a modal verb; it's always followed by an infinitive without to. <S> For example: I'll talk.
| I will do the talking (as Khan indicates, meaning I will do all the talking), applies to a situation in which a group of people are in a setting where speaking to someone in authority will likely be inevitable, but saying the wrong thing could cause a problem.
|
Flee from vs flee Look at the following sentences. Many people fled the city to escape the fighting. Refugees fled from the city. They fled the country in 1987. The family fled from Nazi Germany to Britain in 1936. I am puzzled by the term flee . As you can see that sometimes flee is followed by no preposition whereas sometimes it is followed by a preposition as above. How to know that it will and will not be followed by a preposition? Kindly elaborate it. <Q> flee implicitly means to move away from something , moving "away" is implied. <S> fled the city fled from the city have the same meaning, from is not necessary and some might consider it redundant, but both are correct. <S> However, in the case of fled to the city <S> the preposition to must be there to mean movement "towards", otherwise it will have the the opposite meaning as in the first sentence. <A> You use the intransitive form ( flee from ) when it means to run away from a place or situation of danger, like the last sentence . . . fled from Nazi Germany. . . <S> You use the transitive form ( flee + object ) when it means to run away from someone or something, like the third sentence . . . fled the country . <S> . . <S> More examples are here <A> Flee can be a transitive or an intransitive verb. <S> As an intransitive verb the meaning is to run away, and it can be followed by many different prepositions: They fled from the city. <S> They fled to the city (from somewhere else). <S> They fled at night. <S> They fled on foot. <S> They fled by car. <S> They fled over the mountains. <S> They fled northwards. <S> etc. <S> They fled the country. <S> They fled the fighting. <S> etc. <S> So "flee + noun" and "flee from + noun" are both correct, and have the same meaning. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/flee
| As a transitive verb, the meaning is to run away from + [object], without a preposition: for example They fled the city.
|
Should I use "on", "into", or "onto" in the following sentence? I bite the gingerbread man and his head rolls on/into/onto my tongue. What the correct preposition? I'm a little confused. <Q> into is not appropriate because we normally only use it when something goes inside something else or is pressed firmly against a surface, possibly changing the shape of the surface. <S> For your sentence, into would be OK if you were to say: I bite the gingerbread man and his head rolls into my mouth. <S> We use onto only when something makes contact with something. <S> For most verbs, it is sufficient to use on even when something makes contact with something. <S> In the following examples, we could use onto , but the verb makes it clear that the books and the plate are making contact, so on is sufficient: Put the books on the table <S> The plate fell on the floor. <S> With roll (and move ), the situation is different. <S> In the following sentence, the ball could already be on the floor and be rolling along the surface, or it could have rolled off something else and made contact with the floor. <S> The ball rolled on the floor <S> If we want to make it clear that the ball was somewhere else, then it rolled and made contact with the floor, we would use onto : <S> The ball rolled [from the table] onto the floor. <S> If, on the other hand, we wanted to indicate that the ball were already on the floor, we would use on . <S> This NGram shows that on is more widely used than onto but onto is becoming increasingly common. <S> If you look at some of the individual instances of each phrase in the past 20 years, you will see a clear distinction in meaning, as described above, between rolled on the floor and rolled onto the floor . <S> With the head of the cookie, the only one that really works in this situation, where the head rolls and makes contact with the tongue, is: <S> I bite the gingerbread man and his head rolls onto my tongue. <A> "Onto", but I'm curious if this is something you would say in any language, since when you bite a cookie the piece you bite off <S> wouldn't really roll anywhere inside your mouth. <S> Instead it kind of just lays there until you chew it up. <S> A more natural way to say something like: <S> I bite off the head of the gingerbread man and let it rest on my tongue. <A> I can see why a learner might think into would be a good candidate. <S> Here’s one dictionary definition (from NOAD): into ( prep. ) expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something makes physical contact with something else : he crashed into a parked car <S> However, in this case, the example usage provided by the dictionary gives a good indication of the context how this is usage is typically seen – with some kind of forceful contact. <S> You often see this in the context of sports: a race car may slam into the wall, a rugby player may crash into a ball carrier. <S> Similarly, American Heritage lists this definition: into ( prep. ) <S> Against: crashed into a tree . <S> In the case of a gingerbread man being eaten and the head rolling into the mouth, there is simply not enough force for into be the right choice. <S> That said, something like this would be fine: <S> I pressed the gingerbread man’s head into my tongue and took a bite. <S> because press implies more force than rolls . <S> In your sentence, I think onto is the best choice: <S> I bite the gingerbread man and his head rolls onto my tongue. <S> because onto can be used when something moves to a location on the surface of something. <S> One other note, into is appropriate when something goes to an enclosed area (into the room, into the cave, for example). <S> So, into would be appropriate if you changed tongue to mouth : <S> I bite the gingerbread man and his head rolls into my mouth.
| We use on when something is in contact with something or makes contact with it.
|
You have gone through - you have been going through Is there a difference in meaning between the following two sentences? I can't even imagine what you have gone through. I can't even imagine what you have been going through. <Q> There is a subtle difference in the implications of these statements. <S> I can't even imagine what you have gone through. <S> I can't even imagine what you have been going through. <S> This statement implies that the person is still in a state of suffering. <S> Their sufferings are not fully over by now. <A> user3382203 is giving far too much benefit to a doubt that doesn't really exist, so stick with @Sven Yargs explanation. <S> On the simplest level, you might say "I can't even imagine what you have gone through" to someone who has just returned from a trip to hell, but you might say "I can't even imagine what you have been going through" to someone who is till there <S> I can't even imagine what you have gone through necessarily implies that 'what you have gone through' ended in the past. <S> I can't even imagine what you have been going through necessarily implies that 'what you have been going through' has not yet ended. <A> The present perfect (simple), in sentence 1, is often (not always!) <S> used to express a recently completed action whose effect is still felt in the present. <S> The present perfect continuous , in sentence 2, is normally used in situations where the action (e.g. go through ) began sometime in the past but continues to the present. <S> Thus the person in the first example, “... <S> you have gone through ”, is likely to be still reeling from the after-effects of a traumatic situation, episode or period in their life. <S> Without further context, we cannot know for certain if that negative experience is over, but it seems very likely. <S> In the second example, “... you have been going through ”, the person is in the full throes of a traumatic episode or period in their life. <S> That negative experience is not over.
| This statement implies that the person has suffered a lot in their recent past and somewhat their sufferings have subsided by now.
|
What does "placed in one's trust or belonging to one's employer" mean? Embezzlement: theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one's trust or belonging to one's employer I do understand "theft... funds", but from "placed in..." I do not understand what it means. Can someone explain it? <Q> Suppose I live in a remote village with poor communication infrastructure, so making phone calls, sending emails, etc. is not easy. <S> I want to send my young child to a good school in a far-off city. <S> I am not able to travel myself, but someone I know offers to take my child there for me. <S> I give this person enough money to cover the child's fees and other expenses for the whole school year, and he leaves for the city, taking my child along. <S> When they reach the school, the friend gets the child enrolled in the school, arranges boarding, etc. <S> But he tells the school authorities that I have given him enough money to cover the fees and expenses for only the first term, and that I will send the money for the rest of the year some time later. <S> The school has no way to verify this and my child is too young to understand matters around money. <S> So the school gets only half the money I sent, and the person with whom I had left the money in trust has just embezzled the other half. <S> Strictly speaking, embezzlement is a bit more legal and formal than that. <S> It would involve not just that I handed over the money to this person, but that there was a signed contract to the effect that this person is holding my money in trust for my child. <S> The idea is: A person has formalized, legal access to money which is somebody else's: an employer's; a client's; a business partner's; a friend's. <S> That money is supposed to be used for a particular purpose and this person is not supposed to use it for any other purpose <S> This person is entrusted with the money with the clear understanding and legal agreement that it will be used only for the specific purpose <S> The person betrays that trust, misappropriates the money, and secretly diverts it to another use. <S> That's embezzlement. <S> It doesn't matter what the other use is: maybe the money is donated to charity; maybe the money is temporarily "borrowed" with the intention of replacing it as soon as possible, before anybody notices it is gone; maybe the money just disappears into that person's pocket. <S> Whatever the circumstances and motives, such a misuse of funds is embezzlement. <S> Hope that makes it clearer! <A> If I "place something in your trust", it means I give you something (usually something of value) which you are trusted to keep for me until I want it back. <S> In the case of a banker or financial manager, I " place (some amount of money) in their trust " with an expectation that they will not only keep it safe, but also invest the money so that it grows over time. <S> I also trust that they will not take any of the return on investment for themselves. <S> Of course my banker or financial manager gets paid in some way, through fees and/or a percentage of the investment, but always something previously agreed to. <S> The trusted person can be anyone with access to the money. <A> "Trust" is a concept. <S> For somebody to place something in your trust (entrust it to you) <S> means you now have power over it <S> and they are trusting you to be honest, and act according to the person's expectations (and any rules that might exist). <A> Assume you were treasurer of a chess club. <S> The club has annual membership dues, plus it makes money from a periodic chess tournament they hold, and maybe other activities during the year. <S> Then you decide to use some of that money, belonging to the chess club, for your own purpose. <S> Even if you plan to pay it back, it is a crime called embezzlement . <S> My company used to entrust a small amount of cash to a secretary for miscellaneous expenditures. <S> Perhaps an employee needs to get a passport quickly, or your company is about to have international guests and someone needs to go purchase some sodas, teas, and coffees for them. <S> If the secretary used any of that money for her own unauthorized use, that is again embezzlement.
| Embezzlement is the crime where a trusted person instead takes some of the money, without my knowledge or agreement.
|
Difference between "pardoned" and "forgiven" What is the difference between words "pardoned" and "forgiven"? For instance: After ten years in prison, Stephen was {pardoned/forgiven} and set free. I found the definitions of both: Pardoned - forgive or excuse (a person, error, or offense). Forgiven - stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake. And to conclude from definitions I would say that "forgiven" encompasses "pardoned", but I am not sure about that. So how can one decide where to use pardoned or forgiven ? <Q> If I am pardoned , I am no longer subject to the consequences of having been found guilty (e.g. of a crime). <S> If I am forgiven , I am no longer the cause of negative emotions in the one who forgave me. <S> You can say that pardoning is generally related to a change in punishment or consequences, while forgiving is generally related to a change in feelings or perspective. <S> There is some overlap between the two words, though. <A> It depends on the context. <S> Pardon has multiple meanings, one of which is to "forgive" or "excuse". <S> This is the definition used in simple expressions like "pardon me", or "I beg your pardon." <S> Another more formal definition of "pardon" is to be legally forgiven for some kind of crime by an official state agency. <S> Usually a pardon is only issued after the person has been convicted of the crime. <S> An official pardon means that the person pardoned is (eventually) cleared of any record of the criminal charge. <S> Today, pardons are granted in many countries when individuals have demonstrated that they have fulfilled their debt to society, or are otherwise considered to be deserving. <S> More info Forgiveness is more generic. <S> It's more often used to describe a personal decision to excuse someone for some kind of offense. <S> As previously mentioned, you can also "pardon" them for that offense, but outside of certain "set" phrases, this use is not common in modern English. <A> pardoned has more of a legal meaning to be pardoned for a crime <S> whereas <S> forgiven has more of a moral meaning <S> The shooter in North Carolina was forgiven by the families of the victims, but was not legally pardoned and still faces time in jail. <A> "Forgiven" probably doesn't fit very naturally into this sentence regardless of what you mean. "Forgive" isn't a word that's typically applied to courts, governments, the legal system, etc. <S> The thing that determines what word fits best here depends on why the prisoner was released. <S> If the prisoner has received a legal pardon as Andrew explains , then "pardon" is the word you should choose. <S> Native speakers will assume you intend to use the legal definition. <S> If the prisoner was originally sentenced to 10 years in prison and that sentence is now complete, then the prisoner just completed their sentence. <S> This isn't typically thought of as any kind of "forgiveness"; the person received a just punishment (assuming they were actually guilty). <S> You can say, "After ten years in prison, Stephen completed his sentence." <S> There are some other possibilities for why the prisoner was released. <S> For example, maybe the sentence was reduced to 10 years. <S> Example reasons: <S> The prisoner won an appeal and the conviction was overturned. <S> The sentence was reduced for good behavior or community service or similar reasons. <S> "Forgiven" doesn't do a good job describing these or other reasons that aren't coming to mind, either. <S> It would be better to find terms specific to those situations. <S> If your intention is to say that someone personally forgave the prisoner, then that's not a very natural way of organizing the sentence. <S> Consider a separate clause or sentence. <S> For example: After ten years in prison, Stephen was set free; the victim forgave him. <S> This is very unspecific about the reason the prisoner was released. <S> Being unspecific is fine if you don't intend to convey any specifics. <A> Others have mentioned legal/emotional aspects, but I think there's some missing points that are important for someone learning the language. <S> "all is forgiven" is correct but not "all is pardoned" "pardon me, I must go to the loo" is correct but not "forgive me, I must go to the loo". <S> "forgive me for I have sinned" is correct, but "pardon me <S> but I have sinned" means something entirely different (and sounds funny to an English speaker). <S> Pardon is the act of expunging (erasing) a transgression - whereas forgiving neither implies erasing nor really transgressions necessarily. <S> Another saying that is common is "Forgive but don't forget". <S> I would argue that given the above nuance of pardon meaning make as though the transgression didn't happen, one could say that this statement literally means "forgive but don't pardon" (even though you wouldn't really say that in english). <S> Without getting too theological, "forgive me for I have sinned" is a good one to look at because the idea is that God doesn't pardon you, he just accepts your flaws but forgives you anyways. <S> The two words are very clearly expressing something different.
| A pardon can be issued for various reasons, not always because the person is innocent: A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if never convicted.
|
A word for 'being secretly watched' by someone. Let's say I daily offer water to one specific holy plant. One day i'm in a converstion with my new neighbour for the first time ever since he came(after many months). ME: I'm quite religious. HE: Yeah, I've seen you offer water daily to that plant. ME: Really? I didn't know I was 'being secretly watched.' I'd like to replace 'secretly watched' with another one word that can imply the same meaning. It could be of any form. Please feel free to re-phrase my line, if needed. I feel like there is a one word for that. I'd appreciate any help. <Q> The standard answer would be <S> I didn't know I was ' being spied on / upon. ' <S> for something not as accusatory, one might ask Have you been spying on me? <S> with a smile. <A> Another would be that you were surveilled <S> (surveillance: close watch kept over someone or something (as by a detective) ) <A> I didn't realize I was being watched. <S> is idiomatic, as you have it in the title to your question. <S> If you want to introduce an element of mischief ("I'd like to playfully tell the guy that I didn't know I was a victim of his furtive glances... <S> I was kind of hoping for a word which has a playful and mischevious tone to it") <S> I didn't know you were looking me over . <S> I'm not sure the plant likes to be ogled . <S> It is a holy plant, after all.
| As user178049 suggested, spied on (spy: To watch or observe secretly )
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.