source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Questions about plurale tantum nouns Which question should be asked about one pair of trousers as a plurale tantum noun denoting the single object (with two trouser legs although)? What's this? (They're trousers.) or What are these? (They're trousers.) I sometimes give English lessons and try to find a better approach to explaining the rules. Imagine a situation when a child is given a picture of trousers. The child sees one thing consisting of two parts. And I know that "trousers" is a plural noun. Which question am I supposed to ask? <Q> You can ask 'What is this/that?' <S> in case you just see something packed and can't guess what it is exactly besides being an item of clothing. <S> If you see that it is definitely a pair of trousers or simply trousers, there's no need asking what this is or they are. <S> But in case you want, for example, to find out who the trousers belong to, the question should be: <S> Whose (trousers) are they? <A> The word trousers takes the plural verb and is referred to with plural pronouns. <S> I wear these trousers to church on Sunday. <S> My trousers are torn. <S> My trousers are made of khaki. <S> The trousers of a dress suit are often made of lightweight wool. <S> What are they, the ones with a stripe down the side? <S> --They are the trousers I wear in the marching band. <A> What is this? <S> This is a pair of trousers. <S> The answer "they are trousers" would be given in reply to "what are they?", but a person is unlikely to asks this in regard to a pair of trousers, because they are perceived as a single object. <S> Thus if you ask someone "what are they?" <S> and point to a single pair of trousers <S> , I don't think he/ <S> she will answer "they are trousers".
| A single pair of trousers is unlikely to be referred to as "they".
|
I don't want someone who is lonely. So what do I want? Here are some antonyms for lonely : populatedsociablebefriendedclosefrequentedinhabitedlovedunlonely Basically, by lonely I mean someone who feels lonely even in a crowd. Such people are usually depressed. They feel happy if anyone gives them some positive attention. These people want a man in their life and they actively seek mates. Whereas a person who is comfortable in her own skin won't have to go on looking elsewhere for attention and love since they are enough for themselves. What should I say when I have to say I want someone who is ....? <Q> It's hard to capture everything you want to say with a single word, but here is one suggestion: self-confident ( adj. ) <S> showing poise and confidence in your own worth <S> You might be able to pinpoint what you're trying to say even more closely by pairing that with another adjective: <S> affable ( adj. ) <S> easy and pleasant to speak to; approachable, courteous, sociable; receiving others kindly and conversing with them in a free and friendly manner. <A> Now that I read your added description ...won't have to go on looking elsewhere for attention and love since they are enough for themselves <S> I'd suggest a person who has a strong sense of self-esteem . <S> Self-esteem is what the world desperately needs since many problems starts when people don't see themselves as <S> worthy e.i. <S> they don't love themselves. <S> However, I find it rather hard to put this psychological concept in an adjective, self-sufficient which means emotionally independent and self respectful <S> which basically means having self-esteem could be the candidates. <S> Again as previously I mentioned in my comment, if you mean a person who's happy <S> and you can have fun with cheerful <S> is a good choice of word. <A> In dating speak, it's sociable <S> In corporate speak, it's a people person <S> It's basically a person who is comfortable interacting with people and possibly crowds. <S> Not necessarily an extrovert , but definitely not an introvert .
| I think one who is seeking an "unlonely" person is looking for someone who is both self-confident and affable .
|
How to improve in writing? My comprehension abilities are fairly good. I've been on the internet for quite a while now, I can safely say. I've come across countless of interesting threads from sites like Quora, Reddit, or here. I've also encountered many users who are really good in their English, judging from how they present their opinions or questions. This is one of the examples (first answer by Ben Kovitz or the question by Canada Area 51 Proposal, they display abilities of good writing) How to overcome sequences of negative words which still cripple my comprehension? In general, I can grasp what they're trying to say. But, when in comes to writing, I just can't. I have many ideas, in fact, great ideas. But, the problem is that I can't put them all in sentences and paragraphs coherently, let alone writing good essays. I would like to write very naturally and fluently like how people on the internet do. <Q> Oh, goodness. <S> English is my mother tongue. <S> I comprehend it very well and write it fairly well, too. <S> I also understand French pretty well. <S> When I'm writing English, I ask myself questions like, "What is the best way to say this, out of many options? <S> " When I'm trying to write French, my questions are more along the lines of, "Do I know any way of saying this, or if I know of more than one, do I even know, for certain, which one is better? <S> " <S> The difference is that I have read thousands of books in English and have spoken it almost every day of my life. <S> I think if you get to the point where you feel like you have many options about exactly how you want to say something in English, and you can understand the nuances between your many options, you will probably also be at a point where you can answer your own question. <A> I'd suggest keeping your sentences simple. <S> Do not worry about adding any unnecessary words (fantastic, gorgeous, weighty), unless that is why you are commenting. <S> ("Did you enjoy the scenery?" <S> "Yes, the waterfalls were gorgeous there.") <S> Precise language is always good. <S> If you know the word hemoglobin <S> and you are among others that do, saying red blood cells makes no sense and not only because it is not accurate. <S> The other things to try are: Keep reading. <S> The more you read, the more you can understand why another writer might have chosen to 'put it that way'. <S> Keep writing. <S> I'd suggest you start by editing your question. <S> There are at least two areas that could use improvement, and yes, I understood you perfectly. <S> One of the best pieces of advice came to me via my author husband, who was told by the great Asimov -- to 'just write it'. <S> Asimov was a master crafter in simple, straightforward language and simply 'telling the story'. <S> You could also try book reporting. <S> You read something and write about the story. <S> Your exercise might be 500 words or 2000, that is up to you. <S> This is an exercise and not for publishing. <S> There is a Writer's Stack Exchange. <S> I tried but did not find them particularly helpful, but you might. <S> You need to find a group that works for you. <A> To write well requires re-writing. <S> And then you revise, perhaps several times, until it says what you finally want to say exactly, grammatically, and persuasively. <S> Your example of a good answer is well chosen, but it was not dashed off in a few minutes. <S> Writing well is work, often satisfying, but requiring time, patience, and concentration. <S> One habit I have found useful is to take a break after I think I have a final draft and then, after a delay, do one more re-write. <S> How long a delay? <S> If it is a fairly casual email, time enough to go downstairs to get a fresh cup of coffee. <S> If it is a complex and important document not due today, the next morning.
| First, you write or sketch what you initially think you want to say. There are tons of sites that explain exercises and truthfully, the more you exercise anything, the better likely you are to improve.
|
To use "have" or "had" in this situation? I have watched 6 episodes of Kuzu no Honkai. Since from the time I was born up until now I write this sentence, I have watched 6 episodes of Kuzu no Honkai, so it uses "have". I had watched 6 episodes of Kuzu no Honkai. Since the action "watch" was done in the past and I didn't repeatedly watch from time to time, it uses "had". Which sentence is more natural and intuitive? <Q> It's not actually a matter of "natural"-ness. <S> In this case - assuming you're not stating there's a change in this number - the correct answer is "have". <S> I have watched 6 episodes of Kuzu no Honkai . <S> This is current information, so it's present tense. <S> "Had" in this sentence implies that it is no longer the case so it would be used in a situation like: <S> I had watched 6 episodes of Kuzu <S> no Nonkai until yesterday... <S> but then I had a binge-watching session and completed the series. <S> So, now you've watched all of the episodes, which is why you use the past tense. <S> Similarly, if you had a friend over to watch the show with you, you might have a conversation like: <S> Friend: Before today, how many episodes of Kuzu no Nonkai had you watched? <S> You: I had watched 6 episodes. <S> Again, you use the past tense because this information is no longer current. <A> If you only want to say that you watched them, then use: "have watched". <S> I have watched 6 episodes of Kuzu no Honkai. <S> But if you want to talk about something that happened after you watched them, then use "had watched" when talking about the episodes. <S> When the doorbell rang, I had watched 6 episodes of Kuzu no Honkai. <S> Usage Rule: <S> "Have watched" means it happened before now . <A> You will use "have" unless at some specific point this situation ended. <S> I have watched six episodes of Dirty Jobs. <S> or I had watched six episodes of Fear Factor before I decided the bug challenges were too much for me.
| "Had watched" means it happened before a certain point in time (which is either mentioned outright or is implied).
|
"Two to two" for time point Is "two to two" a correct way to say "13:58" or "01:58" for time? <Q> So there's a few thoughts I have about this. <S> I'll address them separately. <S> In general this format is fine. <S> It is understandable and idiomatic, but is it the best way to convey an answer? <S> "Two to two" is the same sound three times in a row. <S> An alternative to "to" here, would be "until", commonly abbreviated in casual speech as "'til". <S> "Two 'til two" makes it slightly more understandable (to me at least, this could be a regional preference in the SE USA) without having to think about it. <S> Additionally, adding the unit to the sentence as in "two minutes 'til two" , while technically unnecessary, increases the comprehension as well. <S> Oftentimes, I will find myself limiting the specificity of such a "X til Y" statement to increments of approximately 5 minutes, and shifting to a MORE specific conveyance for minutes fewer than 5. <S> This is because oftentimes, when people are asking the time, they have somewhere to be or something to do at a specific time. <S> These specific times are most often on the hour or half-hour, and sometimes on the quarter-hour. <S> Limiting specificity to increments of 5 minutes is useful while also being easy to understand quickly . <S> For example: "What time is it?" <S> "It's about ten til six." - approximately 10 mins until 6; approximate answer is fine, because approximation this far out is usually fine. <S> "What time is it?" <S> "It's five fifty eight." - Specifically 2 minutes until 6; specificity is preferred because we're approaching the hour mark. <S> Much of this is largely preference and is context sensitive, but there are many ways to tweak your time conveyance in speech to assist with specificity or understandability, and knowing how is useful. <A> <A> I would say "two to two" sounds perfectly fine if someone asks you what time it is.
| It is not entirely incorrect, but saying it is two minutes to two would be a better way to get your point across!
|
Can any one explain to me what is the meaning of "quiet destination"? Here is the phrase which I am reading As a result, for years, it’s been a quiet destination for Northerners looking for jobs, schools and business deals. What does "quiet destination" mean?I searched for it on google but found no answer. <Q> As a result, for years, it’s been a discreet destination for Northerners looking for jobs, schools and business deals. <S> " Quiet ," Definition 2 Synonyms, Google " Death, diplomatic spat could cost North Korea a rare friend ," Associated Press <S> If you look at the original context, as provided by Vekzhivi in his answer, this is about the relationship between Malaysia and North Korea. <S> And the article is saying that while other countries, such as China, Singapore, Russia, Syria and Cuba are friends (my wording) of North Korea, Malaysia was only "sort of" a friend ("Death," AP). <S> Which means that they weren't not friends, since Malaysia allowed North Koreans to enter without a visa and <S> so "you can find North Koreans studying in Malaysian universities, working in Malaysian mines and managing computer systems for Malaysian companies" (Ibid.). <S> And so, while the two countries had been friends-not <S> -friends, it was a sort of "off-the-record," "between you and me," quiet relationship ("Quiet," Google). <A> "Quiet destination" isn't really a unique term that means something different than the combined meanings of the two component words. <S> "Quiet" is added to "destination" to describe it. <S> What makes the phrase a little unique is that the meaning is ambiguous in a beneficial way. <S> "Quiet" has many related definitions. <S> Among them, it refers to characteristics like calm, enjoyed in peace and relaxation, free from noise or uproar, and secluded ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quiet ). <S> In this case, it isn't a specific selected definition that is applied to "destination". <S> Instead, "quiet" leads people to associate a number of the meanings to paint a mental picture. <S> It's a great marketing expression because each reader personalizes the phrase by projecting their own conceptualization onto it. <S> Each person's mental picture will be a little different, but the general meaning of the phrase "quiet destination" is basically the opposite of the noise and hustle and bustle of the big city. <S> It's a bit like the marketing adjectives used in the real estate business. <S> The terms aren't intended to have a precise meaning. <S> They are intended to elicit a positive emotional response and cause the reader to imagine what is attractive to them. <S> "Quiet destination" may be used in other contexts than marketing, but it doesn't have a rigidly defined meaning. <A> I looked up the AP article about North Koreans' unique relationship with Malaysia.... <S> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2469b3ce58be4ff39783efb5cce35521/death-diplomatic-spat-could-cost-north-korea-rare-friend <S> In this context, the phrase has nothing to do with marketing a given locale. <S> Here it simply means little known , or not publicized .
| It's somewhat ambiguous, conveying anything that falls under the general concept of "quiet".
|
Why do news stories tend to use "robbery" when they mean "mugging"? robbery (noun): the crime of stealing from somewhere or someone. Cambridge Dictionary mugging (noun): an act of attacking someone and stealing their money. Cambridge Dictionary robbery is stealing only, but mugging is attacking and stealing. But I noticed most of news websites use robbery instead of mugging, even when it is include attacking. A woman has been assaulted with a hammer during an attempted robbery outside a south Belfast restaurant. BBC On-loan Marseille winger Florian Thauvin was reportedly "violently assaulted" on Monday evening as he fended off an attempted robbery . CNN Why shouldn't they use mugging instead of robbery ? it will be more accurate. <Q> They aren't too different, but I interpret mugging as a robbery that takes place on a public street. <S> Longman's definition is an attack on someone in which they are robbed in a public place . <S> Robbery is a theft that involves confrontation or violence. <S> If I'm walking down an alley and a stranger threatens me if I don't give them my wallet <S> , that's a mugging (and also a robbery). <S> If I'm walking down the street, and someone grabs my bag from my hands and runs away, that's a purse-snatching (and also a robbery even though it wasn't exactly violent). <S> If I leave my purse in a shopping cart, and someone steals it when I'm not looking, that's a theft (but not a robbery). <S> If someone breaks into my house and steals things while I'm not there, that's a burglary or theft (but not a robbery). <A> "robbery" is a precisely defined legal term. <S> It is a crime. <S> "mugging" is often not a separately defined crime. <S> For example, in the California penal code , "robbery" appears 36 times, while "mugging" appears 0 times. <A> Webster's dictionary defines "mugging" as: to assault or menace, especially with the intention of robbery . <S> So they can be used interchangeably sometimes. <S> If someone "robs" a bank for example then it could be with or without force or violence, however, "mugging" always gives the impression that there was a degree of violence in the process. <S> If there was no force or threat then you could just say "you were robbed". <S> So in your examples I believe "mugging" could be used as well. <S> It wouldn't be wrong. <S> Here is a link for your understanding. <A> Robbery could be one of several closely-related crimes. <S> For example: I was a victim of a robbery when... <S> I came home and found my home broken into and possessions stolen. <S> my car was stolen while I was in the store. <S> someone threatened me with a gun and demanded my wallet or purse. <S> The key here is that while threat of violence may be involved ("give me your stuff or I'll shoot <S> /stab you!") <S> the focus is on the act of stealing. <S> It can also be applied to property, not just people. <S> Mugging has a violent connotation to it: <S> A man mugged me by sucker-punching me from behind and stealing my wallet/purse while I lay prone on the ground. <S> It is not used to target property, only people. <S> The key differences are: Robbery can target a person. <S> I was robbed while walking down the street. <S> Robbery can target property. <S> My house was robbed while I was away at work. <S> Mugging can target a person. <S> I was mugged while walking down the street. <S> Mugging cannot target property. <S> My house was mugged while I was away at work (this is incorrect usage). <A> I would disagree with the Cambridge dictionary definition as quoted by the OP. <S> Having been in the jury of a robbery trial in the UK, the judge's instructions to the jury defined "robbery" as "theft plus violence, or the threat of violence". <S> That is consistent with https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rob - "to take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force." <S> Actually, the Cambridge dictionary includes "violence" in its definition of "rob": "To take money or property illegally from a place, organization, or person, often using violence" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rob The Cambridge definition of "robbery" seems incomplete in not distinguishing "robbery" from "theft" (which does not necessarily involve violence). <S> I think the distinction between "robbery" and "mugging" is mostly about the motivation. <S> the main objective of "mugging" is to attack somebody, and the motivation may or may not be theft - it might be race, religion, membership of a particular organization, sexual orientation, etc.
| The main objective of "robbery" is to steal something, using or threatening violence as necessary.
|
Differences among "It feels...", "It looks...", and "It seems..." There is a topic about the differences among "it seems" and "it likes": What is the difference between "it seems" and "it looks like"? But what about the difference of the "it feels" with the other two ? "It feels" x "It looks" x "It seems" <Q> There are a few ways to interpret a statement about how something feels: You might be describing a texture's literal feel when you touch it. <S> " <S> Ugh, why does this feel slimy ?" <S> You are describing your emotional state. <S> "Being passed over for promotion makes me feel like my work is not valued. <S> " <S> You are drawing a conclusion without solid evidence. <S> "I've got a bad feeling about this." <S> When we describe how something feels, it is usually subjective. <S> That is, we can let someone else "take a look", or ask if something "seems true to them", but they can't verify our feelings. <S> When we describe how something feels, we are asking someone to trust our perspective. <S> Consider the detective who has interviewed many suspects. <S> They don't yet have enough evidence to prove who is guilty, but they may have a "hunch". <S> This describes the "gut feeling" that a detective develops based on experience and emotional response that drives them to pursue one lead over another. <S> They can't explain it, and they can't close the case until they find something more solid, but people who trust them will let them work the hunch anyway. <S> Another way to use "feel" is when you're describing something that is "just your opinion", particularly if you intend to be ironic or humorous. <S> https://youtu.be/7ztYFOrxlEw?t=2m25s <A> "It looks" "It seems" . <S> The verb "to seem" is actually the passive of the verb "to see", but has gone beyond sight in use. <S> Both "looks" and "seems" can refer to how something is seen. <S> The book seems green. <S> The book looks green. <S> "Seems" and "feels" can involve touching and imaginings beyond senses: This cloth seems rough. <S> This cloth feels rough. <S> This situation feels dangerous to me. <S> This situation seems dangerous to me. <S> "Seems" can refer to hearing, The note seems flat. <S> The note sounds flat. <S> "Seems" can refer to taste: <S> The tomato seems salty. <S> The tomato tastes salty. <A> "It feels" when others are feeling internally (inside them) whats happening outside <S> "It looks" when others are seeing whats happening outside, but it doesn't touch their feelings <S> "It seems" something happening but you are not sure that your opinion is right about it
| If there is any doubt as to which, "seems" , "looks" , or "feels" to use, use "seems"; it can serve more meanings than the others.
|
"go into work" or "go to work" into has a lot of meanings. I normally use it when I mean to go inside: into: to the inside or middle of a place, container, area, etc. Let's go into the garden. Cambridge Dictionary I saw the following example on one of Oxford conversation videos I don't fancy of driving back tonight. Why don't we stay near here then we can go straight into work tomorrow. We don't go inside the work, we go to the work. So, Is it common to use into with work ? Google books - Ngram : <Q> As Andrew says, it's context sensitive and preferences vary. <S> I'll add some nuances to his answer. <S> One situation where people say "go into work" is when they think of their work as a job at a location (i.e., in a building). <S> A facet of their life is to go into that location, perform the tasks comprising their employment or tasks as assigned, and return home. <S> "Go into work" means "go into the place of work"; they are sort of synonymous. <S> Another situation is where the person is going to put in an appearance at their place of work, but don't really expect to get much work accomplished. <S> For example, they feel sick but will show up for work anyway, or the office is being remodeled, precluding getting anything accomplished. <S> "Going into work" in this case means showing up at the place of work without necessarily having expectations of doing much work. <S> "Going to work" isn't tied to a specific location (even when it is always performed there). <S> A person who thinks of his job in terms of challenges and accomplishing objectives, and the work location has little relevance to that, might be more likely to say "going to work" when going into the office. <S> "Go to work" can mean simply "get started on a task, as in, " <S> We have our project, let's go to work." <A> Yes, it's fine. <S> I couldn't tell you when you might use over the other, since it's mostly a matter of context and preference. <S> Using "into" slightly <S> emphasizes the image of being forced to go and do something you'd rather not do, like someone is forcing you into a small, uncomfortable room <S> : I don't want to go into work today, I just know that my boss is going to yell at me for yesterday's mistake. <S> Although, perhaps that just my personal experience. <S> I could use "to" in the same sentence without changing the meaning: <S> I don't want to go to work -- I know my boss is going to throw a fit for my mistake yesterday. <S> Can't I just call in sick? <S> As others have pointed out, the use of "into" for this is relatively recent (since 1990). <S> Many feel it should be two words, "go in to work" since "into" should refer to the action of going inside something. <S> But evolving English means that "into" is common. <A> In some circles "go into work" was actually incorrect until recently. <S> Note that there is no difference to the ear of a native speaker when spoken, only when put in writing. <S> You will also hear "go in" or "go to work" a lot. " <S> Going into" usually means passing from the outside to the inside of something, and "work" means the general concept of work. <S> To move to the inside of the general concept of work, well, I have never heard it used that way, and it doesn't sound natural to me at all. <S> Also, informally, to be "into" something <S> means you like it and do it a lot, such as "He is really into his work".
| You will hear "get into my/the work" which means to immerse yourself in your work, but it would still be "get in to work(noun: the general concept or location of work)" if you're talking about going to where you work(verb: to work).
|
Why are two 'to be' verbs together (was + to be) Don't understand what this structure about (IF THAT WAS TO BE) If that was to be the basis for denying a right that was the norm elsewhere, then substantive evidence of non-performance should be made available If that was to be the case then the question was a simple one: who would be responsible for paying those arrears? Thanks in advance <Q> Be [not] to X = <S> someone <S> /something is telling you/expecting you/commanding you/ordering you to [not] <S> X <S> It can also be used to mean a situation or circumstances strongly suggest <S> X should or needs to happen, or the equivalent of saying "destined to X". <S> I am to be at home by 3pm. <S> [Someone is requiring me to be at home at 3pm] <S> She is not to leave your side. <S> [You are commanding the listener/reader to not allow her to leave your side.] <S> The wall was never to be built because of the landslide. <S> It was not to be = <S> It was not destined to be (to exist). <A> The first "be" verb refers to the expected possibility, the second refers to the expected state of being. <S> This is very correct, very high-style English, but the grammar does not make logical sense. <S> Let me explain how this happens. <S> English speakers do not like dative constructions and do not use them often. <S> For example, if the room temperature is low, they will not say "To me it is cold. <S> " They will say "I am cold." <S> The air in the room is cold, but they speak as if their own bodies were cold. <S> This substitution is dictated by the aesthetic rules of English which greatly favor sentences with animate subjects. <S> The double-be construction is the result of such thinking. <S> Let us start with a dative example: <S> To me it is to be your guide today. <S> Though this sentence is perfectly logical and perfectly grammatical, the native speaker will consider it ugly, if he understands it at all. <S> He would say: I am to be your guide today. <S> Here he has changed the grammatical subject of the first "to be" verb from the abstract circumstance "it" to the animate "I". <S> Logic has suffered, but aesthetics have been improved. <S> When you posted the bounty you asked specifically about the difference between "if that was the basis" and "if that was to be the basis". <S> Remember, the double-be construction indicates that something is reasonably expected to be. <S> So, "if that was the basis" is talking about a fact which may or may not have take place in the past. <S> In contrast, "if that was to be the basis" is talking about a reasonable expectation which may or may not have existed in the past. <S> Consider these examples: <S> You say he was dismissed for theft. <S> If that was the basis for dismissal, why did they not file a report with the police? <S> Was he dismissed for theft or for some other reason? <S> You say he was dismissed for smoking. <S> If that was to be a basis for dismissal, why was this not mentioned in the rules of workplace conduct? <S> Did the employer give employees a reason to expect that they would be dismissed for smoking at work? <A> GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE: <S> If you are to be a king, you need to look after these people. <S> Here in this sentence the copular verb - are (auxiliary verb) - takes a non-finite to -infinitive clause (subordinate clause) as its complement. <S> The clause is introduced by a subordinator - to (you can simply call it a infinitive marker ). <S> The Noun Phrase - a king - is the complement of the verb - be <S> (main verb in the subordinate clause), and the implied subject of the subordinate clause is you . <S> SEMANTIC: <S> 1. <S> If you are to be a king, you need to look after these people. <S> 2. <S> If you are a king, you need to look after these people. <S> In sentence #1, you are not yet a king , but if you are going to be a king you need to look after these people. <S> In sentence #2, it suggests that you need to look after these people if you are already a king. <S> If I were a king, I had a palace. <S> (a hypothetical situation) <S> I am not a king, neither I have a palace. <S> But if I were a king, I had a palace. <S> You can have the same meaning with the following sentence, but I think this is very rare - If I were to be a king, I would have a palace. <S> It can also be considered to be the past form of "if I am to be a king, I will have a palace" .
| This construction is used to talk about things which are reasonably expected to happen, most often as the result of a decision.
|
Save fuel or save the fuel? I heard this phrase once: "He was driving slowly to save fuel." However it says about some particular fuel, which is in the tank, so using the definite article would be more logical. Why the article was omitted here? <Q> Yes, the specific fuel is the one that is in his gas tank at the moment, but that's so obvious from context that there's no particular need to point it out; it's not like he could be saving someone else's fuel. <S> Saying the fuel implies that we're particularly concerned about this exact, specific fuel, but we're not - fuel is interchangeable. <A> A particular definition of 'save' is "to prevent things from being wasted", and with regard to that definition, there is no need to put an article in front of the noun as 'fuel' is being referred to generally. <S> The same applies to money, time and effort <S> , that is, they are all general terms that isn't bound to a single entity. <S> However, if you really want to specifically (and unnecessarily) denote that it's your fuel you want to save, you can say something like "I was driving to save the fuel in my car." <S> Another reason you wouldn't use the definite article is that it has nothing to refer back to. <S> "I drove slowly to save the fuel." <S> "What fuel?" <S> "Oh, I mean the fuel in my car." <S> " <S> Oh okay." <A> He was driving slowly to save fuel <S> This would be the typical way to express that idea. <S> In this case, "fuel" is used as a mass noun. <S> Note that with this sentence, fuel is still being used, but he is reducing how much (thus saving some of it). <S> He was driving slowly to save the fuel <S> This would be less likely as-is. <S> While there is specific fuel in the tank, this would only likely be used if there had been some particular fuel referenced that was being saved: <S> He was driving slowly to save the fuel in the tank
| He's trying to save fuel as a general concept.
|
Does "do" fully inherit the grammar of the verb it refers to? To avoid confusion with this question, here is an example We consider Nigeria a developing country as we do Angola. So, is that grammatical? Should I put a preposition? Can I instead say do it with ? P.S. I do understand that there are less clumsy ways to say the sentence. But that's not in my field of interest right now. <Q> The original sentence is perfectly grammatical. <S> I think part of what might be tripping you up is the many different uses of as and the different structures we use for the different meanings. <S> In this case, there's no place for <S> it because there's nothing for "it" to refer to, except Nigeria and that doesn't make any sense. <S> We consider Nigeria a developing country as we do Nigeria with Angola? <S> You would use "as it" if the sentence was something like "The situation is in Nigeria as it is in Angola" because then there is something for it to refer to: the situation. <S> Similarly, there's no place for with because the usage is " We consider Nigeria (or Angola)", not "we consider with Nigeria (or Angola)" <S> - and the structures need to be parallel in both parts, which means if the first half has no preposition, the second half should have no preposition either. <S> With would be appropriate if the verb in the first half was something like <S> negotiate : <S> "We negotiate with Nigeria as we do with Angola." <A> The grammar <S> Your sentence uses an ellipsis . <S> The "underlying sentence" is: <S> We consider Nigeria a developing country as we consider Angola a developing country. <S> Grammatically, do is considered a pro-verb in your original example, since it "stands in" for the verb or verb phrase (like a pronoun "stands in" for a noun). <S> The verb phrase "consider ___ a developing country" is what was swallowed up as part of the ellipsis. <S> Can we use "with"? <S> No, it should be more obvious now, looking at the underlying sentence, that it wouldn't make sense grammatically to add with : <S> We consider Nigeria a developing country as we (do) with [consider] Angola [a developing country]. <S> We consider Nigeria a developing country as we (do) [consider] with Angola [a developing country]. <S> Awkwardness <S> I think your example sounds awkward, but it's hard to pinpoint why. <S> It might have something to do with the fact that as usually allows inversion , but that doesn't work in your sentence. <S> It's also not clear to me what you meant with as . <S> It doesn't sound like a comparison should. <S> You might want to look at some real world examples, like these ones from Wikipedia : <S> They swam, <S> but I didn't. <S> He looks smart, and so do you. <S> You fell asleep, and I did, too. <A> I would say in most cases <S> yes, "do" does inherit all the meanings of the verb, at least with this particular grammar. <S> An example: Sue eats dinner precisely at 7pm, as do I. <S> Both of us eat dinner at 7pm, exactly. <S> Another example: <S> The searching algorithm employs a recursive bubble sort, as does the queuing algorithm. <S> It doesn't matter if you understand what a "recursive bubble sort" is <S> -- you know that both the searching algorithm and the queuing algorithm employ it.
| If I understand you correctly, yes, the part of the sentence after as does inherit the grammar of the first part.
|
My dog has a lot of things. This food bowl is "its" What is the possessive pronoun of animals or thing? We can say: This car is mine. This coffee is yours. This book is hers. How ca we say this food bowl belongs to my dog, or those buildings belong to the company. Can I say: My dog has a lot of things. This food bowl is its . This company is very big. These buildings are its . <Q> I will almost always use "he/his" or "she/hers" when referring to pets, especially my own. <S> This is my cat's food dish. <S> This is his. <S> This is my bed, but my cat thinks it's his. <S> Of course, inanimate objects are usually "it/its", except for certain things like boats or ships or really anything else people like to anthropomorphize and/or name (like cars, tools, etc.) <S> Edit: <S> Apparently the question is whether you can use "its" in this way. <S> As far as I know you can , but you rarely should -- grammatically "its" is fine, but idiomatically "its" is not used. <S> Also, the British might be more strict about this, since the only mention I found about this is in a Cambridge English grammar site. <A> Then it’s OK to use “he” or “she” when referring to the animal. <S> This also applies to using “who” and “whom.” <S> If the animal has a personal relationship with the person, then use “who” or “whom.” <S> Otherwise you must exclusively use “which” or “that.” <S> Here’s an example that incorporates both of these rules: <S> Personal: <S> My horse, whom I call Steve, is my best friend. <S> He comforts me when I ride him. <S> Generic: <S> The stray dog, which I saw chasing its own tail, was shedding hair. <S> The “personal” rule also holds true if you’re writing a kids book and the animals can talk—as you’re giving them human traits and making them characters your readers can get to know. <S> Even if the animals don’t have specific names, they are given personalities and this is enough to make them personal. <S> In the same way, by keeping mentioned explanations, I would like to say that you can use "its" or "her" or "his". <S> Secondly, " its" is also used when gender is unknown. <A> A philosophical answer coming: <S> Mine, yours... <S> What do they mean? <S> They mean that a human has something, possess something, they indicate possession. <S> What you said in your question is correct but as indicated in a comment they are rarely used, the reason is objects cannot possess things. <S> I see a computer with a keyboard, I still call it a computer. <S> I see bread with meat in it, I call it hamburger. <S> You see, when you modify a property of an object, you either keep calling it by the original name or create a new name. <S> Object cannot possess objects, you're going to end with an object. <S> Animals cannot possess objects, they cannot own things. <S> I hope I'm being clear here. <S> People started saying "it's mine" to indicate what they bought etc. <S> Many years later language changed and we started using "his" for dogs or whatever. <S> My teacher used to hate referring to animals by he/she. <S> But again grammatically what you said is correct. <A> its ok to use he <S> or she <S> when reffering to an animal(for a pet who has a name).so here you can use : "this food bowl is for him". <S> Or "this food bowl is his".
| An animal is referred as “it” unless the relationship is personal (like a pet that has a name).
|
would be + verb(ing) in the future prediction sentences Is it OK to use " would + be+ verb(ing) " construction when we talk about future projections or predictions. like in this example: Over the 50-year period or By 2067, people aged 15 to 59 would still be predominating the other age groups in the sense of majority <Q> @CavidHummatov it is possible to use this verb tense, but not with this particular combination of verbs. <S> Things <S> either predominate or <S> they don't, there is no ongoing "predomination" possible. <S> It works better if you choose a subject where continual action makes logical sense: <S> That old mill has stood by that river since the 1500s, through war and plague and famine and drought. <S> If the rest of the world goes to hell over the next fifty years, as seems likely, after the dust settles, that mill would still be standing. <S> Note that I have to provide a pretty complicated setup to justify the verb tense. <S> It's not something you use casually, but to set the image of a very particular time and situation. <A> I admit I have struggled to answer this. <S> At first glance your sentence just looks wrong , but the more I analyse it <S> , I can't explain why it seems wrong. <S> The best explanation as to why you may be struggling with this expression, and why I, as a native English speaker find it problematic, is because there are several similar words with varying meanings and tenses. <S> There are the two root words: Dominate (verb) - to have control over Dominant (adj) - more important, strong, or noticeable than anything else of the same type <S> These words are absolute . <S> Someone, or something either is or is not dominant. <S> Likewise, a person either dominates, or does not dominate another. <S> The words <S> predominate and predominant have slightly different meanings. <S> They refer to the most common, so they are not really absolute. <S> Assuming you meant to imply "dominating", I would prefer the phrasing: <S> "By 2067 people aged 15 to 59 would still dominate the other age groups in the sense of majority." <S> or, at a push: <S> "By 2067 people aged 15 to 59 would still be dominating the other age groups in the sense of majority." <S> On the other hand if you meant to use the word "predominant", I would express it this way: <S> "By 2067 people aged 15 to 59 will still be the dominant age group." <A> First, since there is no condition involved, "will" is a better fit than "would". <S> @Andrew's answer covers this in detail. <S> For example: If the city were to expand its transit network, they would bring in an extra five million in annual revenue. <S> Second, you have two very different time spans here: <S> Over the fifty-year period: This is a duration. <S> You would use this to express something happening over this entire time, not a single event that happens at the end of it. <S> By 2067: This is a time point. <S> You would use this to point to an event, and not to a progression. <S> For example: Over the fifty-year period, the ozone layer will continue to deplete, and, by 2067, carbon-dioxide concentration will be 1.5 times the current level. <S> Third, "predominate" is defined as "to be the largest in number or importance" by Cambridge . <S> So, it is not an action, but rather a state. <S> A continuous form sounds unnatural. <S> It's like saying "problems will be existing". <S> "Exist", like "predominate", already implies an ongoing state. <S> The continuous form is ambiguous at best. <S> Are you saying that they will be in the process of becoming predominant? <S> Putting all of this together, I would use the following: <S> By 2067, people aged 15 to 59 will predominate population demographics. <S> Now, I don't know the full context, but if you had even a vague conditional built in, you could use "would". <S> Many statistical models forecast a rapid growth in working population over the next fifty years. <S> If these prove accurate, by 2067, people aged 15 to 59 would outnumber all other demographic groups. <S> The fact that we have a condition on the model's accuracy, the "would" fits more naturally.
| For future projections, "would" requires some sense of uncertainty or conditional dependence.
|
Do you like going shopping? What is the following question asking about? general or now? Do you like going shopping? Is it mean now or in general. which one of the following is correct? Do you like going shopping (now)? Do you like going shopping (in general)? Can I write it as following? Do you like going shopping tomorrow ? Update: Is the same apply on the following? or the verb will change the intended meaning time? Do you mind going shopping? <Q> Do you like going shopping? <S> This is a general question. <S> This works equally well: "Do you like shopping?" <S> "Do you like going shopping tomorrow?" <S> Sorry, that does not work. <S> " <S> Would you like to go shopping tomorrow?" <A> It refers to the general sense. <S> It's asking if the addressee enjoys shopping in general. <S> It could also be phrased as <S> Do you like shopping? <S> Do you like to go shopping? <S> Do you like to shop? <S> It would not be correct to say <S> Do you like going shopping tomorrow? <S> If you wanted to ask if the addressee would like to be shopping at that moment you would say Would you like to go shopping now? <A> Do you like going shopping? <S> "Do you..." implies present tense, and "going shopping" refers to the process of shopping. <S> So "Do you like going shopping" would mean in the general sense, inquiring about a preference: <S> "In general, do you currently enjoy the process of shopping?". <S> If you were accompanying someone on a shopping trip and asked that question, it would still refer to the general sense, but it might be interpreted in the context of that trip since that trip was happening in the present, as in "Do you enjoy shopping (in general), giving consideration to your experience right now?" <S> (The person might generally dislike shopping but could be enjoying that specific event, so it might influence their attitude.) <S> Do you like going shopping tomorrow? <S> Going shopping tomorrow is a future event. <S> You can't enjoy it in the present because it hasn't happened yet. <S> To inquire about someone's preference for engaging in a specific shopping event now or tomorrow, you need several changes to the sentence, such as "Would you like to go shopping now/tomorrow?" <S> "Like" is about enjoyment. <S> If you are really asking about desire, "want" would be a more accurate word: "Do you want to go shopping now/tomorrow?" <S> The difference is subtle. <S> A masochist might enjoy shopping and for that reason, not want to. <S> For pretty much anyone else, there's no practical difference. <S> :-) <S> Do you mind going shopping? <S> "Do you mind going shopping?" can have several meanings, with different implied timeframes. <S> It can be a different way to phrase "Do you like going shopping?". <S> The choice of "like" or "mind" frames the question with an implied preference, but it's asking about the same thing--a current preference. <S> It can also be a request. <S> A shopping trip is needed and you're asking the other person if they would be kind enough to do it. <S> This meaning refers to a future event rather than a current preference.
| "Would you like..." and "to go shopping" both refer to a future event ("now" is a future event in this case because you are not yet actually doing it; it means "starting very soon").
|
Stay vs be in the given sentences Do we say, "How much longer are you going to stay online?", or do we say "How much longer are you going be online." Or, could we just use either? <Q> You may use either, although be is the more common usage in my experience in the US. <S> Most people I know normally leave their devices connected to the internet even when not actively using that connection, so the device may stay online all day, even though we are not actively "doing anything" online. <S> I would infer that be online is describing an individual actively using that connectivity. <A> Stay <S> emphasizes that you were online already, whereas be only refers to whether you are online at the moment of interest (indicated by context). <S> The rest of the sentence fills in the difference in this example so they are interchangeable here. <S> Where it might matter: <S> "Are you going to stay online?" <S> vs. <S> "Are you going to be online?" <S> The difference here could be very important. <A> There's a difference between be and stay . <S> If you're in the lavatory, and someone needs to get in, these two questions would have somewhat different implications: <S> How long are you going to be in there? <S> How long are you going to stay in there? <S> All things being equal, the word stay <S> has a tinge of impatience to it. <S> How long are you going to be online? <S> suggests that the speaker understands you to be doing some task that must be completed. <S> It doesn't have to be an important task, just something that can be completed. <S> How long are you going to stay online? <S> suggests the speaker believes you are free to quit whenever you want; no particular task is keeping you there.
| In this example they are both fine, but the meanings are slightly different, which may matter if the context is different.
|
English people names and street names I know learning grammar and vocab is so painful, but that's not the hardest part to me. What makes me feel most difficult is the English name for people and streets. They are complicated, no spelling pattern, and some of them are not easy to pronounce. So, I would want to know how native English speaker learns people and street names and naturally remember them? Is there any way I can learn them? <Q> La Jolla California, is an example; unless you know the 'J' is soft like an 'H', many would pronounce it with the hard J. <S> If you don't speak French, or are not Catholic and know Pius 1X is a pope, you might not pronounce Pius IX as something like Pea Neuf in Montreal. <S> I doubt there's anyway to get how something is pronounced unless a native tells you. <S> I was skiing at Mont Tremblant when an American fellow asked me how to find the Grand Pricks. <S> The Grand Prix is a pretty famous auto race, but he did not know that! <A> Even native speakers do this, not because they find them hard to say, but because they are naturally forgetful! <S> Because of this, they will be understanding about any issues you have with names, so don't worry about asking for help. <S> It's one of the best ways to improve on any aspect of a language. <S> I would recommend explaining that you are not a native speaker, and find names particularly difficult. <S> You could even ask people to say their names slowly, and perhaps repeat them a couple of times. <S> Again: don't be afraid that this will annoy people. <S> In fact, they'll be touched that you're making an effort. <S> Not many people appreciate how much people like it when you take an interest in their names. <S> Names are the primary way that people identify themselves, and anything that shows you're trying to get them right, is worth doing. <S> This also applies to street names: it's important to people because it's where they live. <S> If you have have any close native English friends, you could always ask them instead when you see them later. <S> If not, you'll probably acquire more friends there anyway, over time. <S> Eventually, as you practise name pronunciation more and more, it will get easier, just like the grammar and vocabulary did. <A> We native speakers don't always get these names right, either! <S> (You'll see this below.) <S> Aside from the very salient answers already given, I'm inclined to suggest that you choose one geographical area. <S> Of course the English language is used natively in a diverse set of nations across the globe, so I'm afraid you'll drive yourself crazy trying to learn so many diverse people's names or place names at once! <S> For example, you might live or might like to live in London, in British Columbia, in Southeast Texas, in Lagos, or in Western Australia; or you might have contact with people from one of those places. <S> So you could focus on the names from those places, only learning the others as needed. <S> For example, major US cities' names come from the following origins: <S> English place names : New York, Boston, Birmingham French place names : New Orleans <S> Greek : <S> Philadelphia Spanish : Los Angeles, San Francisco, El Paso <S> (less prominent: <S> Las Cruces, Boca Raton) <S> Native languages : <S> Chicago (a wild onion), Seattle (from a chief's name) Egyptian place name : Memphis Contemporary people's names : <S> Nashville, Raleigh, Washington, Pittsburgh, Houston, Dallas, Denver <S> Saints' names : <S> Saint Louis, Saint Paul Geographical features : <S> Little Rock, Salt Lake City <S> Latin : <S> Cincinnati Hybrid native <S> /Greek : <S> Minneapolis Also note that New York City, formerly Nieuw Amsterdam, has many Dutch (Netherlands) place names, adapted to English inconsistently. <S> For example the name of the Van Wyck Expressway is somewhat controversial . <S> Any other large English-speaking country might have its own mix. <S> And the problem is, each of those source languages is going to have its own phonology. <S> Sometimes we get it wrong--before I recently traveled to Abuja, I was pronouncing the name of Nigeria's capital with the accent on the wrong syllable. <S> And I'm still not sure if one form of Lagos or the other is favored! <S> So I strongly suggest you focus on the part of the English-speaking world most of interest to you and learn the rest only as needed.
| You cannot learn names 'naturally', but you can learn them if you put effort into remembering them, such as repeating them over and over in your head.
|
What does "cash me outside" mean? I was watching random videos on Youtube and one of them took my attention. I heard a girl saying 'cash me outside' . In fact this video got really popular on Youtube, but I'm not able to make out what she was actually saying there. <Q> Here is one clip I found of it. <S> Dr. Phil <S> : Did you say "The hoes are laughing"? <S> Girl: <S> Yep. <S> DP: So the audience are a bunch of hoes? <S> Girl: <S> Yep. <S> (Audience applauds loudly.) <S> Girl: (To the audience.) <S> Cash me outside, howbow dah. <S> * <S> DP <S> : Huh? <S> Girl <S> : Catch me outside, how bout dat. <S> DP: Catch you outside? <S> What does that mean? <S> Girl: What I just said. <S> Mother: "Catch her outside" means she'll go outside and do what she has to do. <S> Because of the way she speaks (her accent, dialect) and the loud audience, it's hard to hear exactly how she pronounces it in that instance, but * <S> above is "Catch me outside, how about that" written in standard English. <S> Catch here is informal for meet or find . <S> In her aggressive, hostile tone, catch me outside <S> is an invitation to argue or fight outside. <A> The saying came from a nit-wit on the Dr. Phil show. <A> "Cash me outside" doesn't mean anything. <S> If what you heard was " catch me outside", then "catch" is being used in a slang way as a synonym for "see" or "meet" - as in "catch you later". <A> "Cash me outside" means go outside and have a fight. <S> It was first said by Danielle Bregoli AKA cash me outside girl. <S> She said this at the Dr. <S> Phil show. <S> This thing is available in YouTube. <A> The girl who spoke the phrase is trying to confuse the audience by saying nonsense phrases. <S> She is unable to communicate with Dr Phil or the audience. <S> She is speaking in her <S> made-up code slang words which only she understands. <S> Or she stayed up too late the night before and was having trouble staying awake during the TV interview. <A> "Cash me outside" is a rap song, which clearly the girl is imitating to sound hostile or aggressive. <S> She will run as fast as she can if anybody took her up on that phony hard behavior.
| The girl did indeed say "Cash me outside" as slang for a challenge to go outside and have a fight. It's meant to provoke the audience.
|
Can a sentence begin with the word "Advocates"? I am currently writing up a persuasive essay, one of the sentences is as follows. Advocates and non-advocates of change, we must show reconciliation towards the rightful owners. My advisor mentioned that you cannot start a sentence with advocates . As far as I know, advocate is a noun, even adding an s makes it a plural noun. So why am I not allowed to start a sentence with advocates ? Is it the context itself? <Q> There's no reason why you might not start a sentence with Advocate or Advocates as a single or plural noun. <S> However, it would be improper to start a sentence with the same words as a verb. <S> " Advocates will meet at 5pm to ratify the agreement. " <S> would be okay. <S> " The committee has formed a plan. <S> Advocates five of the proposed changes. <S> " would not be correct despite being understandable as an informal note. <A> I think that your sentence is correct. <S> While I do not know what your advisor thinks, I assume he sees a "poetic-like" structure of the sentence (as I do). <S> It may be just a tad more "academic" to say: <S> We, advocates and non-advocates of change, must show reconciliation towards the rightful owners. <A> Your tutor is wrong. <S> They are assuming you mean the verb 'advocate' (to advocate) when you are using it as a noun (persons who advocate something). <S> The two words, although closely related, are even pronounced differently.
| Your sentence is fine (but check your spelling of 'rightful').
|
Badly - Is this answer ambiguous? Q: How have the (terror) attacks affected tourism in Turkey? A: Badly.` Reading a table about the number of tourists visiting the country, the meaning is clear. They meant the attacks affected the tourism heavily. But could 'badly affected', not considering the context, mean 'almost not affected'? <Q> No, to give the meaning of almost not affected you would say scarcely affected, barely affected or hardly affected. <A> "Badly" is what we might call an answer that's not really much of an answer. <S> Yes, of course it's ambiguous, but only to the degree and specifically how tourism has been negatively impacted. <S> Another example: <S> Q: <S> How did she take the news? <S> A: <S> Badly <S> This implies that she did not react well to the news, but other than her negative reaction, the answer gives no detail about the degree or manner of her reaction. <S> An answer of this sort implies the person answering doesn't want to offer up any details, or is trying to "make light" of the situation. <S> If you want more information, you have to follow up with more questions. <A> I would agree with the others 9 times out of 10. <S> The only condition that I would envision "badly" to mean "ineffectual" is if it was clear that the intent of the terrorist attacks was to disrupt tourism. <S> In which case "badly" could be substituted for "poorly". <S> For example, "The Japanese attack on pearl harbor went badly for the Japanese because their intended primary targets, the US Aircraft carriers, were not in port." <S> But even in that instance "badly" doesn't fit perfectly <S> it is just meant to illustrate one circumstance where it may be related to performance rather than condition or sentiment.
| Badly affected always means affected in a negative way and to a significant degree.
|
What should I call water at 100℃? If we bring water to a boil and the water currently has a lot of bubbles at 100℃, what should I call the water in this state? boiling water boiled water And if both are used in different contexts, what is the difference of their meanings? <Q> ( See this link ) <S> If it has boiled, but now isn't, it is called 'boiled water'. <A> Boiling refers to water with large, fast bubbles. <S> It doesn't have to be 100 degrees. <S> The temperature can be different, but boiling means it has the bubbles now. <S> (Water with small, slow bubbles is simmering, not boiling. <S> However, "simmering" is not used is a science context.") <S> Boiled means it was boiling in the past. <S> For example: Cooking: " <S> Wait until the water is boiling, then put in the pasta." <S> Science: " <S> The test tubes were placed in boiling water." <S> Safety: " <S> You shouldn't drink boiling water. <S> You will be injured." <S> Camping: "You should drink only filtered or boiled water while camping to avoid getting sick." <S> * <S> * Note : <S> ** <S> This refers to boiling/boiled as adjectives. <S> As a verb, we can say, "He boiled the water and then put the pasta in it," and it means the water had large, fast bubbles when the pasta was put in it. <A> We call this a rolling boil . <S> The linked page shows examples of various boiling states.
| If it is still bubbling, and is still being heated, it is called 'boiling water'.
|
"I wonder how much it {cost/costed} to get all of that paint on." - Should 'cost' or 'costed' be used? My friend and I are debating whether or not "costed" should be used in a particular sentence. "I wonder how much it costed to get all of that paint on." I understand "costed" to be used when something like "priced" or "valued" would work, like "He costed the vacation to be somewhere around three thousand dollars" meaning he calculated the cost of the trip. I don't think that using "costed" in the first sentence serves that purpose. In response to these thoughts, my friend said this: "'Costed' is inflected for the dummy pronoun 'it' which is coreferential with the infinitive phrase 'to get all of that text painted on.' 'To cost' is a transitive verb where the agent is the thing being purchased, which is 'it'. Have you only ever used 'to cost' as a where the thing being purchased is a patient?" As you may be able to tell, my friend is a bit more linguistically inclined than I am, and I don't really understand what this whole thing means. Can someone translate, and tell me if he's right? <Q> There are two English verbs whose infinitive is "to cost", their meaning is closely related, and they conjugate almost exactly the same, but not quite. <S> The most commonly used one is as you've indicated, the verb used to indicate cost or price; the subject is the object in question and the object is the price. <S> Sometimes it's bitransitive, taking two objects - "it costs me two pounds to take the bus"; "me" and "two pounds" being the two objects. <S> There's also the idiomatic usage where there's only one object, and that's the person (or whatever) that will have to pay the price, as in "it'll cost you", meaning that there will be a significant cost to doing something. <S> Most often, this sense of "cost" is used in the third person, as you're generally referring to a non-person, though sometimes you talk about the cost of a person. <S> In that case, the present tense is I cost, you cost, it costs, we cost, they cost. <S> Both the simple past and past participle are formed irregularly, and are 'cost' regardless of number and person. <S> Use of the progressive aspect in this sense is also possible, such as "three meals, costing a total of £100". <S> The other verb "to cost" means, I would say, "to assign or determine cost". <S> This one forms past tenses more regularly, and generally behaves more as a simpler sort of verb describing an action a person would take - because it is an action people take. <S> " <S> The building work was costed at £10,000". <S> "I asked him to cost the proposal". <S> Sometimes it's normal in a dialect to conjugate the first sort the same as the second, and sometimes people just speak in a way that's technically incorrect. <S> But if you want to stick to standard English grammar, what I've described above is how it works. <A> Although it may not be correct, there are a few cases in which "costed" is commonly used as a past tense of cost. <S> For example: College costed an arm and a leg when I was in school. <S> "I wonder how much it costed to get all of that paint on" might not be a popular phrasing because of the "how much". <S> When there is explicit quantification in the sentence, people are more likely to use "cost" as the past tense of "cost". <S> But a generic reference like "what" might be used with "costed": <S> I wonder what it costed to get all of that paint on. <S> This is just idiom, but "costed" is commonly used in speech in certain cases. <A> I couldn't really say why, but you'll note that you don't see "costed" much. <S> I think the preferred expression is "used to cost" if you need to refer to things in the past. <S> College used to cost only a few thousand dollars, as compared to the 'mortgage payment' it is today. <S> Otherwise the simple "cost" is more common: <S> I wonder how much it cost to get all of that paint on. <S> "Costed" to mean "measured the cost <S> " is, I suppose, something people say , but personally I prefer "priced" for this context: <S> He priced the entire trip to be about 3000 dollars, including airfare. <A> I wonder how much it costed to get all of that paint on. <S> The sentence is not grammatical. <S> When you say something (it) costs, You use the verb as a linking verb to mean "to have the price of". <S> The past or past participle of the cost is the same - cost, not costed. <S> So the correct sentence is: <S> I wonder how much it cost to get all of that paint on. <S> On the other hand, you say somebody cost ( <S> past/past participle costed) to mean to estimate the cost of something. <S> For example: He costed the material that would be used in the building. <A> I would prefer: <S> I wonder how much did it cost to get all of that paint on. <S> It avoids confusions, questions... <S> And according to Wiktionary : The past tense and past participle is cost in the sense of "this computer cost me £600", but costed in the sense of 'calculated' <S> , "the project was costed at $1 million."
| "It has cost" and "it cost" are essentially identical in meaning.
|
What does "odds" mean in this sentence? I was watching a motivational video by Elon Musk on Youtube( here ). He using "odds" frequently in the speech. For instance this : "When something is important enough, you do it even if the odds are not in your favor." Please tell me what does "odds" mean in this sentence. <Q> Instead of a coin flip being 50% heads / 50% tails, the odds are 1:1. <S> It is a way of quoting probabilities mainly used by people who gamble. <S> Musk is using it to say the one still does something eventhough the probability of success is not in one's favor. <A> The plural noun "odds" means chances or likelihood. <S> If you say that the odds are not in your favour, it means (the <S> ) chances are/ <S> it's likely that you will not succeed. <A> Here it is meant allegorically for the ratio that a bookmaker will give you on a bet. <S> Literally this word - in this use - means how much you will win if you have bet money on it. <S> But it is quite common to use it in this way to describe that a situation does not have a good chance. <S> Examples: " <S> Hey bookmaker! <S> What are the odds on Arsenal tonight?" <S> "It's 1.5 to 1, but I'll give you 5:1 on them winning by 2 points or more. <S> Are you in?" <S> Note that even though you say that the odds are not good about a situation that is unlikely, such a situation would actually have good odds, since the bookmaker doesn't think he'll have to pay anyone winnings on it. <S> The correct way to use the idiom would be like Elon Musk does "the odds are not in your favour" - meaning that the bookmakers don't believe in you. <S> This is a literal thing in sports and other things that are betted on, generally the bookmakers are right, and if the odds aren't in your favour you will probably not win. <A> Adding the following not covered in the other answers. <S> The phrase "good/bad odds" is often used in games where chance plays a role (my experience is with bridge, but the same undoubtedly applies to poker as well as possibly all betting/gambling). <S> "good odds" = <S> the probability is in your favor, or your way of playing is likely to succeed "bad odds" = <S> your way of playing is unlikely to succeed <S> Caveat: <S> Non-native speaker here. <S> I dare not speculate how common the phrases "good/bad odds" are in comparison to, say, "favourable odds" or "against the odds".
| When used in this way, the odds is another way of describing the probability of success.
|
What does "not to ~" mean? Calvin : “Do you believe our destinies are controlled by the stars?” Hobbes : “No, I think we can do whatever we want with our lives.” Calvin : "Not to hear mom and dad tell it." from Calvin and Hobbes(March 21, 2007) I don't understand what Calvin says: "Not to hear~"Especially the infinitive 'Not to' What frustrates me is the fact that there is no subject and verb in Calvin's words. By any chance, does it mean that he does not want mom and dad say to him what Hobbes told him? Please somebody tell me. I'm a Korean studying English. <Q> Mom and Dad do not say that, they say something contrary to Hobbes' statement. <A> When Calvin says, "Not to hear mom and dad tell it," he is saying that mom and dad are telling him the contrary. <S> For example, if Calvin wanted to be an astronaut, Hobbes may say Calvin could do whatever he wanted. <S> But Calvin's parents have told him something like "Calvin, you are too much of a dreamer to pursue this difficult career." <A> Perhaps the simplest transformation of Calvin’s statement is <S> Not if you hear mom and dad tell it. <S> or <S> Not when you hear mom and dad tell it. <S> In other words, I agree with the answers that interpret the statementas meaning “mom and dad have said otherwise.”
| Hobbes was asserting that "we can do whatever we want with our lives."
|
Which is correct "sandwiches with ham", "sandwiches and ham", or "ham sandwiches"? Which version is correct?: I have ham sandwiches for breakfast. I have sandwiches with ham for breakfast. I have sandwiches and ham for breakfast. Of course, I mean that I eat sandwiches with ham inside them. <Q> Neither phrase will normally be understood in the meaning you intend. <S> Until I read your explanation I thought you were talking about a plate of sandwiches and, separately, some ham. <S> I'm not being perverse: as a native English speaker <S> it never occurred to me that you meant the filling in the sandwiches. <S> The usual phrase is simply "ham sandwiches". <S> I can't think of a simple preposition which is used with this meaning: normally if I wanted to expand it <S> I'd say "sandwiches containing ham" or perhaps "sandwiches made with ham". <S> It might be that "sandwiches of ham" would work: this is not a familiar expression in my experience, but if I met it I would interpret it that way. <A> A "ham sandwich" is a sandwich in which the principal filling is ham. <S> This is the most common expression. <S> "Sandwiches with ham" is ambiguous. <S> It would usually mean "ham sandwiches" but it could mean that you have sandwiches with ham "on the side" -- not typical, but possible. <S> Meanwhile, a "cheese sandwich with ham" definitely means the ham is part of the sandwich. <S> "Sandwiches and ham" definitely means that the ham is on the side of the sandwiches, and not in the sandwich, as in, "I had cheese sandwiches and ham for lunch." <S> Again, I don't know why you would eat the sandwich this way, but it's your food. <A> If your goal is to communicate that you "eat sandwiches with ham inside them" then "I have ham sandwiches for breakfast" is your best choice. <S> Just keep in mind that a ham sandwich implies that ham is the dominant element of the sandwich and not some minor untraceable component. <S> Both "I have sandwiches with ham for breakfast" and "I have sandwiches and ham for breakfast <S> " could mean that the ham itself is unrelated to the sandwiches. <S> For example, you're having some nondescript sandwiches with ham on the side. <S> Depending on the context, "I have sandwiches with ham for breakfast" could mean that you're emphasizing the ham aspect of the sandwich. <S> But in that case it would usually be written "I have sandwiches with ham for breakfast". <A> From my experience, your first choice is correct, as "ham" in this case is functioning as a modifier for "sandwiches. <S> " Your second choice would indicate that you mainly ate sandwiches but you also ate ham to a lesser extent (think of the classic "Would you like some sprinkles with your ice cream?" <S> example.)Your third choice would indicate that you ate both ham and sandwiches. <S> Hope I helped!
| To be perfectly correct, as "ham" is not an adjective, you could, as mentioned above, use "sandwiches containing ham", "sandwiches of ham", or, to be unnecessarily verbose, "sandwiches consisting partly of ham."
|
Was it impolite for me to say "That's alright" when someone ran into me? Are there any better expessions? I was travelling on a crowded bus. Someone suddenly ran into me and touched me when the bus stopped suddenly. The man said sorry to me. I did not get angry because I could see there was an auto accident not far from the bus, and then I said this, that's alright Was it polite for me to say it?If not, what shall I say?Or are there any better expressions when someone ran into you but you are alright with it? <Q> However you should be careful not to use it if the accident is your fault (even if they apologize first) since, "It's all right," <S> implies that you forgive the other person. <S> Other responses: Think nothing of it. <S> Don't worry about it. <S> It's ok. <S> It's quite all right. <S> Also, there's an Australian expression, "No worries!" <S> which I like to use even though I'm American. <S> Edit . <S> Please review the comments, as there are many regional differences in the nuance of these expressions. <A> That's all right. <S> It's pretty much ok and well accepted. <S> Not if you are paranoid about being polite like me, in which case you would say Please don't apologize, you couldn't help it. <S> You don't have to apologize, it's not your fault. <S> It's so sweet of you to apologize, <S> but it wasn't your fault. <S> An addition, after considering the comments, Don't worry about it, are you fine/allright? <A> "That's alright" is a perfectly fine and polite response. <S> If you wanted a better one, then from a British English perspective when people accidentally contact each other in public, they both say "Sorry". <S> A typical exchange would be: Person A: "Sorry" Person B: "Sorry" <S> and that's it. <S> The sorry s aren't really apologies, they're just a reflex reaction. <S> There's the classic test of Britishness: if you bump into a Brit, then they'll say "Sorry", even when it was clearly your fault . <S> So, a "better" response from you would have been to just say "sorry" back. <S> But there was nothing wrong with what you said. <A> Assuming that you spoke with a sincere and not condescending or aloof tone, it is not rude at all. <S> Rude responses, usually exclaimed loudly, imply frustration, disgust, or irritation and include Watch where you’re going! / <S> Watch out! / <S> Watch it! <S> You [pejorative, e.g. , idiot, bumbler, oaf, fool]! <S> Excuse me! <S> Ugh! <S> Graceful responses convey understanding and include <S> That’s <S> alright <S> / <S> It’s <S> alright / Quite alright <S> It’s <S> fine <S> / <S> You’re fine / <S> You’re good / <S> We’re good <S> No problem. <S> Sorry <S> / Pardon me <S> / Excuse me Oops / <S> Whoops Responses along the lines of “No apology needed” or “Please don’t apologize” come off as overly formal for the context in your question. <S> Using these or explicitly granting forgiveness is more appropriate for serious violations or mistakes.
| It's fine as a response to an apology.
|
What do we call the small towel that we use only for hands What do we call the small towel that we use only on our hands (not the big one that we use on our body after a shower)? It usually hangs beside the basin. <Q> It is called, not surprisingly, a hand towel . <S> Here's an example of the phrase in live usage: Macy's hand towels . <A> It is called a "hand towel" if used for drying the hands or face. <S> A similar but smaller towel is called a "wash cloth" (AmE) or a "flannel" (BrE) if used for washing the hands, face, or body. <A> There are five sizes of towel that I've heard people refer to commonly: washcloth : the smallest, usually used for cleaning/scrubbing, not drying (there is no distinction made between a washcloth for cleaning the body or, for instance, a kitchen, but they would still be different items in a real house) <S> : larger, this is the type you dry with after <S> a shower beach towel: the largest, intended for use on a sandy beach, often has a more colorful design that the bathroom version <A> I would call that a flannel. <S> Often used for washing your face whilst in the bath. <S> EDIT Flannel actually refers to an even smaller cloth - see Dog Lover's comment. <A> We always just called it a Handtowel (South and Midwest), Bathtowel, (the big one for drying the body after the bath) washcloth (the smallest of them all) <A> In Australian usage, at least:the small cloth for washing one's face is a washer, or face washer;the small towel for drying hands and face is a hand towel;the standard sized towel is a bath towel;and a larger towel is a beach towel. <A> Two other terms I have heard would be "face cloth" or "wash rag. <S> " I do not know how widespread these terms are.
| hand towel: small towel, for drying hands, usually next to a sink bath towel: similar to hand towel in function, but slightly larger towel
|
The "p" in Trump I used many online resources to find out how to correctly pronounce the ending /p/ in "Trump". Is it aspirated [pʰ] or is it just [p]? Dictionaries don't answer this question because they include phonemic transcriptions, not phonetic, so they don't tell me which allophone to use. <Q> In English aspiration is entirely conditioned by the phonetic context. <S> Only voiceless stops (/p/,/t/,/k/) are aspirated, and these are only aspirated when they occur a) <S> alone (that is, not as part of a consonant cluster) <S> b before a stressed vowel. <S> Neither of these requirements is met in the name of our new Grand Orange: <S> Consequently, it's not aspirated. <S> In fact, in many contexts—at the end of a sentence, or even when a following stressed syllable begins with a vowel (e.g. "Trump oughta [whatever you want him to do]), which should cause the /p/ to act as the syllable onset— <S> the /p/ won't be discernibly 'pronounced' at all: the /m/ has already effected its defining lip closure, and the glottal closure which accompanies stops for many speakers is likely to completely mask its release. <S> But that doesn't matter: the closure will signal to any listeners that there should be a /p/ there, and that's what they will 'hear'. <A> It doesn't matter. <S> It could have no audible release, or moderate aspiration. <S> It would not be extremely strongly aspirated. <S> John Wells' phonetic blog, a very useful resource for information about English pronunciation, has the following relevant post: <S> VOT is <S> more Wells says the main positions where we consistently see no aspiration on English voiceless stops are immediately before other obstruents (stops or fricatives), or after tautosyllabic /s/. <S> The main position we consistently see the strongest level of aspiration used in English is in the onset of a stressed syllable. <S> In other contexts, the level of aspiration may vary depending on the accent, or even depending on the individual speaker or utterance. <A> English /p/ will be strongly aspirated at the beginning of a stressed syllable, as in the words: pot , ' parr ot, a' ppear <S> At the beginning of unstressed syllables, or at the end of a syllable, it will have only a very little aspiration. <S> In other words we think of it as 'unaspirated': 'happy, po'tato <S> When /p/ occurs at the end of a word in English it may have no audible release: tap, shop, trump <S> When our lips come together to make the [p] in these words, the audible word will probably finish. <S> We don't hear the lips coming apart again or the air from the [p] escaping.
| the /p/ occurs in the consonant cluster /mp/, and it occurs at the end of the syllable.
|
Is "a couple of something" plural or singular? Which of the followings is correct? There are still a couple of months left until the end of semester. There is still a couple of months left until the end of semester. <Q> There is/ are still a couple of months left until the end of semester <S> Some number-transparent nouns can take singular and plural obliques (A lot of errors were made ~ " <S> a lot of work was done"). <S> But because "couple" means "two" or "a small number", it takes only plural obliques, so in your example, the correct verb is the plural "are". <A> In this case, couple is a collective noun, so the plural is correct. <S> There are still a couple of months left until the end of the semester. <S> Here are a few items for you to look over. <S> However, it should be pointed out that in colloquial/spoken English, it's extremely common to hear something like "There's a couple of beers left in the fridge if you want one," where there are is (incorrectly) contracted into there's . <S> This might give the impression that "There is a couple of beers..." is correct, but it's not. <S> For example...in your example, you'd probably hear "There's a couple months left until the end of the semester" instead of "There are..." nine times out of ten, but formally it's incorrect. <A> The former sentence is grammatical, whereas the latter is not correct. <S> The phrase "a couple of" is used in informal English to refer to two or a small number of things or people. <S> The phrase is followed by a plural noun as months in the sentence presented, so it takes a plural verb.
| "Couple" is a number-transparent noun, meaning that the number of the whole noun phrase is determined not by the head of the NP, but by the number of the oblique (i.e. the complement of of ).
|
Is there any other meaning of "go nuts" except angry? I was watching comedy series, Man Seeking Woman. A group of people was discussing what to text a girl. I mean, they were discussing how to make good texts for the girl. Researcher: If you look at the data, you will see that women are going nuts for punctuation. A woman: That is true. Researcher: Exclamation points, in particular. I would... I would suggest 50. General : Fifty? So now we're screaming at her? Here is a video clip for the scene at 1:13. I knew go nuts means become angry . So if using the punctuation makes her angry, we shouldn't use. However, the researcher suggested to use 50 exclamation points like this: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is this situation? <Q> Go nuts <S> doesn't necessarily mean to become angry. <S> The expression's sense depends on the context in which it is used. <S> According to Macmillan Dictionary , definition #2: <S> Go <S> nuts: to behave in a crazy, enthusiastic, or violent way. <S> A goal was scored and the crowd went nuts. <A> Yes, there are other meanings. <S> Most of them, including the "enthusiasm" one you mention, are derived from the use of the term " nuts " to mean " mad " or " crazy " - note that you shouldn't use any of those terms for people who are actually suffering mental illness , as they are derogatory. <S> To " go nuts " then, is to " go crazy ". <S> That can be crazy in any of its senses, from mental illness (derogatory, as above), to crazy with anger or crazy with excitement . <S> The common theme is that the person has lost control . <A> Let's break down the scene: <S> Researcher: If you look at the data, you will see that women are going nuts for punctuation. <S> In this case, the word that is key is the word "for" after the phrase "going nuts. <S> " <S> That usually means that this is the excited use of the phrase. <S> Some examples of people being excited would be: <S> I go nuts for chocolate ice cream! <S> The crowd went nuts after their team scored a goal. <S> As for the angry use of the phrase: After being kicked in the face, John went nuts. <S> The crowd went nuts after their team was scored on. <S> The confusing thing is the sentences about the crowds. <S> If a team scores a goal, the crowd of the winning team will go nuts (they are jumping up and down and celebrating), while the crowd of the losing team will go nuts (they are angry, shouting, kicking things over). <S> It all depends on the context of the rest of the sentence. <S> In the show, the researcher is trying to help the man text a woman. <S> So, he suggests he use punctuation. <S> The funny part is, he suggests too many exclamation marks, so much so that the text would make the man come off like he is shouting at her ( <S> which is not what the man wants). <S> A woman: <S> That is true. <S> Researcher: Exclamation points, in particular. <S> I would... <S> I would suggest 50. <S> General : Fifty? <S> So now we're screaming at her? <S> Sidenote <S> : I think I found a new show to watch :) <A> Hey that cake looks amazing! <S> Mind if I take a slice? <S> Go <S> Nuts <S> This use has a similar inflection to other idioms, such as: Knock yourself out <S> It's a free country <A> With respect to the late artist Prince, his song "let's get crazy" included the lines, <S> Let's go crazy <S> Let's get nuts <S> Look for the purple banana ' <S> Til they put us in the truck, let's go! <S> No one is angry in this song. <A> Ashford United are a football (soccer) team with the nickname "Nuts and Bolts". <S> So as a fan, you could legitimately encourage your team on by shouting "Go Nuts! <S> Go Nuts!" <S> OK, I know it's not the answer you're looking for, in the context of the rest of the question. <S> But it's Friday morning. :)
| It can also mean "go ahead", sometimes sarcastically, giving someone permission to do something they've asked for. The phrase "going nuts" can either mean that someone is very angry and may be hitting, smashing, throwing things or hurting others, but it could also mean that someone really likes something; that they are enthusiastic about something.
|
Looking for a negative word to describe someone who speaks in a way that appeals to masses, regardless of if they believe in what they say I'm trying to mentally describe someone who seems that they don't believe the opinions they say, but only say them on platforms because they know they will get a massive amount of support and praise for holding such a, typically common, belief. This person may try to start an argument on the winning side when nobody was debating in the first place. Ex. A man goes on Facebook and writes "Irish people are people, too!". They get unanimous support and praise because their claim is nearly universally supported by friends, but there was no reason to even bring it up as there was no clear indication that Irish people were not being treated as people, or he may have made up a figurative scenario. He may not even care about these imaginary people he described, but he knows people will agree with him and pat him on the back for having the moral high ground, and nobody can tear him down because his viewpoint is so not at all controversial. <Q> I believe that the word you are looking for is demagogue . <A> With the utmost caution against bringing any actual political discussion into this, here are a few possibilities: Populist <S> This would describe, in particular a politician, a person who says whatever it takes to get the popular support of the masses. <S> This does not quite get into what you are saying. <S> Virtue signaling <S> This is a neologism, and is a loaded term that may offend certain people or imply you have specific political beliefs. <S> This refers to the practice of people openly espousing popular "correct" beliefs in order to demonstrate that they are "good people". <S> Shit-stirrer <S> Maybe not quite what you need. <S> Someone who goes to places where this is no trouble, then makes trouble for the sake of making trouble. <S> Agitator <S> In a similar vein, a person who just wants to create trouble. <S> It implies that they "agitate" other people to become emotional like they are, for the purpose of perhaps forming a mob or achieving a political/social goal. <S> Slacktivist <S> Another neologism, also be careful how you use this. <S> Someone who spends a lot of time talking about and supporting the "right" political causes, but doing very little actual activism. <A> You can use the term, "hypocritical" which means to state something the person does not practice or follow, themself.
| Here is the entry : demagogue : a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas
|
Difference in the meaning and the grammar between "take a bite out of the stings" and "take the bite out of the stings"? What is the difference in the meaning and the grammar between Take a bite out of the stings and Take the bite out of the stings in the sentence, The jellyfish are still here. There are millions of them and they're stung me all over! I'll make a mixture of seawater and baking soda. That'll take the bite out of the stings When I search a dictionary, "take a bite ouf of Sth" is searched, but "take the bite ouf of Sth" is not searched. Why? <Q> When I wasn't looking she took a bite out of my hamburger. <S> One can figuratively take "a" bite out of something too, though this is less common. <S> McGruff the crime dog wants you to help him take a bite out of crime. <S> In this case, McGruff wants to reduce the number of crimes that are committed. <S> In both cases we are reducing the quantity of something by taking a bite out of it. <S> To take "the" bite of something is almost always figurative. <S> Jellyfish stings can feel like <S> something is biting you, so you can "take the bite out" of them in various ways, including a mix of seawater and baking soda, which makes them less painful. <S> You can use "take the bite out" in many different contexts, with anything that feels like a sharp, biting pain -- physical, emotional, whatever. <S> In really cold weather like this you have to wear a warm hat to <S> take the bite out of the freezing wind. <S> Actually it doesn't even have to be painful, just any strong sensation like an unpleasant odor or taste. <S> This curry is pretty spicy, but if you eat it with some of the yogurt sauce that'll take the bite out of it. <S> If we were to take "the" bite out of crime, we would be mitigating the negative effects of crime without necessarily reducing the number of crimes committed. <S> Synonyms for "take the bite out of" <A> When you take "a bite", that's an action. <S> You're using your mouth to remove a chunk of something. <S> When you take "the bite" out of something, that's a property that's being removed. <S> Here are some relevant definitions: From Dictionary.com : 22. <S> a cutting, stinging, or nipping effect: the bite of an icy wind; the bite of whiskey on the tongue. <S> From M-W : <S> 7b : a sharp penetrating effect <S> The soup has a peppery bite. <S> the bite of the wind on our cheeks <S> So in your example sentence, the mixture will lessen the pain from the stings, or in other words, take the "bite" out of them. <S> It's a sort of idiomatic usage, where the effect of the stings is likened to the pain of actually being bitten. <A> Generically, 'the bite' refers to something painful and 'a bite' is a significant portion. <S> In your jellyfish example, "the bite" is the pain caused by the injuries. <S> To take 'the bite' out of the stings means to stop the pain, although the injuries still exist. <S> So to say you reduced the pain but didn't stop it completely, you could say the seawater and baking soda mixture was to take 'a bite' (a portion) out of 'the bite' (pain) of the stings. <A> Simply put to take " A " bite means that you are eliminating only a small portion of the whole. <S> To take " THE " bite out would mean to remove the cause of injury as a whole, to remove the problem to a suitable level.
| To take "a" bite out of something often refers to literally biting and removing a piece of it.
|
A proverb for "You can pay your dues and enjoy the fruits of your labor for the rest of your life" in AE Scenario 1) Imagine someone is living a hard life because they have to save their income to invest in a very worthwhile field that can be very helpful in their future financially. You want to sympathize with them. Or (at least in our language) Scenario 2) Imagine you want to sympathize a university student who is going through think and thin to achieve a degree at a very good college and in a good major which can guarantee some valuable job opportunities for them afterwards. In the both cases above, one can use a multilateral proverb in our language which says: "You can pay your dues and enjoy the fruits of your labor for the rest of your life." The only proverb which I found in a domestically written book, was: Short term pain for long term gain. However, even if it works I doubt if it is something that sounds natural to an American. I was wondering if you could help me with this case and let me know what is the best way to convey the massage in my question. <Q> One proverb we use is "You reap what you sow. <S> " <S> This proverb essentially says "If you do good things, good things will happen. <S> If you do bad things, bad things will happen." <S> Another is <S> "Hard work pays off" - this may be more appropriate in your second example, as it doesn't address investments. <A> If you want something that works with the financial sector, there's: <S> All your hard work will pay dividends . <S> to pay dividends to produce good results or advantages <S> Usage notes: often used to refer to something you do now that will benefit you in the future <S> : All your work will pay dividends – you'll see. <A> The shortened form of you proverb which gets used is <S> You have to pay your dues <S> meaning one faces a tough time at the beginning and the expectation is things will be better later on <S> Another might be <S> You need to work/study hard to get ahead. <S> the meaning is obvious. <S> During the Civil Rights movement the phrase <S> (Keep your) <S> Eyes on the prize was used to mean no matter how difficult things may be, never forget your goal. <A> Interestingly enough, we don't have a proverb that's an exact fit for this. <S> Some possibilities: <S> Mighty oaks from little acorns grow A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step <S> Good things come to those who wait <S> God helps those who help themselves <S> Make hay while the sun shines And this, somewhat more recent "proverb": If you build it, they will come
| Others have mentioned "you reap what you sow" but this is, if anything, more often used in the negative to mean "just desserts".
|
When your income and expenses do not add up Edited: Imagine someone's income is X, but they cost X+1. Then I was wondering if someone lets me know whether the verb used in the sentence below sounds natural to indicate this message or I could state it in a more natural way: He can't add up his business expenses and revenues. If there is a better way to state the same this (e.g. an idiom, fixed expression etc.) I would be grateful if you let me know about it. Added: How can I indicate that the person in our question cannot match these two (I mean (their incomes and expenses). I'm really sorry to edit my question again! When we say such a thing the listener can easily diagnose which one of the following two cases is the intended matter by the speaker (based on the extracted feedback from the conversation). I supposed it as a default and even didn't think about any need for any separation to clarify my meaning to you. Well! Let me explain a bit more. Actually on second thought it can indicate two absolutely different matters according to our language: (First) imagine the person earns 6000 $ per month, but he buys e.g a suit for 4500 $ and yet has to pay for the house rent, grocery, commuting costs etc. so it would be not surprising that the guy will end up getting in trouble spending his money that way. (Second) Imagine this individual earns 2000 $ per month but he has to pay for many things. Babysitting cost, house rent, transportation costs, grocery, eating and so on. Nevertheless the person just earns 2000$ monthly, but he has to pay for all these. <Q> The expression used in bookkeeping is balance , employed as both a noun and transitive or intransitive verb to designate an equality of positive and negative values. <S> His income and expense balance. <S> His income balances his expenses. <S> He has balanced his income and expenses. <S> If income and expenses do not balance, the difference must be assigned to assets or liabilities so that all four categories are in balance. <S> In your case, you want He can't balance expenses and revenues. <A> An informal expression is : make ends meet to have just enough money to pay for the things that you need. <S> he really can't make ends meet. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> The most common idiom for this is probably that the person is living beyond their means . <S> For example: Signs You Are Living Beyond Your Means : "Living beyond your means is easy to do in a debt driven society. <S> All we need to do to purchase an item these days is swipe a credit card and on we go to the next purchase. <S> The days of using cash are numbered which makes reckless purchasing even easier." <S> The spoiled 20-something used to living beyond his means : "I have a penchant for the good life, but after a year of living it up, I found myself with $12,000 in credit card debt! <S> In addition to that, I just got myself into some legal trouble and need to come up with about $6,000 for my lawyer. <S> I make $1200 every two weeks after taxes and 401(k) contributions."
| His income and expenses are in balance.
|
Corresponding word for “wet” for diapers "My diaper is wet." my kid told me.If he pooped in his diaper, can "wet" be used? How to convey the message if he pooped in diaper? <Q> I assume you wanted to keep the my diaper is [word] form. <S> Soiled and full don't necessarily mean that the diaper is filled with poop, but I believe it is strongly suggested. <S> I prefer my diaper is full , but I noticed that the word poopy was commonly used in various sites, like here <S> Q: How often should diapers be changed? <S> A: <S> Well, poopy diapers should be changed as soon as it is clear that your baby has left you a gift. <S> and here <S> I only change if they are very wet or poopy. <S> Changing my girls' diapers also wakes them up. <S> According to Ngram , poopy diaper has gained more popularity than full diaper in recent years. <S> I don't know how common this is, but I think <S> My diaper is poopy. <S> sounds perfectly fine and clear. <A> Wet can also be used since, <S> at least technically, it is wet <S> and it will feel wet to him. <S> Maybe you could teach him to say I pooped. <S> or Stinky. <S> versus <S> I peed. <S> then he would know the difference (might possibly be helpful to you too!). <A> I don't see anything wrong with using wet for either one. <S> Compare a common phrase adults use, "I need to use the restroom." <S> In many situations it would be awkward to say whether it was pee or poop. <S> However as Peter pointed out, it might be helpful to you to teach your kid to alert you about what to expect when you open the "package." <S> A common way to distinguish the two that is socially acceptable and considered polite is to say "number one" for urine and "number two" for feces. <S> Person 1: "I need to go to the bathroom." <S> Person 2: "Number one or number two?" <S> Person 1: <S> "Number one" (pee)
| Yes, you can use wet , but I would expect full or soiled .
|
Is "How is your dog like?" wrong? This site says Be like or what is … like? We can use be like to ask for a description of someone or something (e.g. their appearance, their character, their behaviour): What’s your new apartment like?Not: How is your new apartment like? What does " someone " mean? Is " a dog " belonged to someone or something? Is " How is your dog like? " wrong? <Q> When we speak about dogs, cats and other pets we usually use the pronoun "it" which is referred to inanimate nouns ("something"). <S> If you speak about your pet or a pet you know <S> well, you can use "he" or "she": "I have a dog. <S> He is very clever." <S> Is <S> "How is your dog like?" wrong? <S> Yes, it's wrong. <S> "What's your dog like?" is correct. <A> The other answers are correct if that is the entire sentence. <S> However, "how", as in "in what way" would be correct in a sentence like this: <S> How is your dog like a wolf? <A> Yes, "a dog" is an example of "someone or something. <S> " <S> In fact, everything counts as "someone or something. <S> " <S> The real rule is that you say "What is X like?" <S> , not "How is X like?" <S> So you would say What is your dog like? <S> not <S> * <S> How is your dog like? <A> How is your dog? <S> This is likely a discussion about his health or an already known issue. <S> How is an adverb and means: <S> (Google Dictionary) <S> in what way or manner; by what means. <S> "how does it work?" <S> used to ask about the condition or quality of something. <S> "how was your vacation?" <S> You are using ' <S> how' instead of 'what". <S> "What is your dog like?" Means 'what is his his behaviour like'? <S> Is he a busy, or worried, or fast running, or nervous or a lazy dog? <S> I call my dogs 'family' and talk about them as if they are people. ' <S> Someone's, not objects. <S> This is generally assumed to be silly behaviour by other adults -- but understood by others owned by dogs.
| Someone means 'somebody'.
|
Are we having classes tomorrow? vs Do we have classes tomorrow? Are we having classes tomorrow? Do we have classes tomorrow? Are these questions above correct? Does one of them sound a more 'formal' way? <Q> The first thing to recognize is that these two sentences are really asking about the current state of affairs of a decision as to whether there will be classes tomorrow. <S> They aren't a request for a prediction about tomorrow's classes subject to all random circumstances. <S> That is why they are present tense even though they refer to tomorrow's classes. <S> As @Davo mentions in comments on the question and here, there are some implied words that are missing. <S> The meanings of the sentences are essentially "Are we (going to be) having classes tomorrow?" <S> and "Do we have classes (scheduled for) tomorrow? <S> " <S> Both of your sentences reflect common language. <S> The use of present tense to refer to a future event in this case is understood to be shorthand for this meaning. <S> If you were literally asking for a prediction about tomorrow's classes, it would be more correct to say "Will we have classes tomorrow?" <S> (total absence of any present tense). <S> " Are we having " can be used in several ways. <S> It can refer to ongoing current activity. <S> It is also commonly used to refer to a decision about a future event, such as described in this question. <S> "Are we having turkey for dinner <S> " refers to the present decision rather than the actual future dinner. <S> "" Do we have classes tomorrow" is understood to mean the same thing, but it is clearly missing some implied words. <S> It wouldn't mean the same thing in reference to dinner. <S> "Do we have turkey for dinner" would be asking whether we have turkey on-hand to prepare for dinner. <S> So "are we having" and "do we have" wouldn't necessarily convey the same meaning in any sentence about a future event. <S> In this example about classes, the meaning is the same. <S> As to whether one sounds more formal, "sounds" is the operative word. <S> "Do we have" is more direct, so "are we having" might have more of a formal ring to it. <A> Both are correct. <S> "have" means "possess". <S> On account of this("possess") <S> meaning,simple tense use of "have" is preferred. <S> Like, I have a cellphone,instead of,I am having a cellphone. <S> But when "have" imply different meaning than "possess", like when it is referring to an activity,event,plan,etc. <S> then continuous tense other simple tense,can also be used. <S> So,both of followings are right: <S> "We have a class today. <S> ""We are having a class today." <S> And,by extension, interrogatives are also correct. <A> Both are correct; the difference is mainly a matter of choice and taste. <S> Are <S> we having classes tomorrow. <S> is an interrogative form of present continuous tense . <S> In present continuous we can use about past, present and future. <S> ( See here in the British council site ). <S> We can use it about the future for something which has been arranged or planned: <S> Mary is going to a new school next term. <S> What are you doing next week? <S> So practically speaking it is grammatically correct. <S> Anyway, many people would use the phrase " going to ", since we use We use going to to talk about plans decided before the moment of speaking ( see here - British council ) <S> "Are we going to <S> have classes tomorrow?" <S> Regarding to the second choice: <S> Do <S> we have classes tomorrow? <S> is an interrogative form of present simple tense , that can be used for future plans as well. <S> (See here - British council ) <S> So both choices are correct, and in conclusion: For future plans we can use present simple tense, present continues <S> tense <S> (with or without "going to"), and of course in future simple tense : Will we have classes tomorrow? <S> For more details, read here: "Talking about the future" ( An article by British council )
| Both sentences are acceptable, and a form of common shorthand. No one of them is really considered more formal than the other.
|
A formal term for a list of events that have transpired I'm trying to pick a good name for a concept. We have previously completed actions (e.g., file uploads or admissions approved) and those constitute a list that historically speaking is "what's been up", so to speak. At the moment, we're using a Swedish term for it and translating that, gives me history . However, in the original language, there are two different terms: historia and historik with slightly different connotation as to how extensive the details presented are. The former will provide more complete descriptions and connotations, whereas the latter settles merely for a list of events. It's the second one that I'm going for. Is the term history the only I have to go on or is there a better, formal one? <Q> If I understand correctly, I propose timeline . <S> timeline <S> 1. <S> a linear representation of important events in the order in which they occurred. <S> Timelines are often depicted as a line with significant events on it, but they can be bulleted lists too. <S> Here is an example from Wikipedia, Timeline of European exploration <A> Looking at definition one, this is: A linear representation of important events in the order in which they occurred , Dictionary.com which is essentially: a list of events. <S> What do you think? <S> Is this what you had been looking for? <A> History is certainly an acceptable word. <S> An alternative is log : Computers. <S> any of various chronological records made concerning the use of a computer system, <S> the changes made to data, etc. <S> dictionary.com <S> It's used in some software for a list of what's happened to a file, e.g. Tortoise SVN, see here .
| I think what you're looking for is: a timeline.
|
Google told me that "in the world" is used to express astonishment or disbelief in questions. How come? I was listening to some old song, "XXXXXX is a place on earth". I was wondering whether the meaning would change if I replaced "on earth" with "in the world", so I typed these keywords on the Google search: In the world + meaning And then Google told me this: in the world phrase of world 1. used to express astonishment or disbelief in questions. "why in the world did you not reveal yourself sooner?" Does this mean that I can not use "in the world" in non-question sentences? If I write I believe that there are many nice people in the world. Is my sentence wrong then, because I use "in the world" this way? Please help me. <Q> How in the world did you get here? <S> Where in the world did I put my keys? <S> What in the world is she talking about? <S> In other sentences it represents a kind of fanciful exaggeration: <S> There's nowhere in the world <S> I'd rather be than here with you. <S> You're the best mother in the world! <S> Broccoli is the most disgusting food in the world! <S> Otherwise it's just descriptive: <S> Noodles, in one form or another, are eaten by many people in the world. <A> The phrase "in the world" all by itself simply specifies a location (somewhere on earth). <S> Because the whole world is a big place, the phrase "in the world" can be used to intensify certain expressions. <S> For example "I have every reason in the world to think ill of you." <S> (Pride and Prejudice) <S> When "in the world" is added to statements about the unexpected it raises them to the level of astonishment. <S> For example Where did you get that? <S> This probably refers to something mundane such as "Why do you have my hairbrush?" <S> Where in the world did you get that? <S> This means " <S> Wow! <S> Is there a place on earth where you can get those?" <A> The interrogative pronouns: what, where, who, when and why and how [adverbs] are followed by a verb in interrogative form. <S> What in the world are you doing here?How in the world <S> did you get into the house without a key?When in the world <S> did I ever say that to you?Where <S> in the world did you buy that hat?Why in the world <S> would you want to do that?Astonishment or disbelief <S> In the world and on earth are the same thing here. <S> It is only when preceded by that kind of question word that it denotes surprise, astonishment or disbelief. <S> Of all the places in the world, this place is best. <S> Never in the world was he going to get it right. <S> The best place on earth is here. <S> But, they can used in regular sentences or to refer to actually something in the world.
| Certain expressions using question words + "in the world" do indicate surprise, disbelief, exasperation, puzzlement, and various other emotions:
|
"Do never..." vs. "Do not ever..." I am just arguing with my friend if the phrase "do never something" is totally wrong compared to the phrase "do not ever something". And is "never" a contraction of "not ever"? Is it okay using "Do" in the beginning to emphasize a word? I am about to say "Do NEVER remove the credit!" as my warning notice on my free projects that shared publicly. But someone told me the sentence is wrong and said the correct one should be "Do not ever remove the credit!". I am fine with "Do not ever" this never wrong in grammar. Then I say that using "Do never such a thing!" is also fine ("Do" work as an emphasis). Because I ever seen someone else using this pattern. <Q> We can say things like: <S> Don't ever text while driving. <S> Don't ever do such a foolish and dangerous thing! <S> Never text while driving. <S> Never do such a foolish and dangerous thing! <S> But we don't say " Do never do such a thing". <S> unidiomatic P.S. <S> In contemporary English, the do never {verb} construction is either a formulaic literary holdover from the 17th century, a petrified expression, or a regionalism. <S> One may still find it in religious texts, where the language tends to be conservative and resistant to change, and often imitates the phrasings of earlier exemplars. <A> never and not ever are almost equivalent, but there are some restrictions on the use of the latter. <S> do 3.1 is a positive imperative (albeit quite a polite one): it tells you that you must do the main verb, whereas never is a negative imperative: you must not under any circumstance do the main verb. <S> Note, you can negate <S> do with not , and that makes a negative imperative, which is much more common than the positive form. <S> You can add ever to make it even more emphatically negative. <S> If you reverse the word order, you get never do . <S> This is perfectly acceptable as long as do is the main verb, rather than an imperative. <S> If an archaic statement like "Never the twain meet" and turn it into a question: <S> Do never the twain meet? <S> This works because do in this context <S> is not an imperative but a question auxiliary. <A> And is "never" a contraction of "not ever"? <S> No, but you're close. <S> Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=never <A> "Do never" itself sounds quite odd to me. <S> In my years as a native English speaker, I've never heard it used in US or British English. <S> Some proper examples of "do not" include: Don't drink and drive! <S> (You should) never drink and drive! <S> Don't ever drink and drive <S> Further: <S> For signage and public warnings, "DO NOT X <S> " is used more commonly. <S> In conversation, "do not ever " or " never do that again <S> " is much more dramatic and uncommon in a normal discussion than just saying "Don't do that". <S> I'd leave the word "ever" out in this case. <S> Contextually, if you're asking people not to remove credit from your work that you're releasing publicly, instead of saying "Do not", I would suggest one of the following: <S> You must credit the original author(s) in all derivative works of this project; or, Please do not remove credit to the original author(s) of this project in derivative works. <A> First, "do never" is non-standard and would get you funny looks from native speakers. <S> "Do not ever" or "don't ever" are both fine. <S> Second, no, "never" is not a contraction of "not ever". <A> The confusion you are having stems from a misunderstanding of what the word not is associated with. <S> You are associating it with the word ever which would make the phrase equivalent to: <S> Perform an act (do) at no point in time (not ever) <S> Which makes no logical sense at all. <S> How can you be instructed to perform an act but not be allowed a time to perform it? <S> With the not associated with the do <S> instead it makes more sense: You must never perform an act (do not) at some point in time (ever) <S> Which is possible to do. <S> You can abstain from an action in a given time frame, but you cannot perform an action with explicitly no time to perform it in. <S> So the not can be contracted with the do since the two words are associated together into a single meaning: <S> Don't ever It's also worth noting that don't ever is usually seen as more emphatic than never , such as: Never go to the mall on Sunday, it's boring. <S> Or Don't ever let me catch you doing that again! <A> Both are wrong. <S> Here are some sentences that you can use. <S> Hey, Chris. <S> Never do something like that. <S> Hey, Chris. <S> Don't ever do something like that.
| Never is a compound of "ne (meaning not) + ever, but not a contraction. As for do never , in this context it's an oxymoron - two words used together that have, or seem to have, opposite meanings.
|
What is the difference between "benefited" and "was benefited"? What is the difference between The company was benefited from xyz and The company benefited from xyz and which is better? <Q> There are two different verbs "benefit." <S> There is a transitive verb "benefit" meaning to <S> provide a benefit. <S> His education benefited him financially. <S> Because it is a transitive verb, it can be placed into passive form: He was financially benefited by his education. <S> There is an intransitive verb "benefit from" meaning to receive a benefit. <S> He benefited financially from his education. <S> That cannot be turned into a passive. <S> His education was benefited financially. <S> is obvious nonsense. <S> So, He was benefited financially from his inheritance. <S> is a subtle, minor error in grammar. <A> The verb benefit is both transitive and intransitive. <S> The company was benefited from xxx. <S> The verb benefit has been used here as a transitive verb in the passive, but this sentence is not grammatical. <S> You should use "by", not "from", before the agent xxx in the passive voice as follows: <S> The company was benefited by xxx. <S> In the active voice, it is as follows: <S> Xxx benefited the company. <S> You usually use the benefit in the active voice; its use in the passive is not so common. <S> The other sentence: <S> The company benefited from xxx. <S> It's grammatical, in which the benefit has been used as an intransitive verb. <A> For example: - I have benefited greatly from her help. <S> - The new law will benefit many people. <S> The main difference between (The company was benefited from ...) <S> and (The company benefited from ...) <S> is simply that the first sentence is in the Passive Voice form by which the speaker can hide the identity of the actor (the subject) for some reasons and the second is in the Active Voice by which the actor is revealed as in the above sentences ( her help and The new law ).
| Benefit as a verb means to be helped by something or to help someone.
|
Word to describe "to talk excitedly about something"? Is there a word for "to talk excitedly about something"? I'm sure there's a word for that. But Thesaurus.com didn't give me the answer. Example sentence: Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been ______ for the past few days. <Q> How about rave ? <S> From M-W, Definition of rave raved; raving intransitive verb 1 c : to talk with extreme enthusiasm • raved about its beauty Using the given example, Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been raving about for the past few days. <S> Though I believe rave suggests that she's already tried it and now she wants to show John that it's great. <S> A somewhat informal alternative is hype . <S> From Dictionary.com, hype verb (used with object), hyped, hyping. <S> 2. to create interest in by flamboyant or dramatic methods; promote or publicize showily: Using the example, Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been hyping for the past few days. <A> gushɡʌʃ/verb 2. <S> Speak or write effusively or with exaggerated enthusiasm. <S> Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been gushing over for the past few days. <A> Talk in a rapid, excited, and often incomprehensible way. <S> ‘he jabbered on about football’ noun Rapid, excited, and often incomprehensible speech. <S> Source <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jabber <A> How about enthuse <S> Express eager enjoyment, interest, or approval regarding something. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enthuse <S> Example: <S> Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been enthusing about for the past few days <A> You can say ".........she'd been raving about.......". <A> My first thought was blather . <S> to talk foolishly at length —often used with on <S> So Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been blathering on about for the past few days. <A> To bubble. <S> Mary took John to the place where they sold the banana splits she'd been bubbling about for the past few days. <A> Extolling? <S> To bless, carol, celebrate, emblazon, exalt, glorify, hymn, laud, magnify, praise, resound Does change depending on how Mary feels about her own enthusiasm. <S> Jabbering, going on about, blithering etc implies she's aware it's annoying. <S> Or more something that John might say about her mentioning it so much. <S> Raving is more neutral or enthusiastic. <S> And something like extolling feels quite character dependent, if she's that sort of person...
| The first word that sprang to mind, on seeing the title, was jabber verb [NO OBJECT] Enthusing about is also possible.
|
Is it rude to say "I will let you know"? In a meeting I've asked someone a question and in response she said: I'll let you know when I find out From her tone, I know that she didn't mean to be rude or anything, so I just want to know what a native speaker will get from it. Will you consider it a normal sentence, or rude or even funny? Clearly, I am not a native English speaker, but I've expected to hear something like: I will inform you Or something like that. <Q> It's not rude at all to tell someone <S> I'll let you know <S> It either can mean you don't know <S> or you haven't made up your mind. <S> Less ambiguous is <S> I'll let you know when I find out. <S> since it means you don't actually know at the time you were asked. <S> A short hand form might be When I know, you'll know. <S> Which can mean when you find out you will tell them, it can also mean you will all be told at the same time. <S> What is rude is if you told someone you'd let them know and then never say anything. <A> It is too formal and a more friendly way of saying it is exactly as you heard it - <S> 'I'll let you know'. <S> Basically therefore, this is what you should expect to hear. <A> In addition to the previous answers I wish to add that both " I'll let you know " and " I'll inform you " are not rude, but depending on the context in speech and the situation either of them can be rude. <S> I'll inform you - is, as I think, more formal and more professional. <S> I'll let you know - is more common in everyday English and is less strict than the previous phrase. <S> To see the bigger difference, " I'll inform " is closer to " I will tell you personally ", while " I'll let you know " can either mean " I will tell you personally " or " someone or something else will inform you "—in either case in result you will be informed.
| To say I will inform you is very formal and does not give the impression that they are being friendly.
|
limited-edition or a limited edition I am going to make up two similar sentences below. (1) This colorful vase is limited-edition . (2) This colorful vase is a limited edition . Which one is correct? <Q> Looking at the website of Oxford Dictionaries ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/hyphen ), it does not seem like there is a specific rule concerning hyphens which would apply here. <S> Grammar Book goes into it a little bit deeper ( http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp ), however, no rules which indicate there should be a hyphen can be found there. <S> Adding that to the fact that there are only a few search results for "limited-edition" and many for "limited edition" (including Wikipedia and some dictionary websites), I think it should be written as "limited edition" . <S> (Also, concerning the "a": I would use an article here, so it would be "a limited edition".) <A> (In other words, if limited edition is used as an adjective prior to the noun, it should be hyphenated.) <A> I'd say OP's #1 is less common, but perfectly credible <S> (there are many instances of (model) <S> was <S> a limited edition in Google Books, but none at all for the same without the article). <S> I think the hyphenation is pretty much "optional" in both versions, though personally I'd be more likely to hyphenate the "adjectival" article-less usage in #1, not the "noun" one in #2. <S> It does also partly depend on whether the speaker is referring to the vase/model/etc. <S> as a "collective" (representing both itself and all others in the limited-membership edition/set/issue/etc. ) or simply stating an attribute of the specific object. <S> I find OP's #1 more "natural" in the former context. <S> For example, an advertisement encouraging you to buy their "collectable" commemorative plates (for display) might reasonably include this plate is limited-edition in their list of favourable attributes. <S> They don't mean to reference any specific plate there - they mean the entire collection, collectively. <A> Correct would be "a limited-edition" though you could leave out the "a" but it wouldn't sound right. <S> Would be like saying "This vase is blue one" I understand, but saying "This vase is a blue one" is gramatically correct and makes more sense <A> This is an interesting question which leads to an answer which is not straight forward due to the advice available online. <S> Both are correct, and it is down to whether indefinite articles are used within the sentence, or not. <S> Rule 5 within the Grammer Book link <S> @user12048 provided, gives a clue as to what you need to look at. <S> Rule 5. <S> Never hesitate to add a hyphen if it solves a possible problem. <S> Following are two examples of well-advised hyphens: Confusing : Springfield has little town charm. <S> With hyphen : Springfield has little-town charm. <S> Without the hyphen, the sentence seems to say that Springfield is a dreary place. <S> With the hyphen, little-town becomes a compound adjective, making the writer's intention clear: Springfield is a charming small town. <S> Confusing : She had a concealed weapons permit. <S> With hyphen : She had a concealed-weapons permit. <S> With no hyphen, we can only guess: Was the weapons permit hidden from sight, or was it a permit for concealed weapons? <S> The hyphen makes concealed-weapons a compound adjective, so the reader knows that the writer meant a permit for concealed weapons. <S> The sentence <S> This colorful vase is limited-edition . <S> has the need for a hyphen, because, without it the sentence would not make sense. <S> "This colourful vase is limited edition " <S> would say that the vase is limited, (limited by what? <S> — Use?), <S> but then you have the word edition laying loose on the end of the sentence. <S> You could add the word by into it to say "limited by edition" <S> but then that would signify that the number of editions are limited. <S> Without the hyphen, the sentence would need to be rearranged to "The edition of the colorful vase is limited" in order for the sentence to make sense, but then you would need to add, for example, "by quantity" or "by number of these vases manufactured" on the end to be sure the reader understands the context. <S> (The edition is limited by what?) <S> Using the hyphen joins the words <S> limited and edition together to say that the edition is limited. <S> This colorful vase is a limited edition . <S> is different because the indefinite article — a — splits the sentence <S> this colorful vase is ¦ a limited edition indicating that the edition is limited and the vase is colourful.
| If the phrase were reversed, it would be correct to use the hyphen to say a limited-edition vase.
|
Is it okay to start a letter with "Dear " followed by "Hi, "? I'd like to know whether it is okay to start a letter like this: Dear Bob, Hi, Bob... I've been doing this but not sure it is totally acceptable. Isn't "Hi, Bob" somewhat redundant as there is already "Dear Bob"? Sure, there are many ways to start a letter but what I'd like to know is if it is appropriate. <Q> Avoid that as best you can. <S> The best way to start a letter or email really depends on how close you are to the recipient. <S> For instance, if I worked at Microsoft and was emailing the CEO of Apple, I would begin with "Dear Mr. Cook" or simply "Mr. Cook". <S> If I was emailing my own boss, I might start it with "Hi, Mrs. Mallard" or something else similarly colloquial. <S> Long story short, do one or the other, but not both at the same time. <S> Hope this helps! <A> "Dear Bob" is just letter-writing language for "Hi, Bob <S> " so including both of them is redundant. <S> If you're writing a formal letter, saying "Dear Bob" has already said hello, so you don't need to do it again. <S> If you're writing informally, you might prefer to write "Hi, Bob!" <S> instead of "Dear Bob". <A> "Dear Bob" is a greeting . <S> It's a standard part of a letter, but it does not necessarily require the word "dear". <S> In fact, "Hi, Bob" would itself be a perfectly acceptable greeting, provided that the letter is intended to be informal and friendly (and that you're on informal and friendly terms with Bob). <S> So do not use both, but remember that it's perfectly acceptable to use "Hi" instead of "Dear". <A> Using the name twice is redundant. <S> I would suggest: Dear Bob, Hi, this is soandso. <A> If it is an email, you address the person as you would in person. <S> Their email goes directly to them in most cases. <S> If it goes to the department first, slightly more formality may be warranted. <S> If it is a business letter, the name, title, department, company name and address will be above the greeting. <S> So will yours be if you are writing on Company letterhead. <S> Once all those titles and addresses are on the letter, you politely address them as you would in a business meeting. <S> Even if you are writing your good friend in her capacity as your bank manager and you need her for a business reason, you would not say "Hi Mary", your would address her as Ms/ <S> Miss/Mrs. Smith or Mary Smith. <S> You could, in an ongoing business relationship use, "Dear Mary,". <S> In the body of the letter, you might speak to her directly. " <S> Thanks for your help, Mary." <A> "Dear Mr. Jones" is a formal opening, so people sometimes begin the body with "Hi" to transition to a friendlier tone. <S> "Dear Bob" is informal, so "Hi" would stand out as redundant. <S> However, it would never seem appropriate to repeat the person's name in the first two phrases. <S> Salespeople are (or were) trained to make frequent use of the person's name on the theory that it established some form of rapport. <S> However, the practice triggers people's "salesperson radar" because it usually seems uncommon and unnatural in normal speech. <S> So repeating the person's name in the opening of a letter would tend to be off-putting, the opposite of what you want. <A> Maybe, just maybe, if the "Dear" part is so long or formal or must follow a particular format that it actually ends up as its own section of the letter: If you must format your letter to open with a very formal salutation, in order to meet guidelines from your workplace/university/organisation, for example: "Dear Sir Henry Guffington the third, Duke of Australiama, Order of the golden Kangaroo, PhD, GSSE,Golden swimming certificate, Silver swimming certificate", <S> But you are actually quite close to the person I could possibly imagine following that up with: "Hi Henry, how are you going?".
| I agree with you: "Dear Bob" followed by "Hi, Bob" is redundant.
|
Word for someone who always thinks about his girlfriend Is there a word for someone who always thinks about his girlfriend? He does not let her go on Facebook, he only lets her do things that he wants, he always dotes on her, he does not like when she talks to other people. <Q> A common contemporary term for this is "controlling", as in "over-controlling". <S> He was very controlling of their relationship and never let her go out with friends. <S> He was a very controlling person and habitually read her personal email and texts. <S> the relationship: His domineering personality made it so that she couldn't leave the house without telling him where she was going, and when she would be back home. <A> In slang, an informal term is: The guy is a control freak. <S> Johnny is obsessed with his girlfriend and is a control freak. <S> [[The one I hate is when "they" start saying what girlfriends can or cannot wear! <S> Or who they can talk to. <S> Ugggh]] <A> You might also consider the word "abuser" as someone who exhibits the types of behaviors you mentioned in your question is emotionally abusing their girlfriend. <S> Emotional abuse often turns to physical abuse. <S> Controlling, domineering, jealous, etc. are watered down ways to describe emotional abuse. <A> I would like to suggest attached . <S> Which means: "to bind by ties of affection or regard." <S> You always attach yourself to people who end up hurting you. <S> An even stronger wording could be overly attached <S> The overly attached girlfriend is a common meme which is very much in line with the description:
| Another, more extreme possibility is "domineering", which implies the person dominates
|
Is the comma needed or confusing in this sentence "The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, including notably Latin." That is supposed to mean: The Italic languages include Latin. I suppose that sentence is wrong, because the relative phrase is a participle phrase that could be replaced with a which phrase and I learned not to use a comma there . In contrast, I'd always add it before the non-restrictive relative clause (I mean the which clause). Am I right? I tried reading the wiki article on relative clauses, but that was too much for me. <Q> The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, including notably Latin. <S> The comma is needed to mark the following clause as a supplement rather than a modifier. <S> The same would be true if the clause were cast as wh- <S> relative. <S> If the comma were not present the clause would be understood as a modifier syntactically restricting the sense of the Italic languages to [the Italic languages which include Latin], implying that Proto-Italic is not the ancestor of other Italic languages which do not include Latin. <S> Of course this is not the case: <S> Proto-Italic is hypothesized to be the ancestor of all Italic languages. <S> That the Italic languages notably include Latin is an additional remark, unrelated to the assertion in the main clause. <A> The only suggestion I'd add is to add commas around "notably" since it's "extraneous* to the sentence. <S> The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, including, notably, Latin. <S> Parentheses would also work, or just rewrite the sentence to remove "including", since it's implied by "notably": <S> The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, notably Latin. <A> "The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, including notably Latin." <S> Alternative: <S> "The Proto-Italic language is the ancestor of the Italic languages, most notably: Latin.
| The sentence is fine as written.
|
What would be a word for a product that is below the expected level of quality? I am wondering if there is a word for a product that does not meet the expected quality. Something like a 'below average product', but that does not feel correct so I was hoping for a better word. In this specific case it is about a refurbished product, which is sold for a lower price than the regular product. So it is the same product (it is even tested to comply with standards), which could retail for a slightly lower price. In context it could be something like this: People assumed that the refurbished product was of ___ quality. What would be a word for a product that is below the expected level of quality? <Q> I think the word substandard might be a good fit. <S> Some official definitions of this word include: Failing to meet a standard; below standard. <S> Less than the normal standard. <S> falling short of some prescribed norm below the usual or required standard ( link ) <S> As an example usage, blogger Christopher Scott wrote: Operating a business based on hiring and employing the lowest-cost worker, however, usually results in substandard products. <A> I would also submit subpar . <S> below an average, usual, or normal level, quality, or the like; below par:This month his performance has been subpar. <A> Another word that can be used here is inferior : <S> Consumers assume that it is an inferior product . <S> One could also say the refurbished product is of inferior quality , although to my ear that's a less natural usage, and less common than <S> substandard quality as suggested by another answer. <A> A noun for a product that is below-standard quality is lemon . <S> From Merriam-Webster's Definition for English Language Learners: a product that is not made well : a product that does not work the way it should <S> In your example, if the product was inspected and guaranteed to be up to certain standards, then it should not be an actual lemon. <S> However, you might still say that People assumed that the refurbished product was (or would be ) a lemon . <S> Note that we ordinarily wouldn't need to use the word quality , since the term lemon includes a judgment of poor quality. <S> This term might be more common in American English than other dialects (in the US we even have "lemon laws" protecting consumers from bad quality products). <S> It also is slightly informal, although it is sometimes used in technical contexts relating to product liability. <A> I like substandard. <S> But what about of low quality or of lower quality ? <S> low <S> 24. <S> of inferior quality or character: a low grade of fabric; a low type of intellect. <S> People assumed that the refurbished product was of low quality. <S> People assumed that the refurbished product was of lower quality. <S> In a context of new and refurbished products, of lower quality implies lower quality compared to a new product . <S> By the way, there is also, low-quality : people assumed that the refurbished product was low-quality . <A> "Remanufactured", "refurbished", and "rebuilt" are good descriptions for the kinds of products that the original poster asked about in the comments. <S> For example, automobile manufacturers offer "rebuilt" engines, transmissions, and other parts. <S> These products typically meet the same standards as the original parts. <S> They are typically either sold at a discounted price, or they are sold when the original product is no longer being made. <S> "Seconds" are products that are rejected because they do not meet the standards for "first-rate" products, but are sold at a discount to customers who are aware that the products have some defects. <S> For example, I own ceramic dishes that are somewhat wavy. <S> I did not pay much for them, because they were "seconds". <A> Inadequate lacking the quality or quantity required; insufficient for a purpose. <S> People assumed that the refurbished product was of inadequate quality. <A> Not an exact fit to the usage, but worth using in different circumstances: <S> In the UK something that is new, but not up to expected quality and hence sold elsewhere, is colloquially known as "factory seconds". <S> There are various shops around the country specifically selling them, and they're often used as stock for the cheaper pound / dollar type shops. <S> Often (but not always) <S> the products are re-branded if possible (such as boxes of assorted broken biscuits). <A> There are many words that can fit that description.. <S> Probably one of the most common is " subpar " where "sub" obvioulsy means 'below' and "par" means 'expectation' like in golf. <S> So the word subpar literally means 'below-expectations' Other words you can use, which aren't as good of a fit but still make sense <S> are: Lackluster - Often used to describe the performance of an individual i.e. a sportsperson or businessperson. <S> Bemusing <S> - A word used to describe something that turned out to be less interesting/exciting than intended. <S> Ie. <S> a bemusing play, or a bemusing announcement. <S> There are also more generalistic words that would also work here, however they would also work in other scenarios that do not match this context there are LOADS of words you can pick from in the English language like: Disappointing , Unimpressive , Let-down <S> And one final point, no one will have trouble understanding if you just use below-expectations as an adjective/noun like the following examples: <S> The sales teams' performance this week was below-expectation. <S> The sales team had a under-expected performance this week.
| Of inferior quality; not meeting the minimum quality requirements.
|
You are in a toilet and someone knocks on the door. What do you say to him so that he won't enter? You are in a toilet and someone knocks on the door. What do you say to him so that he won't enter? Is there a formal and an informal phrase? <Q> There are numerous ways to inform someone that you're using the restroom. <S> Here are some brief ways. <S> Occupied. <S> That's the first thing that came to my mind. <S> Some more causal ways would be Just a minute. <S> (Note that this is not a literal minute, but a request or notice for an additional moment.) <S> Someone's in here. <S> I'm in here. <S> (If the person outside knows you.) <S> You could even simply say/ask <S> Yeah./Yeah? <S> This is enough to let the outside person know it's occupied. <S> If you want to give a long sentence, then maybe something like: <S> The restroom is currently occupied. <S> Please return momentarily. <S> Honestly, even a grunt, "uh", or some similar interjection can suffice. <S> It's a bit of an awkward situation, so people will understand that you might not want to say much. <S> They'll understand you're in there anyway. <A> You can say almost anything you like, but obvious choices are things like "Occupied!" <S> (to describe the state of the bathroom stall, which is occupied by you) or "Don't come in!" <S> (the basic imperative). <A> I personally would say, "I won't be long." <S> In the event that I had severe bowel problems I might say, "I'm sorry, I could be some time." <S> The advantage of this is that it gives the person knocking an indication of how long they will have to wait - they may need the facility urgently!
| I think a more polite phrase would be One moment please. Or you can simply make some obvious noise to signal your presence, like grunting.
|
Which is the best place to use "are"? I had asked this question on Bio.SE Why are fearful stimuli more powerful at night? OR Why fearful stimuli are more powerful at night? Which one is grammatically correct and please explain the reason. <Q> When we make a question with question words like "what","where","why","when" and other ones, provided they are not the questions to the subject of the sentence, we put the copula before the subject. <S> So the first question is correct. <S> Why(a question word) are (a copula) fearful stimuli (a subject )more powerful at night? <A> Why are fearful stimuli more poweful at night? <S> When you start a direct question with the wh-word "why" to ask about reasons or explanations, the why is always followed by be as a main verb + subject or an auxiliary + subject + main verb. <S> Why is he here? <S> Why are you angry? <S> Why are you doing it? <S> Why did he speak to him? <S> Why will you go there? <S> As for the sentence "Why fearful stimuli are more poweful at night? <S> , it's not incorrect altogether. <S> In fact, it's part of an indirect question that's more polite and formal. <S> The word order in the indirect question is the same as in a normal statement. <S> You can rephrase this question as follows: <S> Could you tell me why fearful stimuli are more poweful at night? <S> Tell me why fearful stimuli are more powerful at night. <A> A copula used before or after a subject depends on each situation. <S> If we want to make question, a copula must be used before subject. <S> For example:What are you doing now? <S> If we want to use it as a noun phrase, a copula should be put after subject. <S> For example:That is what we are thinking now. <S> I don't know why you did that. <S> Back to your question, this sentence is correct: Why are fearful stimuli more powerful at night?
| The use of the linking verb "are" is in the right place.
|
What is a word for situation on people ignoring unimportant person? What is a word for situation on people ignoring unimportant people? Precisely in the situation that people are trying to ignore people in a polite way <Q> people ignoring unimportant people ... <S> in a polite way You're kind of looking for an antonym of "snub" , which still includes being ignored...which will almost by definition be hard to be interpreted as polite. <S> The closest thing I can think of is the expression "smile and nod" , which is the idea that you don't really respond to someone <S> and you're just letting them say what they feel like saying. <S> The reason it can be interpreted as polite is that a reaction was given--but not one that took the conversation further. <S> The likely-unusual-to-new-speakers word "nod" means to raise and lower your head in a way to suggest "yes" or "agreement". <S> Though in here it implies this is just a polite way of not getting into a confrontation with someone-- <S> vs. <S> actually agreeing or being interested in their issue. <A> The expression cold shoulder might be appropriate, though it's not specifically about somebody that is unimportant. <S> it might also be used in other circumstances, for example guests who have overstayed their welcome. <S> He gave them the cold shoulder. <S> According to the Cambridge Dictionary , it can also be used as a verb: <S> He was cold-shouldered by all of his colleagues. <A> Examples of this occur in movies where the staff of wealthy individuals commit crimes but are overlooked initially as potential suspects, e.g. "the butler did it." <S> Fundamentally I believe it depends on the situation. <S> A news reporter who is ignoring the people who are trying to be seen on air can be said to be "trying to stay focused on his/her task"
| If a person were simply in the state of being ignored, then you may refer to them as being "beneath notice" .
|
"Took as its mission" or "took its mission as"? The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took as its mission the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world. In the above sentence, is "took as" supposed to be "took its mission as ~"? If I am wrong, please let me know. <Q> In the pattern to take something|someone as X <S> The basic meaning of take there is "to accept", and the as -phrase describes the nature of the taking or acceptance. <S> Often, as can be paraphrased with to be in this pattern. <S> Do you take this woman as your wedded wife ? <S> Do you take this woman to be your wedded wife? <S> They took it as their responsibility to clean up after the party. <S> They took it to be their responsibility to clean up after the party. <S> As you can see there, the as -phrase comes before a rather lengthy object ...to clean up after the party. <S> and there is a cleft with it , which stands as a proxy for to clean up after the party . <S> That cleft occurs because this sentence would be unwieldy: <S> They took to clean up after the party as their responsibility. <S> unidiomatic <S> We don't normally have infinitives as direct objects of take . <S> But we could say it with a gerund: <S> They took cleaning up after the party as their responsibility. <S> P.S. <S> In your original The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took as its mission the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world. <S> the object is the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world . <S> That is a very lengthy object, much longer than cleaning up after the party , and so, to keep the relationship of the as -phrase and the verb intact, the as -phrase remains with the verb took instead of coming after the object. <S> Here is what it would be if the object comes first: <S> The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world as its mission . <S> We don't find a cleft there because we use a cleft with it when we need a nominal object because the actual object is an infinitive. <S> There, we have an actual nominal, the dissemination... . <S> We could recast the object: <S> The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took it as its mission to disseminate Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world. <S> but the collision of it and <S> its makes the sentence confusing, which defeats the purpose of using a cleft. <A> The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took as its mission the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world. <S> The sentence above is an example of heavy noun phrase shift . <S> The Direct Object is a very long noun phrase: the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world. <S> We often move very long Objects like this to the end of the sentence. <S> In the Original Poster's example, it has moved past the preposition phrase as its mission . <S> If we put the phrases in their normal order, the sentence would look like this: The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took [the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world] as its mission . <S> The preposition as is taking the noun phrase its mission as a Predicative Complement. <S> In other words its mission describes the dissemination of the Buddha's teaching. <S> We could paraphrase as its mission with the phrase to be its mission : <S> The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took [the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world] to be its mission . <A> Not exactly. <S> It reads better with commas: <S> The Mauryan Empire in the third century BC took, as its mission, the dissemination of Buddaha's teaching to an ignorant world. <A> There are several good answers that explain what is correct in this case, but they don't really compare the two alternatives, so this is a supplement. <S> We need a mission or purpose, what should it be? <S> Let's take X as our mission. <S> "Take its mission as" is interpretation. <S> We've been told our mission is XYZ, but the description is ambiguous. <S> What does it really mean? <S> Let's take the mission to be X.
| "Took as its mission" is filling a hole where a mission is needed.
|
How to understand "still less fear" here? From DEEP MOAT GRANGE : Not once did she manifest the least emotion or contrition, still less fear. I think "still less fear" is an adverbial modifier, but what does "still less fear" modify? Besides, I noticed there is a "less" in that phrase, and so it seems there should be a comparison in that sentence. But I can't find any comparison in that sentence. Could anyone give me some hints? <Q> So in OP's context, the "literal" meaning would really be something like... <S> She didn't manifest emotion or contrition even once, and she manifested fear even less often than that . <S> Obviously in OP's exact context that literal interpretation could be seen as rather odd, since not once means never , and it's a bit nonsensical to talk about something happening less often than never . <S> In practice therefore, it often makes more sense to understand the intensified negation as applying more directly to Y - some "negating" statement <S> has been made asserting that X didn't happen, was unlikely, or isn't a suitable word for the context , and that statement would be even more true if we substituted Y instead of X. <S> A common alternative that could usually be used with exactly the same meaning is... <S> Not once did she manifest the least emotion or contrition, <S> let alone fear ... <S> where it would make more sense to interpret the "intensified negation" as implying something like the preceding assertion would be even more true if we substituted fear instead of emotion or contrition . <A> I believe the comparison is between the amount of emotion or contrition and the amount of fear still less is used to introduce something even less likely than something already mentioned. <S> It shortens what would otherwise be quite a long sentence. <S> "Not once did she manifest the least emotion or contrition and the amount of fear that was manifest was even less." <A> Let's take the example sentence from the Cambridge dictionary that @stangdon has cited: <S> At the age of 14 I had never even been on a train, much less an aircraft. <S> We can substitute "still" for "much" there. <S> She had never seen a single snowflake, still less a blizzard. <S> The phrase "let alone" is synonymous with "still less" or "much less": <S> He had never read a short story, let alone a Russian novel. <S> This pattern relies on a gradient of some kind, comparing things at opposite ends of the gradient. <S> It denies or negates the extreme thing more forcefully by denying the unextreme thing in relation to it: <S> He had never been to the next county over, still less to a country on the opposite side of the planet. <S> When we apply the structure of this pattern to the original sentence, we see that the author might be straining the pattern: <S> Not once did she manifest the least emotion or contrition, still less fear. <S> for it creates a gradient of emotion contrition <S> .................fear but the nature of the gradient is not very clear. <S> Is fear less likely than contrition? <S> Is fear more extreme than contrition? <S> Do these human responses even belong on the same gradient? <S> She showed not the slightest regret, still less heartfelt contrition. <A> It is an illogical sentence. <S> Not once <S> did she manifest X, <S> means "she manifested X less than once, thus zero times"; "she did not manifest X at all". <S> Then still less fear. <S> means she manifested fear less than she demonstrated X: <S> she manifested fear fewer than zero times . <S> ("Not once" is an idiom in English that usually means "zero times"; although "three times" is "not once" in a literal sense, that interpretation doesn't apply here. <S> It does apply in other situations, for example: "Not once, but twice did he insult me!") <S> Also, since fear is an emotion, the statement "not once did she manifest emotion" already implies that she manifested no fear. <S> Had she manifested fear one or more times, it would not be correct to say that "not once did she manifest the least contrition or emotion". <S> The woman manifested no emotion: she manifested fear exactly as much as she manifested contrition: to a nonexistent extent, zero times. <S> Though illogical, this could be a deliberately humorous or ironic sentence. <S> (A line from a slapstick character in a comedy play or whatever).
| In constructions like Not X, still less Y , the still less element is effectively an intensifier of negation , equivalent to Not X, and definitely not Y .
|
grow a tooth, fall a tooth, and loose a tooth I've got a tooth grown.I've got a tooth loosened.I've got a tooth fallen.Are the sentences above correct?If no, how should I say them instead?I'll be grateful to them, if anybody answers my question. <Q> I am Canadian, so we might say it differently than say the UK. <S> I think that none of your examples work. <S> My tooth has come in. <S> / <S> My tooth finally erupted*. * less common. <S> I have a loose tooth. <S> (A child might say a wiggly tooth.) <S> My tooth fell out. <S> / <S> I lost a tooth. <S> I can LINK <S> but all the link does <S> is show you the language in use. <S> I can't find a good dictionary definition. <A> None of those adjectives (words modifying the noun tooth) are quite correct. <S> I would suggest new, loose, and missing. <S> A more important lesson to learn here is that you are putting these words in the wrong place. <S> In English the adjective usually goes before the noun it modifies. <S> I've got a new tooth. <S> I've got a loose tooth. <S> I've got a missing tooth. <S> I lost a tooth. <S> (no adjective in this one) <A> I've got a tooth grown. <S> This sounds like you have a garden where you are growing teeth as plants or like bacteria in a petri dish. <S> I've got a tooth loosened <S> This sounds like you asked to have someone loosen your tooth. <S> But in regards to a child having their first teeth fall out, the teeth "loosen themselves. <S> " <S> You want to say this: I've got a loose tooth <S> OR I've got a tooth loose. <S> I've got a tooth fallen <S> Fallen <S> when used like this is synonymous with defeated in battle - which doesn't work with teeth unless you are fighting them, and really doesn't work with <S> got unless you are a battle medic, etc. <S> You want to say this: I've got a tooth that fell out <S> OR <S> My tooth fell out
| You want to say this: I've got a tooth grown in .
|
Looking for a phrase to use when asking someone to leave a task to you Let's say your roommate is trying to turn the newly-bought TV on but she can't figure out how to do it. What's the most natural way to ask her to stop so that you can do it instead in order to save time and because you actually know how to, in a friendly way? I know there's a specific phrase native speakers use to put this to word, something like (not sure though): Never mind I got this. (?) Any idea? <Q> A British English speaker would probably say either Leave it to me or <S> I'll take care of that. <A> Assuming that the discussion is going to be quite casual, I would use this-- "Let me have a try" <A> In casual AmE, I got this or <S> I got it <S> are fine. <S> Here, I got it. <S> Don't worry about it. <S> I got it. <S> Let me try it. <S> I'll get it. <S> Never mind <S> , I got this <S> doesn't sound quite right. <S> To me, it suggests that you first asked your friend to try, but she's failing, you've given up on her, and now you've changed your mind and you want to try. <S> As far as I can tell, it sounds somewhat rude.
| You can also use Let me do it.
|
Why do we have to use 'have got' instead of 'got'? I saw the sentence on the internet like this: I don't know how much money he has got. I think that I don't know how much money he got. is only possible here. What is the difference between the two? <Q> In the first sentence, "got" is redundant. <S> You can just say "I don't know how much money he has. <S> " This refers to the amount of money <S> he already possesses . <S> The second sentence, "I don't know how much money he got" refers to the amount of money <S> he just received . <A> The past tense of “get” is “got”, just as in British English, but you should remember that: In American English, the past participle of “get” in its literal sense of “receive” or “become” is usually “gotten”. <S> In the sense of “must” or “have”, the past participle is always “got”. <S> 'Got' vs. 'gotten' in English – Jakub Marian <S> So if you are in North America, then it might be better as: <S> "I don't know how much money he has gotten." <S> However that would require the 'has' (because it just sounds better to my ear). <S> It means that you do not know how much money he has already in his possession. <S> I am Canadian and have never used 'gotten' in my life! <S> 'I don't know how much money he got.' <S> This means you do not know howmuch money he received for a reason. <S> 'I don't know how much money he has got.' <S> This means you do not know how much money has already has in his possession. <A> As so often is the case with English, the meaning does not match the words. <S> In the absence of a defined window of time, this would be your total income since birth. <S> Fortunately this is so unlikely a question as to cue idiomatic interpretation - as the amount of money you currently possess. <S> But it's still a ridiculous construction. <S> Omitting got changes the meaning not one whit, but makes meaning and words agree. <S> It's also shorter. <S> Use the simplest structure that conveys your intent. <S> Sadly, idiom often ignores this rule. <S> I think it's worth pointing out that there are many British dialects. <S> Use of "has got" is discouraged in RP English and is far less common in the middle classes.
| Strictly speaking "How much money you have got" means "how much money has come into your possession".
|
Why is "letter" not plural in "two letter words"? Why is "letter" not plural in "two letter words"? For me it's very strange as the equivalent in French would be plural but my English friend finds it totally normal. <Q> Measure phrases are special noun phrases that we use to explain how long or big or heavy or expensive something is: <S> The programme was ten minutes . <S> The walk was five miles . <S> The meal was twenty pounds . <S> The word is only three letters <S> These measure phrases all include a number, like one or seven and a noun afterwards. <S> In the examples above these measure phrases are Complements of the verb. <S> You will notice that the nouns are all in the plural, as we expect. <S> We can also use measure phrases like these to modify nouns: a ten minute programme. <S> a five mile walk. <S> a twenty pound note. <S> a three letter word. <S> Here, these measure phrases are modifying the nouns programme , walk and note . <S> When we use measure phrases in this way, the noun in the measure phrase is not plural. <S> We see no S on the ends of the words in the measure phrases. <S> Really this is not very surprising. <S> Why? <S> Well, when we use a noun to modify another noun, we don't usually use plurals <S> (there are exceptions of course). <S> So we usually say: a book collector an ant eater a cherry tart <S> We don't say: *a books collector <S> *an ants eater <S> *a cherries tart <A> You might mean 'two-letter words'. <S> For example: I went on a trip of four days after my three- day work was done. <S> A boy of five years and another six- year -old girl. <A> The measure phrases, such as "two-letter", act as adjectives. <S> We do not pluralize adjectives in English. <S> We should never primarily try for a word-for-word translation as our primary goal. <S> I don't have the "reputation" to comment on others' posts, but let's improve on sentences such as "The meal was 20 pounds. <S> " <S> No, the meal cost 20 pounds. <S> (More precise, easily translated, and enjoyable to read.) <A> For a combination of 2 reasons: English has a Germanic grammar, and in Germanic languages, "twoletterword" is one word – a noun! <S> It does not matter that English writes it in 3 words (and as a result, calls it a noun phrase , not a noun) – Germanic languages are older than writing. <S> As far as I know, all other Germanic languages would write it as "twoletterword", which may better represent how they work. <S> Inflecting a word's constituents is undefined in English. <S> You can only inflect the word as a whole, which is indistinguishable from inflecting the last constituent word (because Germanic compound words read like domain names – most significant part last, which is also where the inflection is). <A> A compound noun combines multiple nouns to make a new noun, and treats the first noun as an adjective to describe the second noun. <S> Two letters and word are combining to make a new noun. <S> A car salesman is another example. <S> The true noun here is salesman. <S> The word car is there to tell us what kind of salesman they are, so it's being used like an adjective and therefore should not be pluralized like you might a noun. <S> Many compound nouns have no spaces between their constituent nouns, such as keyboard, dishwasher and bathroom. <S> Those examples demonstrate the sheer power of compound nouns--the ability to just take a singular noun and tack it on to another to make a new word. <S> Awesome. <S> And imagine how funny it would sound if you had to add <S> s <S> /es to the first of the two nouns (keysboard, disheswasher, bathsroom...). <A> The issue is an understanding of the implicit but unspoken content:a 'letter' means an "instance of the letter object'a 'word' means a collection of letter objects <S> Thus a "two letter word" means two instances of the letter object combined in a wordwhile a word of 20 letters is a collection of size 20 containing letter objects <S> The English language recognises that the two usages describe different things and therefore have different structures
| Be aware that there's a real hyphen between 'two' and 'letter', with which we don't use plural from of the latter word because such a hyphened phrase is used as an adjective, not a noun. They are in the same position that we find adjectives in. Any accurate translation is an equivalent: any phrase that gets across the same meaning, or as close to that meaning as possible.
|
What does "I saw him wash the car" mean? What does this sentence mean? I saw him wash the car Does it mean "I saw him when he was washing the car"? <Q> It doesn't quite mean "I saw him when he was washing the car". <S> As I have explained elsewhere Verbs of perception like see, hear, watch, feel take both -ing -form and bare infinitival clauses as complements, but there is a slight difference of aspect between them: <S> The infinitival complement implies that what is perceived is a completed action. <S> He watched me play means that he watched until I was finished playing . <S> The -ing -form complement implies that the action continues while it is perceived, but is not necessarily finished during that period. <S> He watched me playing means that he watched for some time while I played, but implicates that he stopped some time before I finished . <S> "I saw him when he was washing the car" is a (very rough) paraphrase of <S> I saw him wash ing the car . <A> It could mean a couple different things, depending on emphasis and context. <S> You've listed one possible meaning: <S> I saw him when he was washing the car. <S> By including when in this version, this particular sentence seems to emphasis time. <S> In other words: "When did you see him?" <S> "I saw him when he was washing the car." <S> Another possible meaning: <S> I saw that he washed the car. <S> This version emphasizes that you know he washed the car because you witnessed the event: "The car looks dirty – are you sure he washed it?" <S> "Yes, I saw that he washed the car." <S> Or, perhaps we want to emphasize who washed the car: <S> I saw that it was him (and not someone else) who washed the car. <S> "Somebody washed my car – I wonder of it was Deborah." <S> "No I saw that it was him (and not Deborah) who washed the car. <S> When you take a simple sentence like yours, and ask what it means, it's hard to say precisely what it means without surrounding context. <S> The gist of the original sentence is simple: <S> He washed the car <S> You saw him do it <S> but any other meaning is conveyed more by the situation and the surrounding conversation than it is by the individual words themselves. <A> You're overcomplicating things. <S> It simply means that he was seen as he was washing the car and it doesn't mean that the act was completed. <S> It only takes a split second of observing this action to be able to make that statement
| So "I saw him wash the car" means that I saw him complete his action of washing the car, right down to finishing the job.
|
Can I use 'having' in a noun clause? Let's say there is a person in a room who has a blue pen in his hand. Can I say something like this: Whom should I ask from? The one having a blue pen Or I only have to answer like this The one who has a blue pen <Q> The one having a blue pen is grammatically impeccable, but impossibly literary. <S> This sort of utterance is unlikely to appear in a formal context, and practically no Anglo-American speaker today (and very few in the past) would express that meaning with having . <S> We'd say The one with a blue pen. <S> And even that is fairly stiff: in actual speech pronominal one is rarely used except to allude to a member of a previously defined category: <S> Which monitor/teacher/clerk/&c <S> should I ask? <S> The one with the blue pen. <S> But with uncategorized who rather than categorized which , most people would use the appropriate noun: <S> Who should I ask? <S> The guy/woman/kid/&c with the blue pen. <S> If you have no idea who will have the blue pen, use a fused relative: Whoever has the blue pen. <A> * <S> The one having a blue pen. <S> (ungrammatical with this meaning) <S> It uses an -ing clause having a blue pen to modify the common noun one . <S> Why would people consider it ungrammatical? <S> That's a good question! <S> We can split verb phrases into two types. <S> Some verb phrases describe actions, for example: <S> She's eating an ice-cream. <S> The elephants are dancing the tango. <S> We play tennis every Thursday. <S> Above we see examples of actions such as eating, dancing or playing tennis. <S> Other verb phrases describe situations instead of actions: She has a brother. <S> I don't like cheese. <S> I know Bob. <S> We normally only use ing clauses to modify nouns when they describe actions . <S> We don't use them when they describe situations or states. <S> The following examples are fine because they describe actions: <S> The one eating an ice-cream <S> The one dancing the tango <S> The one playing tennis These examples which describe situations, not actions, are wrong: <S> * <S> The one having a brother. <S> * <S> The one not liking cheese. <S> * <S> The one knowing Bob. <S> The Original Poster's question <S> The Original Poster wants to know if we can use clauses with having to describe nouns. <S> The answer is: it depends! <S> If the verb having is being used to describe a situation (especially if it describes possession), then we cannot: <S> * <S> The one having a pen. <S> The one having a party. <S> The one having a tantrum. <S> The one having his face painted. <S> This is similar to how we use <S> -ing <S> verbs in present participle constructions. <A> The answer "The one having a blue pen" is correct, but the question is not correct. <S> There is no preposition after "ask" We can re-write the sentence as following: <S> Whom should I ask? <S> The one having a blue pen <S> In this case, we can understand that: I should ask the one having a blue pen
| The sentence above would be regarded as ungrammatical by most native speakers when used to convey the meaning the one who has a blue pen . However, if the verb having is being used to describe an action , then we definitely can:
|
“Language has no independent existence apart from the people who use it.'' What does this mean? Somehow I don't seem to understand this quote. “Language has no independent existence apart from the people who use it. It is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end of understanding who you are and what society is like.” — David Crystal I specifically don't understand the first line. It makes no sense to me. I'm thinking that it means that 'language doesn't exist independently, it is dependent except to the people who use it.' I know I am wrong. I got the gist of the next lines. I searched the web but it only shows the quote itself or doesn't explain enough to me. Can anyone please thoroughly explain the first line? I wouldn't mind the complete explaination, though. <Q> It seems you are confused about the phrase "apart from". <S> While this is most often used in the same way as "except for", here the word "apart" is being used to mean "separated". <S> The meaning of the sentence is therefore: Language has no independent existence <S> separated from the people who use it. <A> To understand a complex sentence: Cut off clauses and adverbials so that only the main sentence is left. <S> Figure out the subject, predicate and object. <S> Add the clauses and adverbials back one by one. <S> Following the procedure given above: From the first 2 steps, it yields <S> Language has no independent existence, Add the "apart from" back and re-arrange the sentence, now it reads <S> Where "apart from" has the meaning of "if separated from / without" and "has no independent existence" can be interpreted as "can't exist independently". <S> So overall, that sentence means Without people who use it, language cannot exist. <S> If there are no people who use it, language cannot exist. <S> Here "independent" can be omitted as it has exactly the same meaning as the adverbial clause. <A> The sentence is a little esoteric (meaning that it takes on an abstract or mystical topic). <S> What the author is trying to relate, if I understand it correctly, is that languages don't occur in a vacuum. <S> David Crystal is a linguist and it seems that he's probably making a point about English in usage. <S> I believe what he is trying to relate is that language <S> and it's <S> usage are dictated by the people using it. <S> It is probably meant as a refutation to linguistic purists (think of someone insulting another person for using church Latin instead of Cicero's). <S> The point being made here is that language that is not used (archaic) <S> doesn't rightfully belong to language and that things that seem incorrect but are common do belong within a language. <S> For instance, "thrice" means three times but is archaic. <S> If you said, "I went to the beach three times" and I said, "I went to the beach thrice", David Crystal would probably assert that you are correct. <S> I hope this helps, -J
| Apart from the people who use it, language has no independent existence.
|
Interpretation and meaning of ""They were speaking to each other halfcircular words at the semiround table." I translated a sentence to English: "They were speaking to each other halfcircular words at the semiround table." In original language, this sentence is: "Разговаривали друг с другом за полукруглым столом полушарной лексикой" I thought a half-circular word is a word that was said as hint, just in general, like beating around the bush, nothing concrete . I want to understand how people could perceive it. What picture could people see when reading the sentence? <Q> The word you're looking for might be elliptical . <S> It means something like "deliberately obscure" or "intentionally vague" or "cryptic", but it also means "shaped like an ellipse (an oval)"! <S> So it might be a neat play on words to say <S> "They spoke elliptically at a half-round table" , because it makes a punning reference both to how they were speaking and the shape they were in. <A> I think it is saying that they were speaking in half-truths . <S> These are often used to deceive others for personal benefit. <S> I don't know how this is related to "half-circular words", but the "round" table referred to in the King Arthur legend implied fairness and equality of all participants. <A> And yes, it is amusing/funny that the abstract nature of the words would match the shape of the table. <S> Also suggested are: to talk "in circles ", " circuitously " or to "beat around the bush" which all have similar meanings -- to talk in an indirect, unproductive and possibly deceptive manner. <A> The expression circular talk is occasionally used, however the meaning is not specific. <S> Some people think that it means a conversation that doesn't go anywhere, or is very indirect: others that it's like circular reasoning: see Stew's answer. <S> If you were prepeared to change the shape of the table, it would read nicely as Their words were circular talk at a round table.
| " Circular Reasoning " is a form of faulty reasoning, so "half-circular words" suggests to me that the words are being used to sort of make circular (faulty/deceptive) arguments.
|
The feeling you get when you suddenly go down a very steep surface You've probably got this feeling while riding a roller coaster, that moment you suddenly fall to the bottom of a curve. It's like your heart and your stomach are being pulled down. I get this every day while going to work on my bike. On my way to work, there is this U-shaped curve in the street. Every time I get down to the bottom of this and then go up, I feel this tickling feeling which kind of makes me gasp for a moment. What's this feeling in English? If there is no particular word for this how do you describe it in English? <Q> It's called motion sickness , although we usually limit that name to when the disagreement between what our optic and vestibular systems are telling us about our motion is in such violent disagreement that it induces nausea and discomfort instead of just minor lightheadedness and vertigo. <S> You could call it minor motion sickness , which it is, but people may probably think less of you for it either because they think you're whinging about a minor discomfort or because they think you should be able to handle a bike ride without incident. <S> You could call it a sensation of kinetosis , since that means motion sickness but no one knows that. <S> They'll just be impressed or put off by your vocabulary and leave it at that. <S> Finally, you could go with an expressive phrase but, pace Ringo, there really aren't any set ones. <S> Remember, though, heart or stomach in my throat is usually talking about nervousness or fear rather than motion sickness. <A> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/230753/bottom-dropped-out <S> The bottom could drop out for someone who is being executed by hanging. <S> The bottom could also drop out for the stock market, meaning the market is doing poorly. <S> Or on an amusement ride, when the ride begins to drop rapidly, you could say, "I felt the bottom drop out." <S> If you are going over the top of a hill or rollercoaster quickly, you could feel your stomach drop or stomach sink . <S> In actuality, it's probably the sensation of all your internal organs shifting slightly in your ribcage as your body defies gravity for a few seconds. <S> An article entitled <S> How Roller Coasters Work says: <S> This is what gives you that <S> unique sinking feeling in your stomach; your stomach is suddenly very light because there is less force pushing on it. <A> As Teacher KSHuang wrote in a comment : Funnily enough, the phrase is exactly as you describe it: "It's like your heart and your stomach are being pulled down. <S> It's like my heart drops into my stomach ." <S> That phrase generates more imagery, but if you want a single word, you could also say, " freefall ." <A> You could use the word thrill , which means any sudden feeling of excitement or pleasant surprise. <S> When you say it's a "tickling feeling which kind of makes me gasp for a moment", that definitely sounds like a thrill. <A> Could you call it “your heart skipping a beat” in terms of the suddenly receiving bad news? <S> I’m pretty sure <S> I’ve seen that phrased used that way before.
| The word shock is similar, but that word means a sudden feeling of fear or unpleasant surprise. When you feel the bottom drop out , that's when you suddenly feel nothing beneath you and you are in a momentary free fall .
|
Is "this is questions" ever grammatical? I know for a fact that you can use plural nouns after "there's" , which is an existential construction. I encountered a post on Stack Overflow today which went like this: . . . this is questions. Now, of course it was ungrammatical because what the poster actually meant was "these are questions", but that's not my concern. Is there a context where "This is questions" would ever be grammatical? I'm thinking it should be a standalone sentence, "this" being its subject and "questions" or any other plural noun, its predicative complement. I took a peek at the Wikipedia article on existential clauses but there was no mention of "this". Considering it's traditionally classified as a demonstrative pronoun, I would think it would've been listed there. <Q> Here's an uncommon situation where it could work: when the antecedent of this is singular. <S> It occurs in Laura K. Lawless, The Everything <S> French Phrase Book : <S> The only exception to this is questions. <A> You could use that phrase if you were talking about the word "questions" itself as a singular object, although it would probably be surrounded by quote marks when doing this. <S> E.g. <S> [blah blah blah], this is "questions" used in context. <S> Or An example of this is "questions". <S> Another way to get this situation would be if a singular object was named after a plural. <S> A common example would be nicknames, e.g. "Bones" in Star Trek. <S> Another example: <S> This is Questions. <S> We call him that because he asks a lot of them. <A> Consider the following example: <S> There's only one thing you need to ask, and this is questions . <A> You could use "this is questions" in a context where questions is a verb, like "The man who does not recognize what this is questions whether it is useful." <S> This is really splitting "this is" and "questions" across two different phrases, though; <S> I can't see how "this is questions" could be used as a standalone sentence. <A> You could get <S> this is questions in a sentence in various ways. <S> This doesn't seem to be in any of the previous answers: <S> "This is mine?" <S> "Don't keep asking those <S> this is questions, they should be ' is this ' questions." <S> (This post doesn't necessarily constitute an endorsement of the position stated in the exchange.) <A> I would still argue that it's ambiguous, but you might consider a teacher handing a student a sheet of paper with questions written on it saying: <S> This is questions for you to consider as you write the essay. <S> In the same vein, if you wanted it to be a stand-alone sentence, try this: I have provided a couple sheets of sample homework assignment problems to get you started. <S> This is questions. <S> This is answers. <S> It's the same phrasing, where because of context, the object of "this" is actually just implied and might be "sheet of paper" or "list". <A> Using plural nouns after " There's " is considered poor grammar even though you will hear it used by some native speakers, as in " There's questions to be answered. " <S> (Bad Grammar). <S> The reference for it cited by OP simply says that you will see it used, but does not comment on the correctness of it. <S> Probably because this is ultimately a philosophical issue. <S> The answer is A) <S> You will see it used, and B) <S> it is still not considered grammatical. <S> To make "this is questions" work in the sense you want (not by a trick of splitting/splicing different phrases) <S> , this can refer to a thing/concept which in turn may be or consist of questions . <S> But it still sounds weird. <S> " <S> She knows what he wants, and this is questions." <A> That would be correct if you were introducing your pet kitten or puppy. <S> Q. <S> "What a cute puppy - whats his name?" <S> A. <S> " This is 'Questions' , because he's always asking questions" <A> If the quoted text had been followed by multiple questions, it might have been interpreted to mean, "This [post] is not [an] answer. <S> This [post] is [a set of] questions." <S> I think an argument could be made that all bracketed words except "an" can be dropped from the quoted sentences above, with a result that might be a bit informal or even awkward but that would have agreement between singular and plural where it is needed.
| As long as the this is perceived as singular and the questions are perceived as plural there's no problem.
|
"He is king" vs "He is a king." I'm reading a book and encountering the phrase " insert name is king" a lot. I'm wondering, what's the difference between them? When and why should I use "He is king" instead of "He is a king"? Examples: Tommen is king now Yet if neither one is king, still, how could it be Lord Renly? And he is a king, and you’re just a spy Everyone else is a king or prince these days Same with other words: They elected him president. They called him a thief. <Q> "Ethelred is king" means that he is a specific king, presumably the king of our own country or of the country that we have just been talking about. <S> "Ethelred is a king" means that he is one of many kings. <S> As there is normally only one king per country, this would normally mean he is a king of some unspecified country, maybe our country or maybe some other country. <S> (The only one relevant to the present context <S> , that is.) <S> This usage is consistent across job titles. <S> You can say, "May is Prime Minister" or "John is chairman-of-the-board" or "Sally is shift manager". <A> "He is King." <S> He is our King or the king of this specific country in this time. <S> " <S> He is a king" <S> He's a king. <S> One of many kings of a region. <S> There were many kings in early Britain. <S> He was a king of Mercia. <S> It can also mean there have been many kings in Mercia and he was one of them. <A> " he is king " == <S> > there is only one king and he is it. <S> " he is a king " = <S> = <S> > there may be one or more kings, but he is one of them.
| I think saying "Ethelred is king" is essentially equivalent to saying "Ethelred is the king", the specific king, the only one.
|
Is it right or wrong to say "I am still living in my old place"? Is it right or wrong to use the present continuous in the example below? I am still living in my old place. For some reason "I still live in my old place" sounds so much better to me but two people told me the first construction is OK. <Q> Both of your sentences have the same meaning. <S> If anything the first I am still living in my old place. <S> places slightly more emphasis on the fact <S> you are still there (after all these years). <A> If you were talking about rented accommodation, particulary student accommodation where you rent it for a short period like a term or a year, you would definitely use present continuous. <S> If you were talking about a house that you owned, you would probably used present simple even if you have been there a long time. <S> As Peter said, you might use present continuous to emphasise that you are still there, particularly if you think that the other person might regard this as surprising: for example, if you still live in a tiny, run-down house and you now have a very well paid job. <A> Besides, the use of the verb live in the present simple and the present continuous indicate the contnuity of the process of living. <S> So there's no difference in meaning between these sentences, especially in light of the use of still for emphasis and "my old place" in both sentences. <S> However, as sometimes, we use the present continuous for a temporary situation, the sentence in the present simple is more appropriate and idiomatic.
| We tend to use present continuous is to indicate that we are talking about a temporary situation, and present simple to talk about something more permanent. The use of "my old place" in both sentences indicates that you are talking of your permanent place of living, not a temporary one.
|
An adjective for something that is not as well-known as it should be There are two related problems that I am working on. The first problem is very famous. The second problem was published in a book about 70 years ago, but since then, little attention has been given to it. What adjective can I use to describe the second problem? I looked for antonyms of "famous" and got a long list of adjectives: unknown bad common contemptible inconspicuous ineffective infamous inferior insignificant little low normal obscure ordinary poor powerless regular small stupid typical unimportant unimpressive unnoteworthy unremarkable usual weak unnotable But, most of them imply that the second problem is not very important or interesting. I do not want to imply this; on the contrary, I want to imply that it is important and interesting, only it has not been given sufficient attention. What adjective can I use? <Q> Underrated might be what you're looking for. <S> It means something that deserves more attention than is given to it. <A> What about little-known ? <S> little-known (ˌlɪtəlˈnəʊn) adjective <S> not widely known; not famed <S> (Collins) <S> Little-known is often used to describe something interesting or important but that relatively few people know. <S> Here are some examples I found online: <S> Four little-known funds that deserve a place in your Isa <S> (The Telegraph) <S> Hear "Money," a Little-Known Piece of Jimmy Page History <S> (Guitar World) <S> This Little-Known Math Genius Helped America Reach the Stars <S> (Smithsonian) <S> 16 stunning shots from a little known Instagrammer (c|net) Using the OP, an example would be The recently proposed problem X has researchers baffled. <S> However, the little-known problem Y might hold the key to solving X. <A> I would suggest neglected . <S> In context, this carries both connotations of being little known and of this being an unfortunate state of affairs. <S> As well as Blogg's famous Widget problem, I address the related Gidgit problem presented in A tale of Widgets and Gadgets (Smith, 1937) which has been sadly neglected in the intervening years. <A> Fail to notice Oxford English Dictionary <S> As for the phrase often overlooked , we can see this used quite frequently, for instance at the time of writing a Google search for the phrase included Single word for "crucial, but often overlooked" - English Language Stack Exchange Nine Often-Overlooked Habits That Will Improve Your Financial Health - Forbes Often-Overlooked Rules of Grammar - connect - Willow Printing Group Tax Hacks 2017: <S> Don’t Miss These 16 Often-Overlooked Tax Breaks - Money Talks News as four of its top five results. <S> It does seem to be a favorite of those writing clickbait headlines, but the phrase is certainly common. <A> I think obscure might be a good word for you. <S> My Mac's thesaurus lists unknown, unnoticed , and forgotten as synonyms for obscure . <S> The dictionary lists quite a few definitions for it; the one most pertinent for you would be: obscure ( adj. ) <S> not famous or acclaimed <S> [Source: WordNet 3.0] <S> That meaning would be readily discerned in a sentence like this one: <S> We will discuss two problems – the first is well-known, while the second is more obscure. <A> Overshadowed fits nicely here, as the first problem is the cause of the second being unknown. <S> Problem B, though overshadowed by the more famous Problem A, is nonetheless important in the history of mathematics. <S> Overshadowed implies that something else has stood out more, and leaves the subject figuratively in the shadow of the other object. <S> It's used in conjunction with that more prominent object, so you will often see it in the form, "A is overshadowed by B". <S> It can be used as an adjective directly modifying the subject, but it should be clear what it being eclipsed by. <S> Though the superhero had the star role in the film, the overshadowed sidekick <S> was also a superb actor. <A> unappreciated - maybe doesn't pertain exactly to how little known, more to how little recognized. <S> All are good, except maybe obscure, which doesn't imply that it should be known ( a good thing). <A> According to what you say <S> "The second problem was published in a book about 70 years ago, but since then, little attention has been given to it." <S> primarily means that the problem was forgotten about, though it may have seemed quite important. <S> It doesn't say that it should be a well-known problem or that its importance was underestimated. <S> Based on your sentence, a possible word could be " trivialized " or " neglected ". <S> The problem appeared to be unimportant, insignificant at that time; it was a trivial problem , one of little value or importance. <S> Little light was made of this problem. <S> Or it was a neglected problem and little attention was payed to it. <S> Other possible variants are: ignored, underestimated, underrated, undervalued, understated, underreckoned,treated lightly,depreciated <S> I personally tend to "underestimated" , and "trivialized" or "neglected" . <S> A very good option would be to use two words in a row! <S> "The second problem was neglected and underrated (underestimated, undervalued)" which means that there wasn't enough attention payed to it and its importance was underestimated.
| Overlooked or often-overlooked Overlook
|
What does "the well of the Senate" mean in this sentence and why does it go on to talk about "babies"? Those magnificent generations of civil servants who have come before, many with those same robes, are waiting on you now. They are waiting because the generation of Americans who will deliver on that boldest promise of all will not do it at the point of a gun, they will not do it with the crack of a gavel, not with a speech from the well of the Senate, they will do it with a book on a beanbag chair with our babies. It is only there that America will finally find its greatest dream of itself, delivered by her proudest and most passionate patriots – the American teacher. The right to know, the power to act, the will to love: lead us there. what's 'well' in the sentence above? I looked up dictionary and there aren't any definitions of 'well' as a noun that help me understand 'the well of the senate'.. And what's the meaning of the following phrase 'they will do it with a book on a beanbag chair with our babies.' ? I mean, I understand this sentence itself word by word but I don't understand the sentence in the context . Why does that baby sentence just showed up here? <Q> "The well of the senate" is the central space in it. <S> This is an extension of meaning 10c. <S> of <S> well from the OED: c. <S> The space on the floor of a law court between the judge's bench and the places occupied by counsel. <S> "With a book on a beanbag chair with our babies" refers to a teacher of very young children. <S> This is explained in the following sentence, about "the American teacher". <A> I'm going to paraphrase the sentence in the way I interpret it: <S> They are waiting because the generation of Americans who will deliver on that boldest promise of all will not do it by coercion through violence (at the point of a gun) <S> , they will not do it with judges in the courts (with the crack of a gavel), not by passing new laws (with a speech from the well of the Senate), they will do it by gently instilling concepts into the minds of the next generation (with a book on a beanbag chair with our babies). <S> The language being used is very figurative and symbolic. <S> Books, beanbag chairs, and babies collectively evoke the picture of reading aloud in a nurturing environment – something that can be done at home and in the schools. <S> As for the well of the Senate , other answers have explained the meaning of that phrase. <S> I just wanted to add that I believe this comes from the physical resemblance between looking down into the round Senate chamber from above and looking down into a physical well from a similar angle. <A> At least one source confirms this, while noting that the origin of that word meaning is unclear. <S> To understand the clause with the babies, look at the structure of that sentence. <S> There is a parallel construction happening with the repeated "will not", "will not", "will not", and finally a positive "will. <S> " The sentence that follows clarifies who it is that "will do it": "the American teacher", who sits on a beanbag chair and reads books to our children. <S> (The school-age children are sentimentally referred to as "babies" -- we can presume the author does not mean literal infants.)
| From context you can presume the "well of the Senate" is the place where the speakers speak.
|
Is there a difference in meaning between "FROM the last ten years" and "IN the last ten years"? Why is in the first sentence the preposition from but in the second sentence is the preposition in ? The ending phrase is the same in both sentences and they have got the same meaning. Am I correct? Tonight we've got Mariela with us to talk about her favourite films from the last ten years . It was the most unusual film in the last ten years . P.S.: Source: Total English Elementary, Students' Book page 157, Recording 9.4 <Q> In the abstract, "from" and "in" are nearly interchangeable in those two sentences from a strictly grammatical perspective (either could grammatically be used, although there would be different nuances in meaning). <S> However, the usage you show "sounds" right" to a native speaker in terms of which of the two words to use for each case. <S> That is because of what we would assume <S> are the missing words behind the meaning: <S> Tonight we've got Mariela with us to talk about her favourite films [ selected ] from [ those she saw in ] the last ten years. <S> The "from" would refer to the collection from which they were selected more than the time period explicitly mentioned. <S> The time period defines the collection. <S> It was the most unusual film [ produced ] in the last ten years. <S> Note <S> : there are various interpretations and word choices people might assume for the missing words. <S> The point here isn't the literal choice of the missing words, but the general sense of why "from" and "in" seem logical. <S> "From" would seem to refer to selecting from some collection defined by the last ten years, while "in" would seem to relate to the film becoming available during the last ten years (direct reference to the time period). <A> In does not seem to me a good choice for either 1 or 2. <S> Though anyone would know what it meant, it does not sound idiomatic to me. <S> However from or of would work in either case. <A> "From" indicates the point in space or time that something starts. <S> "In" expresses a period of time where something happens.
| Here, "in" refers directly to the time period and means "during".
|
Grammatical Correctness: "he is lucky" vs "he's got lucky" Which one is better? And could we use get lucky in Present Perfect? Person A: He has just sold two pictures of his. Person B: He is lucky. My husband has been painting for five years and hasn't sold any pictures yet. Person A: He has just sold two pictures of his. Person B: He's got lucky. My husband has been painting for five years and hasn't sold any pictures yet. <Q> The phrase <S> he got lucky <S> is probably best avoided in this context as, according to the Cambridge Dictionary , it means to meet someone you can have a sexual or romantic relationship with . <S> You can use present perfect simple with the first version he has been lucky , which would mean that he has experienced good luck over a period of time. <S> You cannot use present perfect simple with the second version he has got lucky because it refers to a change of state, which is by definition a one-time event- <S> no period of time is involved. <S> You could use present perfect continuous <S> he has been getting lucky , meaning that he has repeatedly met suitable partners over a period of time. <S> Note that you would be much more likely to say two of his paintings than two paintings of his . <S> This Ngram shows the difference, and if you check actual usages of paintings of his , they are mostly used in a context like paintings of his friends . <A> When a person is lucky , they were born under the right stars, by which I mean that their luck is with them throughout their life. <S> They have always been lucky and will always be lucky. <S> When a person gets lucky , their success in some particular thing is to be attributed to luck, to some fluke, not to their skill or their innate power or their innate virtues. <S> Only the unlucky can get lucky. <S> He made that shot from half court! <S> --He just got lucky. <S> He can barely make a free-throw. <S> He came out of that accident unscathed. <S> He won the lottery last year. <S> He was promoted to VP in only two years, and his wife is one of the most intelligent, beautiful, and accomplished people I know. <S> He may be the luckiest guy on the planet. <A> the luck is continuous, the painter is often lucky. <S> (To me it also possiblymeans the speaker doesn't necessarily think he earns it, or thepainter would not need luck. <S> We'd need to hear it to know for certain or have it in context.) <S> This (to me) sounds like the luck, is undeserved. <S> (Again context -- it could be meant very well indeed.) <S> Or, "He is so lucky (to have won the lottery)!"Or, "He got lucky last night with the girl he met at the party. <S> " This means he had sex.
| he is lucky describes a permanent state, whereas he got lucky describes a change of luck or a temporary period of good luck.
|
"This bed can _____ a 500 kg load without bending", which word is correct? I have a sentence: This bed can ____ a 500 kg load without bending Which word should I use to fill the blank? I have thought of 2 words: possess and have but which one is correct? Thank you for your answers! <Q> Have also sounds like ownership to me here, so I don't think it works very well. <S> If we rephrase it as This bed can have a 500 kg load on it without bending <S> then it is very clear that the weight is applied to the bed and that it is a notable feat. <S> Returning to the original structure, I think some better options are hold, carry, and support . <S> hold <S> 4 c: to bear the pressure of : support • can the roof hold all of that weight carry 11 : to sustain the weight or burden of • Pillars carry an arch. • is carrying a full course load support 4 a : to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for <S> I think they're all equally good. <A> I would offer slightly different suggestions based on what type of bed is being referred to. <S> These suggestions can be used interchangeably for both types of bed, so its not a hard distinction. <S> If the 'bed' in question is a bed used for sleeping , then I would offer the following (among many) options: <S> This bed can carry a 500 kg load without bending. <S> This bed can support a 500 kg load without bending. <S> This bed can hold a 500 kg load without bending. <S> This bed can take a 500 kg load without bending. <S> On the other hand, if the 'bed' in question is an industrial bed (e.g. the load bed of a vehicle), then I'd be swayed towards phrasing it like: <S> This bed can withstand a 500 kg load without bending. <S> This bed can support a 500 kg load without bending. <S> Nuances in Meaning <S> As mentioned at the start of the answer, these suggestions are not exclusionary based on the type of bed, but can be used interchangeably. <S> In the first instance (bed to sleep on) <S> the word ' carry ' has anicer supportive connotation, whereas using ' withstand ' might givethe impression that the users of the bed are heavy, and that the bedis just about coping with such a weight. <S> In the second instance (load bed), the word ' withstand ' gives theimpression that it is a mechanical limit or capacity targeted atprofessional users. <S> These are small nuances between different words that you might wish to pay attention to based on the audience of the sentence <S> (e.g. if this is a marketing statement, then go for a word that is least likely to be misinterpreted or cause offence; if this is a technical document, then pick the word that is most accurate or relevant). <A> Support or withstand seems to be the more appropriate answer and not possess or have. <S> They are described well as above.
| Possess doesn't seem right because it sounds too much like the bed owns the weight, or that the weight is a feature of the bed.
|
What is the meaning of 'scalable' here? But where we stand today is equal in the eyes of the law, unequal in the eyes of the children, and it is up to us to finish the work. There is no scalable technology that can teach a child to read, only a teacher can do that; there is no law that can make kids love the wonder of mathematics; only a teacher can do that, there is no judge who can order a child to believe in herself against all evidence to the contrary; only a teacher can do that. I don't understand the meaning of 'scalable' here. what does that sentence mean? Does that mean 'techonology is not comparable to teacher'? <Q> Scalable means that something is able to grow larger and still maintain its current level of effectiveness. <S> In your sentence: There is no scalable technology that can teach a child to read, only a teacher can do that <S> the author is using scalable to concede this point: There may be technologies out there that can teach a particular child to read, or help to do so, but these technologies are not scalable. <S> In other words, just because my child learned to read using an app and a tablet, that doesn't mean we could give 30 tablets to a classroom filled with young pupils, or buy 120 tablets for an entire school, or purchase 1800 tablets for all the schools in a county. <S> Sooner or later, teachers need to be involved in order to teach reading effectively. <S> Without the word <S> scalable , the author risks making a false statement, because there probably are available technologies aimed at teaching children how to read. <A> Scalable : used to describe a business or system that is able to grow or to be made larger: To receive funding they will have to demonstrate that their idea is scalable from school level to state level. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> Scalable technology: <S> A system, business or software that is described as scalable has an advantage because it is more adaptable to the changing needs or demands of its users or clients. <S> To further understand scalability, here are two examples. <S> First, a basic anti-virus program can become premium and be used by enterprises through downloading certain add-ons or paying for subscription. <S> Because more resources may be added to it, it is considered scalable. <S> On the other hand, more computers and servers can be added to a network in order to increase throughput or intensify security. <S> This makes the network scalable. <S> (www.techopedia.com) <A> Scale in the sense of how many students we're trying to teach at once (small scale, large scale, on a huge scale). <S> Years ago, we said that something "doesn't scale up well" to mean the benefits of using the technology dwindled or vanished when applied to larger problems or applications. <S> Meaning there is some overhead, reasonable for small scale uses, that becomes prohibitive for larger scale uses. <S> Later we talked about "scalability" or asked whether something was "scalable" leaving out the word "up". <S> Context makes it clear that the necessary individual attention from the teacher is the overhead here that would be a major "bottleneck" (limiting factor) if someone tried the computer approach with (very) large numbers of students. <S> We are supposed to already know that the passage is only concerned with large-scale approaches.
| Scalability is an attribute that describes the ability of a process, network, software or organization to grow and manage increased demand.
|
The meaning of "think" in this sentence Is the meaning of "think" in this sentence clear or ambiguous? "Think the moment of victory." Does it mean "think" as in "think", as in imagine the moment of victory "think", as in cognitively perform the act of thinking when the moment of victory happens or can it ambiguously mean both of these interpretations? Thanks <Q> A more common use of the phrase would be: a. <S> "Think of the moment of victory" <S> b. <S> "I want you to think of the moment of victory" (removes the ambiguity and makes it sound less as a fragment). <S> However, perhaps the best way to fix the sense it to replace think with imagine; they do not mean the same thing as used in this context. <S> Imagine would involve more creativity or license to dream; usually used as motivation; "Imagine yourself at the top of the mountain." <S> or "Imagine the moment when you receive the winner's trophy" or "Imagine the feeling when you cross the finish line"; or "Imagine the moment of victory". <A> This is not idiomatic English. <S> It is not natural. <S> It parses as an imperative, with the verb to think and the object being the moment of victory . <S> This is not a current usage of the verb to think in British, American, Canadian, or Au/NZ English. <S> Well, it is used in certain specialist circles, often artistic or managerial, the kind of domain that delights in coming up with new ways to torture the language. <S> Even in that sort of usage, I would expect it to use quotation marks to show the way it is being said: Think "the moment of victory". <S> Short of that <S> , by any reasonable standard (that is, one based on how people actually speak and write), it is incorrect, and it will be seen as incorrect by native speakers. <S> Usually, we think of things. <S> And you could certainly say: Think of the moment of victory. <S> There's a reasonably modern use where it takes an adjective as argument: <S> Think big. <S> Think sustainable. <S> This is generally used for relatively slogan-like language, encouraging people to think in a certain way. <S> To think big is to not set limits to the imagination; to think sustainable is to think about sustainability as well whenever you think about other things. <S> There's also a way it gets used with simple nouns as object: <S> "What colour do you want to paint the room?" <S> "I'm thinking orange." <S> "What shall we get for dinner?" <S> "I'm thinking Thai." <S> That's just a way of indicating an initial thought, as opposed to a firm conclusion. <S> But if you want to tell someone to think about something, you need to say think of or think about . <S> If you want them to actually imagine it, envision it, you want imagine instead: <S> Imagine the moment of victory. <S> And if you want them to keep victory in mind while they think about things, you could say: Think victory <S> I'm not sure that's a particularly attested term, but it fits a pattern people are used to. <S> You might be better off sticking with familiar phrases, though. <A> "Think the moment of victory. <S> " <S> Does it mean "think" as in "think", as in imagine the moment of victory "think", as in cognitively perform the act of thinking when the moment of victory happens or can it ambiguously mean both of these interpretations? <S> No. <S> It is not ambiguous - it is incorrect.
| To most English speakers, the sentence would be very difficult to comprehend as the word think is very rarely used in the form used here; although grammatically it is correct. It does not mean any of those things.
|
What does it mean to say "f*** this n***a" here, and when to use it I was reading some jokes on Facebook when I saw this.What does it mean and when will you use it? <Q> The following represents usage in AmE. <S> I imagine there are similarities in other English speaking regions. <S> nigga <S> Usage alert Nigga is used mainly among African Americans, but also among other minorities and ethnicities, in a neutral or familiar way and as a friendly term of address. <S> It is also common in rap music. <S> However, nigga is taken to be extremely offensive when used by outsiders. <S> Many people consider this word to be equally as offensive as nigger. <S> The words nigger and nigga are pronounced alike in certain dialects, and so it has been claimed that they are one and the same word. <S> noun, Slang: <S> Usually Disparaging and Offensive. <S> 1. <S> a term used to refer to or address a black person. <S> Origin of nigga alteration of nigger , based on pronunciation fuck you <S> interjection <S> An exclamation of very strong defiance and contempt : <S> Fuck you, friend, if that's your attitude (1940s+) <S> (Dictionary.com) <S> This nigga refers to D. D <S> is someone's nickname. <S> fuck him . <S> In this exact context, it would be equivalent to fuck him in terms of meaning (assuming D is a male). <S> In this instance, fuck this nigga is used instead of fuck him <S> likely because of stylistic and cultural reasons. <S> People who use nigga openly like this frequently use nigga instead of the usual pronouns in informal, casual speech. <S> To their friends and people in their "circle", it's often meant as a friendly term. <S> To people with whom they are not on friendly terms, it's again a term of contempt. <S> I would not recommend an English language learner to use these terms ever. <A> Max has covered most of the answer well, so I will just offer an alternative interpretation of the final sentence. <S> As this is essentially speech, not prose, you can't assume proper use of grammar. <S> An alternative reading of the final sentence is therefore "Fuck this, nigga.", where "this" refers to the instructions from "D", not "D" the person, and "nigga" <S> is the person they are talking to. <S> In this interpretation, it implies that <S> the person saying this is going to paint the room blue despite D's advice. <S> In the interpretation proposed by Max, the sentence splits up in to "Fuck" and "this nigga". <S> This is just an exclamation of contempt for "D" and doesn't necessarily imply any action from the speaker. <S> Further context may help you decide which meaning is more relevant. <S> I would argue that the exact meaning as posted is ambiguous, but essentially amounts to the same thing: the speaker is saying that they are unhappy with being told they can't paint the room blue because Tamiya is a girl. <S> I would like to echo others by strongly advising that you don't use the word "nigga" as it is very likely to cause extreme offence to others. <S> I would recommend never using swear words in general in any polite context, regardless of what other people are doing, and to only use them around others in an informal setting if they start using them first. <A> That text is written in African-American Vernacular English ( AAVE ). <S> This is a dialect common all over the USA among African-Americans, particularly in areas where they are the majority (such as certain areas of most large cities, and in some rural inland areas in The South ). <S> Its famous internationally as the dialect the Blues, American Rap, and most Rock & Roll music is written in. <S> In that dialect, "nigga" is a term of (sometimes affectionate) annoyance a black person may use to refer to another black person, usually if they are seen to be either currently or perpetually behaving badly. <S> The racial aspect is a very important point, as a white person using this same word to refer to a black person means something completely different (and quite offensive). <S> * "D" is possibly the person's first initial, but more likely slang shorthand for male genetalia, indicating this person is a female talking about a male she is in an intimate relationship with (and likely not married to). <S> Another aspect of AAVE is that cursing is usually sexual in nature (rather than religiously profane like it often is in wider English). <S> So the last sentence is further emphasis of displeasure, and expressing an intent to ignore the guy's opinion. <S> I'd translate it into more stock English as: <S> My sexist boyfriend is insisting my daughter's room must not be painted blue, as he feels that is the incorrect color for her gender. <S> I don't care what that jerk thinks. <S> * - Often some white people think they can use it in the more innocent sense. <S> They are wrong. <S> Context always matters.
| Overall, fuck this nigga is an expression of defiance and contempt, much like fuck you or
|
What is the difference between 'located in' and 'located on'? I am solving the TOEIC workbook, by the way, I faced conflict that doesn't match meaning I knew. The problem is The newest branch of the library is located in/on Pine Street. I think either 'in' or 'on' have the same meaning. But the commentary said that 'be located in' is mainly writing in front of building name and city name. I don't know what is correct? <Q> Prepositions are so versatile in their usage that it's difficult to give exact rules on their usage. <S> However, here is rough guideline from English Club: Prepositions of Place: at, in, on <S> In general, we use: at for a POINT in for an ENCLOSED SPACE on for a SURFACE at Point in ENCLOSED SPACE on SURFACE <S> at the corner in the garden on the wallat the bus stop in London on the ceilingat the door in France on the doorat the top of the page in a box on the coverat the end of the road in my pocket on the floorat the entrance in my wallet on the carpetat the crossroads in a building on the menuat the front desk in a car on a page Using the OP, we have The newest branch of the library is located on Pine Street. <S> You use on when you want to talk about a building and its relation to a street. <S> Roughly, you can consider the street as a "surface" so that it follows the guideline above. <S> The street is not really a point, so we don't use at . <S> However, a specific address, like 123 Pine Street, is considered a point. <S> In such a case, you could use at : <S> The newest branch of the library is located at 123 Pine Street. <S> The street is not really an enclosed space, so we don't use in . <S> However, a specific city, like Los Angeles, is consider an enclosed space. <S> In such a case, you could use in : <S> The newest branch of the library is located in Los Angeles. <S> I think the commentary you mentioned is referring to this specific example above. <S> For example, there could be a sign in front of the building that reads Our collection of contemporary works is located in this building. <S> Here, you can use in because the building is considered an enclosed space. <A> Think of it like this: <S> Located on means at. <S> Consider the following: <S> The historic books section is located in the newest branch of the library located on Pine Street. <S> Here is it clear that the "historic books section" is something that is contained inside the library, which itself is on (not inside) Pine Street. <A> To me both in and on sound fine. <S> So I went to check the corpora. <S> COCA has one case of "in" to roughly 40 of "on" searching for "located in * street" and "located on * street" Hansard (british parliament) <S> has 7 "in" to 0 "on" with the same search terms. <S> Scotus (Supreme court of the USA) has 2 "in" and 7 "on" but most are used with definite articles (located in the street or in a street) rather than street names. <S> Coha (historical american english) has 2 to 16. <S> Wikpedia (english) has 726 to 3899. <S> Unfortunately BYU-BNC (british corpus) has no hits for either. <S> All together and checking a few other resources it seems that "in Pine street" is more idiomatic in BrE whereas AmE seems to be fixed on "on Pine street. <S> It turns out that there seems to be agreement on ELU aswell <S> See: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/54251/on-an-american-street-but-in-a-british-one-do-the-twain-ever-meet
| Referring to "writing in front of building", it's possible to use in . Located in means inside
|
I have (got) a family: Difference in meanings I have never heard of such a subtle difference between "I have got a family" and "I have a family" which seem quite interchangeable to me. Today I learnt that these two sentences have different meanings ("have got" is considered to be present perfect in this use): I have got a family. = I have recently acquired a family (=my family is young). More examples: I have a car. = I bought my car long go and have been using it ever since. I have got a car. = I have recently bought a car. I have got a cat. Do you see these fresh scratches on my hands? This difference can be critical for translation so I would like to know if it is really crucial and these two sentences don't have the same meaning. <Q> As a native speaker, I would not necessarily understand I have got a family to mean <S> I have a young family. <S> in your example got is an intensifier emphasizing the fact that you have a family or any age. <S> It's possible the person who told you <S> this was themselves young and had a young family. <S> "I got a car." <S> Can mean "Recently, I acquired a car." <S> depending on additional context, but "I have got a car" does not. <S> Using got this way is very idiomatic which is usually not used when describing a family, since one does not go out and " get a family" like one goes out and " gets a cat". <A> First of all, "I have got a family" is quite colloquial (it sounds like something a blue collar worker from New York might say). <S> In fact, I think it would sound weird to say it without using a contraction (I've got a family) <S> but that's just my personal opinion. <S> It is completely equivalent to "I have a family" except that the latter is a neutral statement and the former sounds more like the speaker is seeking pity. <S> I do not understand the grammar involved in "I have got a family. <S> " I think it might be most appropriate to remember that "have got" can replace "have" when describing possession in colloquial speech . <S> "Have got" does not change the meaning but can add a sense of "I have it right now <S> and it matters somehow" to the overall nuance. <S> For example: "I have a pencil. <S> " is a neutral statement of fact. <S> "I have got a pencil. <S> " is an informal response to "What do you have?" <S> As for the other questions: "I have got a family. <S> " <S> does not imply that the speaker recently got married or recently had kids. <S> It states that he has a family and it implies that it should matter somehow to the listener. <S> "I have recently got a family. <S> " <S> is not technically grammatical but would probably be understood by a native listener as " <S> I have recently gotten a family." <S> Errors of that sort are common enough that native listeners can easily understand. <S> That statement is fundamentally different and is about obtaining a family rather than having a family. <S> Thus, it does state that the speaker recently got a family as you suggest. <S> For good measure, in absence of context, the statement I got a family. <S> is ambiguous and can mean both "I have a family." <S> and "Now, I have a family. <S> (which implies that "I" did not before)". <A> For many people in many contexts it makes no real difference to the meaning whether I've got a family includes the indefinite article or not, but there can sometimes be a difference of nuance. <S> Consider... <S> 1: <S> Do you have a family? <S> 2: <S> Do you have family? <S> I think most people would assume #1 primarily asks whether you have a long-term life partner and children you jointly care for (i.e. Do you have parental responsibilities? ) <S> But #2 is far more likely to be understood as Do you have parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, etc. <S> who either do or could/would support you ? <S> (financially, socially, etc.). <S> Note that nobody discards the article for things like I've got car , <S> but there's a similar distinction with <S> I've got cold <S> (= <S> I have become cold ), <S> as opposed to I've got a cold <S> (= <S> I have a respiratory tract infection ). <S> The version with no article tends to reference a state of being , rather than a specific thing . <S> In much the same way, you have a family <S> that (you specifically) look after, but if you have family , the implication is that your state is that of being in close contact with a supportive family network. <A> That was British English. <S> Alone because of that, I wouldn't combine the phrase to have got and the family. <S> Another aspect of to get is the presupposition of to have not. <S> In that sense, to acquire a family is a meaningful event different from having the family. <S> In the most abstract sense, the word family describes relations that are subjectively bound to physical properties that are given and gotten , so everything that is had can be thought of as gotten from someone. <S> The Usage depends on dialect and style.
| The way I learned it in class for English as a second language, "have got" is used for possessions only. So have and have got are different aspects of the same event, the difference is in the active or passive voice.
|
Use of 'asphyxia'-a medical term, in an English sententence In science class I learnt about Asphyxia which means 'a condition arising when the body is deprived of oxygen, causing unconsciousness or death; suffocation.' I wanted to construct a sentence like The confines of the deep dark chamber was asphyxiatic which drove him into oblivion. However on searching the net I found no such word as ' asphxyatic ', although there is a word called asphyxiation . So is the sentence I constructed incorrect(because it is a medical term) and no such word exists? <Q> The confines of the deep dark chamber was asphyxiating which drove him into oblivion. <S> meaning the chamber was so small it caused him to have trouble breathing, that is was claustrophobic . <A> That would be incorrect. <S> You could use asphyxiating but that really isn't every-day English. <S> The word you really want is suffocating . <S> The confines of the deep dark chamber were suffocating, which drove him into oblivion. <S> That's how it would normally be said in English. <A> Point 1: I have never heard any such word as "asphxyatic", or what you probably meant, "asphyxiatic", nor can I find either in a dictionary. <S> Maybe it's a technical medical term, but I don't think it's common English. <S> As you note, there is the noun, "asphyxatiation", which seems to convey the idea you're looking for, or in context, you probably want the adjective "asphyxiating". <S> Point 2: " <S> The confines of the deep dark chamber were asphyxiating, which drove him into oblivion" would be a valid sentence. "... were suffocating ..." also works.
| Or you could simply say, "The deep dark chamber was asphyxiating ..."
|
Which two clauses should be compounded in this sentence? He asked a lot of questions which were none of his business and generally managed to annoy everybody. Which one is right, and why ? I'm an English learner and it's refer from a book. It's just confuse me. <Q> The meaning could have been clarified if they had added commas and chosen "which" or "that" appropriately. <S> The first interpretation would be more obviously the intendedmeaning if "that" had been used instead of "which", and repeated: <S> He asked a lot of questions <S> that were none of his business and that generally managed to annoy everybody. <S> This implies the meaning that the many questions he asked that werenone of his business also annoyed everyone. <S> In other words, everythingafter that is extra information about the questions he asked. <S> Itdoes not imply that he was generally annoying in other ways, butthat his questions were generally annoying. <S> The second interpretation would be more obviously the intendedmeaning if commas and an extra "he" were added: <S> He asked a lot of questions, which were none of his business, and he generally managed to annoy everybody. <S> Here, the questions he asked are not the reason why he annoyedeveryone. <S> (Wecan still imply, however, that him asking lots of questions thatwere none of his business was annoying.) <S> In this interpretation wecan swap the order of the sentence, so <S> the following would mean thesame thing: <S> He generally managed to annoy everybody and asked a lot of questions which were none of his business. <S> I think that (2) is probably the intended meaning given the phrase generally managed , which implies a wider scope for the annoyance than the questions, and the use of "which" instead of "that". <S> However, as written, it is ambiguous as to whether " generally managed to annoy everybody <S> " refers to " him " or " questions ", so both interpretations are valid. <A> Both alternants are plausible, though it’s not about 'compounding' two clauses, but about a coordination of two verb phrases. <S> [1] He asked a lot of questions which [were none of his business] and [generally managed to annoy everyone]. <S> [2] He [asked a lot of questions which were none of his business], and [generally managed to annoy everyone]. <S> In [1], the coordination is of the two bracketed verb phrases. <S> In this reading, the criticisms were entirely of his questions, which were none of his business and annoyed everyone. <S> In [2], the coordination is of two different verb phrases, in brackets, and in this reading, the criticisms are of two separate things: his questions for being none of his business, and him for annoying everyone. <S> In writing, the two meanings should be distinguishable if a comma is inserted in [2] before "and", as shown. <S> But in speech there would be no way of distinguishing the two meanings unless there was a pronounced pause before "and" – but even that would not be a foolproof guide and ambiguity may well arise. <A> Both are correct sentences. <S> We can interpret "generally managed to annoy everybody" to describe him or to describe the questions. <S> At the party I met a pretty girl who was Italian and was wearing a pretty dress. <S> The Italian said that she liked my pretty dress.
| Both interpretations of the sentence are correct, but convey subtly different meanings. The fact that he asked questions and the fact that heannoyed everyone are separate statements; "which were none of hisbusiness" is there to add extra information about the questions.
|
How to refer to link? (open, see, check etc.) If I want to refer to link (on internet, computed documents etc.), for example, when I want to send someone to read something that the link in the PDF that I gave him, links to it. Then what is the correct way or the most common way to refer to it? My options now are: open the link, check the link, see the link. Maybe you have different alternatives, but anyway I would like to know the common one/s. N.b. in my native language we say "enter the link". <Q> I do <S> not recommend simply saying "Check this link.". <S> I sometimes read this written by a non-native speaker in a forum response. <S> It sounds like you want someone to check the link for something <S> -- maybe you want them to check it to see whether it works, or to check it to look for something. <S> If you say "check out this link", it's a way to tell someone to generally look at it, and it sounds casual, so it doesn't sound rude in the way that "look at this link" may sound if you don't know someone very well. <S> Also, you can refer to the link without telling your friend to look at it: <S> Here's a link for an example: BLABLABLABLABLALINKLINKLINK <S> You can also embed the link. <S> This link is an example of that. <A> I'd go with: <S> follow the link , because you want them to see the actual target which the link points to, rather than the link itself. <S> Out of context , the ngram data shows see the link as more commonly used. <A> Given a link, say http://ell.stackexchange.com , I would say: Click on the link to open it <S> Do you see the link? <S> (Once you click the link) Follow the link (to see what webpage it takes you to) <S> I wouldn't really say "check the link" in any context that I can think of.
| You can say: Have a look at this link: Take a look at this link: Check out this link:
|
What does "which " refer to in the sentence? Any help with understanding this sentence would be really appreciated. Here is the sentence: No one could have predicted a new offshore race for natural resources, or changing alliances in which Turkey would abandon its long-time friend, Israel, which in turn would seek a partnership with the Republic of Cyprus. What I haven't understood from this sentence is who was going to seek a partnership with the Republic of Cyprus? Is there a relative clause in the sentence that I didn't get and what does "which" refer to? <Q> Parsing the referent of a relative clause usually involves backing up to the nearest semantically consistent entity—usually the immediately preceding entity. <S> In this case the relative which is taken to refer to the immediately preceding NP 'its long-time friend Israel'; and that reference is validated by <S> the in turn adverbial: <S> Turkey abandanoned its alliance with Israel and Israel in turn formed an alliance with Cyprus, which for decades has been hostile to Turkey. <A> So the first "which" refers to "changing alliances", and the second (most likely) refers to "Israel". <S> The phrase "in turn" indicates that part of the sentence will describe two separate but similar actions by two different subjects. <S> For example: Alice gave the shoes to Betty, who in turn gave them to Christy. <S> Because of this, I don't expect Turkey to be the subject of the second action, since it is the subject of the first action. <S> Note that we can infer that Turkey and Cyprus are not friendly, since otherwise it would not be surprising that Israel formed a relationship with them only after breaking with Turkey. <S> But that's more about logic than about grammar. <A> No one could have predicted a new offshore race for natural resources, or changing alliances in which Turkey would abandon its long-time friend, Israel, [which in turn would seek a partnership with the Republic of Cyprus]. <S> In the bracketed relative clause, the subject is realised by relative "which", which I don't think there's much doubt is anaphoric to the NP "Israel". <S> We understand that Israel in turn would seek a partnership with the Republic of Cyprus. <S> Unlike integrated (defining) relatives, supplementary (non-defining) relatives like this one don’t modify an antecedent; instead they refer to some element in the clause called the 'anchor'. <S> In your example, the relative clause is supplement to NP "Israel", which also happens to be the anchor.
| The pronoun "which", when used as a conjunction, normally refers to the closest previous noun.
|
A common word or group or description of all the following: Love, Lust, Crush, Infatuation You love a girl. You also have a crush on another girl who works in your office. You also lust after a neighborhood girl. What word would you use to describe all of them? Your "romances"? Your "affairs"? Your "heartthrobs"? Maybe "amorous affairs" looks good. Is it possible to come up with a single word to describe "amorous affairs"? What is the plural of amorous? It looks like heartthrobs is used for only men. Is there any other word to mean both men and women crush, love and lust? I'm looking for the word to describe the list of people that I have a crush, love, and lust. I'm looking for one single word if possible. So far, the best words I got are sweethearts and romances . But I'm looking for a better, more accurate word. Still, if you're not sure what I'm asking Read this. If I have borrowed money, a property, a thing from the list of people, I can use the word "lenders" to describe them, right? So, if I a have crush on a list of people. On each of them, I have a different type of crushes like love, lust, infatuation, etc. Which single word I can use to describe them? <Q> I think love interests or romantic interests could work, given OP's latest context. <S> From tvtropes.org, Love Interest <S> The princess to be rescued , or the Prince Charming to sweep the heroine off her feet. <S> Or just someone that happens to become romantically involved. <S> It's a Super Trope <S> so universal, that there are too many specific examples to list. <S> There are a few in the list below. <S> The list includes Girl Next Door , Girl of My Dreams , and Hello, Nurse! . <S> When applied to real life, I think love interest is just as flexible. <S> A love interest is basically a person that you are romantically interested in. <S> This could range from something small, like going on a few dates, to something big, like love and marriage. <S> A romantic interest is similar to a love interest , with the possible nuance that a romantic interest concerns more casual relationships. <S> I wasn't able to find any reputable dictionary sources, so I imagine that the definitions vary from one person's opinion to another. <S> By the way, you could also say that you are interested in these girls, or into them. <S> They mean that you have a some kind of romantic interest in them, though it suggests a casual one. <S> I don't think it would include "loving" someone, unless it's unrequited love. <A> If you want a term to encompass all that romantic stuff, from the actual girlfriend/boyfriend to the crush on the neighbour to lust for somebody at work, the expression most commonly used in the UK is probably love life . <S> Unlike your lenders metaphor, love life is a property of the subject, like somebody's financial situation, rather than a collective term for the objects of somebody's affection. <S> For example, you might ask <S> How's your love life? <S> Because it's quite a broad term, you can use it even if you don't know much about a person's current situation: for example, you could ask this of somebody that you haven't seen for a long time, even if you have no idea whether they currently have a boyfriend/girlfriend. <A> If you are a boy and speaking about many girls to each of which you experiencea certain feeling/attraction/affection <S> then I guess this word might meet your requirements: sweethearts (sweeties) <S> Another possible word is: significant others (romantic partners). <S> Short forms: <S> s <S> /o , SO <S> An uncommon and possible variant: <S> The objects of my affection <S> Stumble <S> Upon ELU helpful link <S> If you are speaking about people who you have a crush on (with whom you are infatuated) then you call them crushes . <S> However, Longman dictionary states that it is informal - someone who you have a feeling of romantic love for, but who you do not know well. <S> Another possible variant is loved ones . <S> But it mostly means members of family and close friends. <S> I would also consider looking at the following love affairs, affairs of the heart, romantic entanglements . <S> Love life is a possible word too. <S> Also liaison formal for relationship. <A> The answer depends on the audience <S> The perfectly clinical expression is the objects of my affections , but you're not going to keep any of them for very long if they hear you describing them as such. <S> At best, you're looking at an unpleasant weekend of trying to cheer someone out of a deep sulk. <S> To the girls themselves, there are many terms of endearment <S> you could use for anything from a crush to your wife of sixty-seven years: honey , darling , dear , baby , sugar ... assuming you don't just develop personalized pet names for each other. <S> To outside parties who might report back to one or all of them... <S> well, first, unless everyone's on board with open relationships, don't talk about this situation to anyone who can report back to any of them. <S> You're asking for a world of hurt, either from bros who want to salvage some of the wreckage when your love life explodes or from offended sistren who want to protect these poor women from your lechery. <S> Assuming you have someone you can talk to about this situation (an anonymous internet chat board for example), you've got to weigh your audience. <S> If you're looking for cheers from the involuntarily celibate, it's standard for men to use derogatory terms to establish the women as captured objects: my harem , my bitches , my women , my girls , &c. <S> Outside of cesspool subreddits and 4chan, however, that's going to get you a lot more anger than respect and kudos. <S> You'd want something more neutral. <S> I'd love your bounty but @Max already nailed that term down: it's love interests , simplified to interests or the people <S> I'm interested in if the context is already established.
| However, if you call these girls your love interests , I think people will get the point that you are interested in them romantically or that you pursuing them romantically to some degree as described above.
|
is it correct to say "today is rainy" or it is "today, it's rainy"? I was looking for an answer to another question and I've found an answer on the italki website, which makes unclear about which is the right usage. Is it syntactically correct to say "today is rainy" or the right phrase is "today, it's rainy" ? <Q> Either is grammatically acceptable. <S> I would be more likely to use <S> "Today, it's rainy." <S> when I am comparing the weather on different days. <S> What a crazy week. <S> Monday it was hot, with blue skies all day. <S> Yesterday, it snowed. <S> Today, it's rainy. <S> [ Or Today it's raining.] <S> The other form might be a little more likely for me if I am giving a comprehensive description of the current day. <S> Today is rainy. <S> The wind is blowing, the leaves are falling, and I found my lost boots. <S> Today is the kind of day that makes me want to jump in mud puddles. <S> The difference between is very slight, however, and I would not recommend spending a whole lot of time deciding which to use <S> - they are basically interchangeable. <A> It depends on where you are writing this to be honest. <S> and I understand perfectly what you mean. <S> The reason is that in the first sentence, "today is rainy", today is the object being described directly, so you don't need the pronoun 'it'. <S> In the second however, there is a comma so after the comma, the 'it' pronoun is needed to make the sentence correct (hence the 'it's'). <S> However, while they are both acceptable, I wouldn't use either of these in a formal context, instead I would say "today was a rainy day" or "today it rained". <A> However when you state a fact, then it's correct to say "today is rainy." <A> I'd say second is correct, the first is technically incorrect. <S> In the sentence "Today it is rainy" it does not refer to today, but to the weather (implicitly). <S> Though in normal speech it's not uncommon for the "it" part to be omitted because it's common knowledge what your talking about. <S> So in short today refers to a day, and a day can not be rainy (technically). <S> Though it's common speech to refer to it as such, because everyone knows what your talking about anyway, so no problems omitting "it" :)
| When you emphasize the word today , then it's correct to say "today, it's rainy." It depends on the context. I think syntactically both would be fine in any informal context
|
What is meant by the quote "The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” What does following quote mean. I understand the language but not the thought behind it. "The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” ― Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest <Q> This is meant to be witty and ironic. <S> It is a quote from a character in an Oscar Wilde play "the Importance of Being Earnest" a comedy written in Wilde's signature satirical and humorous style. <S> It is a response to one of the character's confession of a lie he has perpetrated: the creation of a fictitious relative, "Earnest," to provide an excuse to avoid boring social obligations. <S> After his confession, he says: "That, my dear Algy, is the whole truth pure and simple." to which his companion replies "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." <S> It is a wry observation, and an ironic twist on a cliche, about the false norms of society and the twisted dishonest ways we, as imperfect humans, adapt. <S> It is also a statement that dispels a simplistic analysis of art and culture. <S> Oscar Wilde used humor and wit to cope with his own demons. <S> He was a homosexual and lived a tormented life of deception in a time when homosexuality was a crime in Victorian England. <S> He eventually spent time in jail. <A> Literary interpretation is largely subjective and so there will be no single answer to this question. <S> For instance: <S> alternate interpretations <S> essays <S> The truth is rarely pure and never simple From dictionary.com <S> pure : (adjective) 6. <S> (of literary style) straightforward; unaffected simple : (adjective) 1. <S> easy to understand, deal with, use <S> My personal interpretation is that there is no one truth that is easy to understand and applicable to all situations. <S> One complexity with this statement is the interpretation of "pure". <S> Whilst the most appropriate definition to apply is "straightforward" because it complements the adjective "simple". <S> Pure is often used to signify "untainted", such as pure water that has not been muddied or polluted. <S> Therefore, if the interpretation of pure were to signify "uncontaminated", this statement could also mean that the truth is rarely untainted and subject to corruption. <A> Never pure. <S> Most truths, especially about ourselves or our actions or deeds, might also be distorted by our own conceit, our most secret shames or moral shortcomings. <S> Only the brave... <S> the human condition and all that.
| "The truth", much like literature, is a complex concept, difficult to explain/understand, open to interpretation and subjective.
|
What is the word meaning people who sell something in forceful way on the street or places? What is the word meaning people who sell something in forceful way on the street or places? For example, a guy put a flower into my pocket and asked to pay for it. I wonder I can say street seller. But street seller means people who has their stores on the street, doesn't it? He has no store or shop. He just carries many flowers and sell them in forceful way. What is "the word" meaning people who sell something in this way? <Q> You might use ' hustler ' for someone who puts something in your pocket without you asking for it and then asks to be paid for it: <S> Hustle <S> To push or force one's way. <S> To act aggressively, especially in business dealings. <S> To obtain something by deceitful or illicit means; practice theft or swindling. <A> You can use the following words to describe someone who sells goods on the street, rather than in a shop: <S> Hawker <S> - A travelling salesperson who tends to shout to advertise their wares Peddler (AmE)/ <S> Pedlar (BrE) <S> - A travelling salesperson Huckster - (Old fashioned) <S> Street vendor - Someone who sells goods on the street. <S> Street seller - See "Street vendor". <S> None of these words require the selling to be aggressive, however. <S> I can't think of any one word that you could use to define an aggressive street seller. <A> The action you describe is often more associated with a street "vendor" than a shop. <S> People cleaning your car windshield uninvited at a traffic light and then demanding money is another example. <S> However, it isn't limited to street vendors. <S> For example, there are restaurants, particularly in areas frequented by foreign tourists, where they will leave an unordered, apparently complimentary, dish on the table, and then charge for it. <S> "Forceful" is sometimes associated with this but isn't necessarily the fundamental method of manipulation. <S> What you describe is a form of fraud, or trying to get money through deceit or manipulation. <S> These people may escalate to more assertive tactics if the ploy, alone, doesn't work--righteous indignation, trying to embarrass you, aggression or other attempts at intimidation, etc. <S> Dan C's "hustler" is a good term. <S> Another is scam artist . <S> A "scam" is a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation - M-W "Con artist" is related, but is typically associated with something more complex, involving multiple steps to "set up" the person being taken advantage of, while a scam can involve just a brief encounter, like your example. <S> A similar term that is a bit dated is flimflam : deception, fraud - M-W . <S> A scam artist or con man used to be called a "flimflam man" or "flimflam artist". <A> Pusher - a person who too readily or forecfully promotes the use or purchase of a particular thing. <S> (Google definition). <S> Haven't seen this one in the answers yet <A> A tout <S> The verb " to tout " can mean "to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately" As a noun it means "one who touts: such as [...] <S> one who solicits patronage" <A> I think hustle is correct. <S> He is a 'fast talking street hustler' trying to 'con you into' buying his flower. <S> Speed is his friend because, if you take time to think about it, buying the flower will just encourage the same person to pull the same stunt next time they see you or anyone like you <S> and you're better off nipping it in the bud! <S> hus·tle verb 1. <S> force (someone) to move hurriedly or unceremoniously in a specified direction : <S> they hustled him into the back of a horse-drawn wagon <A> You can also combine some of these words, as in " street vendor scam artists ", " scammy street hustlers ", "*hustler scam artists", " high-pressure street vendors ", etc. <A> Planter. <S> Actually, that's not a word that is commonly used for a person doing that. <S> However, a guy put a flower into my pocket and asked to pay for it. <S> the verb "plant" is commonly used for such a thing. <S> Especially in terms like this: The police officer planted evidence <S> That sort of usage of the word is quite common. <S> (If he accuses you in front of other people, then he chose to "frame" you. <S> That implies an accusation of something you are innocent of.) <S> Some other possible words: swindler (kind of derived from part of Dan C's answer ), fraudster, criminal, crook
| A salesperson, generally of small items who may employ "showy" or aggressive tactics to sell their goods.
|
'The information entered' or 'The entered information'? Regards.. I would like to discuss about the comparison of the following two sentences : We provide the information entered to the management. We provide the entered information to the management. I am confident that the word 'entered' here acts as an adjective for the object information, so the second sentence is correct and more appropriate than the first one. But I also had found the first sentence in an official organization and company website. The grammar rule in particular but not limited to it, may I have some view on this? <Q> We send management the entered data. <S> We send management the data entered. <S> In the first case, entered <S> is the past participle of enter functioning as an adjective. <S> In the second case, entered is a the same past participle as post-positioned modifier, a reduced clause. <S> , that is the second retains a stronger sense of the data-entry process . <S> We bring on a team of unpaid interns to read through the material and enter the data into the database, and then we send management the {entered data|the data entered} in the form of an exported CSV file. <A> I think both sentences are technically correct, but the second sentence sounds a little better. <S> In the first sentence, a reader might be confused, thinking that the prepositional phrase to the management refers to entered , not information . <S> The verb enter <S> does not use to (it does not make sense), and so this would probably be confusing to the reader. <S> Although you can invert entered with information , you should probably avoid the first sentence for the reason above. <S> Also, instead of the management , it might be slightly better to say, simply, management . <S> We provide the entered information to management. <A> We provide the information entered to the management. <S> We provide the entered information to the management. <S> I'll have to respectfully disagree with Ringo. <S> I don't think the possible ambiguity in sentence 1 that he discusses is really a big deal. <S> I did not find the first sentence especially ambiguous. <S> Hard for me to really describe why , but as a native American English speaker, the first option is the one that sounds better to me in the context <S> provided: on a company's website. <S> I take it that the text was just above or below a webform, where people could type in some comments that some employee of the company would relay to management. <S> With that assumption... <S> Saying "information entered" <S> gives me more of an impression that the user is the one doing the entering. <S> Saying "entered information" <S> makes it sound like the information was already entered (by someone else), and it's gonna be relayed to the management. <S> But the second scenario doesn't really make sense. <S> Likely, the website is trying to communicate that whatever you, the user, enter into that webform will be passed on to management. <S> So "information entered" would be the way to go. <S> With regards to the second sentence being more correct because "entered" is an adjective describing "information," I do not think the fact that "entered" is modifying "information" dictates that it has to come before "information." <S> There are plenty of perfectly grammatical sentences you could construct in English where the modifier could come after the word <S> it's modifying. <S> As such, I think the word order in this case would be dictated by what meaning you want to convey, as outlined above. <S> But again, I can't really point you to a grammar rule that explains why I interpret the two sentences how I do.
| If there is any slight difference between them, I would say the first refers to the data as being now in the database and the second refers to the information as having been entered into the database
|
Is there a word for a person who's like this? When you try to explain something to a person, and they still believe in what they want to, even if you've given them evidences to prove your point, what is that person called? I mean, a person with whom reasoning is pointless, because you know that whether or not deep down they know you're right, they will still shut their ears to what you're saying because they've decided what they're gonna believe in - what do you call them? "Stubborn" doesn't do the trick. <Q> You could call such a person obstinate , stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion despite compelling reason or evidence. <A> Here is the definition from the Cambridge Dictionary : <S> The word indicates that somebody metaphorically has their eyes covered: it is a reference to blinkers : <S> A pair of small leather screens attached to a horse's bridle to prevent it seeing sideways and behind and being startled <A> Ignorant is a choice word for me. <S> If you say, "You are ignorant." <S> Or, "You are ignorant to the truth. <S> " <S> These mean essentially the same thing as stubborn however, a little more in line with ignoring facts. <A> Here is an idiom and two adjectives expressing different nuances of meaning: Doubting Thomas <S> .It's an idiom meaning a person who refuses to believe anything until they are shown proof, but I am not quite sure if it suits you since you say that you've given the people evidences proving your point. <S> Bullheaded , 'very determined to do what you want to do, especially without considering other people's feelings'. <S> All the meanings are taken from the Cambridge Dictionary .
| A blinkered person is unable or unwilling to understand other people's beliefs, and blinkered opinions or ways of behaving show someone is unable or unwilling to understand other people The word blinkered is probably appropriate. Wilful , '(of something bad) done intentionally or (of a person) determined to do exactly as you want, even if you know it is wrong'.
|
perceive as + verb ing I ran into this sentence in Complete IELTS book. Some students may be critical of others who they perceive as doing nothing but study . I haven't seen this structure before. Could you explain the grammar? If I was the writer myself, I would write: They perceive as students who merely study and don't do anything else. But using a verb+ing right after 'perceive as' sounds a bit unfamiliar and strange for me. Please if it is a common type of usage, add more examples and walk me through the procedure. <Q> I see nothing wrong with "... nothing but study." <S> In fact "studying" would sound peculiar. <S> (I am British). <S> I have not come across the "parallel structure" idea. <S> Does that mean one would say "He does nothing but studies" ? <S> That may be "right" but sounds wrong to me. <A> I think the sentence is incorrect, and your misgivings about it are well-founded. <S> It should be: <S> Some students may be critical of others {who,whom,} they perceive as do ing nothing but study ing . <S> in order to preserve parallel structure. <S> By contrast, you might say: I think you do nothing but study . <S> Again, this preserves parallel structure. <S> As a side issue, in the sentence you mentioned, I would either write "whom" or omit the relative pronoun entirely. <S> Is it possible that the book was written by a non-native speaker, or someone who was not being very careful? <S> UPDATE: It occurs to me that perhaps "study" is meant as a noun (a mass noun), in which case the sentence is grammatically correct. <S> In that case, "study" is parallel to "nothing", which is a pronoun (and hence acts like a noun). <S> The sentence would then have the same kind of structure as " <S> These days, I am seeing no one but my family", which is a valid sentence. <A> Here are some more examples: He was fired, because he was perceived as wasting company time He was fired, because he was perceived as having wasted company time GMOs are generally perceived as being harmful to the environment From Young Adult Fiction - Macaulay Culkin on his first novel, Michael Jackson, and the self-consciousness of fame : ... <S> he was most frustrated to be perceived as conforming to type. <S> Another good example comes from examples with "come across as" and "be perceived as" , in the following comment: <S> I find no problem with the sentences grammatically. <S> It may be colloquial for me but the statement, "The guys were perceived as rough. <S> " doesn't sound quite right but is grammatically correct and would most certainly get your point across in the Midwest United States. <S> "The guys were perceived as being rough. <S> " may suit better but it could just be a matter of my english dialect. <S> The commenter has a point, and it may be down to dialect. <S> So, note that perceived as can be followed by an adjective , but it sounds better if [perceived as] being + adjective is used instead. <S> Also that last link has some other good examples of perceived as being followed by a noun: <S> We do not want to be perceived as lunatics.
| To address your concern over the use of the gerund after the "perceived as", yes, it is perfectly correct.
|
''Want" vs "Need" Which one would be correct? Context:'I don't need help from you' as I found at many places written this.So, can I write this as I don't want your help? <Q> I can manage without it. <S> But it's not usual to add from you unless it's specifically from the person <S> addressed that you don't need help. <S> And it sounds a bit pointed, as if you dislike the person or regard them as incapable. <S> It would depend on the way you said it, whether you emphasised from you . <S> I don't want your help means that I don't desire it. <S> It makes clear that although you may require help, you definitely don't want it from the person concerned. <S> It's a clear rejection of an offer of help that implies your dislike or poor opinion of the person offering it. <A> Although these are simple sentences, they may carry a great many different meanings, and in speech these would be distinguished by different emphases. <S> My attempts below do not exhaust the possibilities, which would probably be further refined by tone, gesture and facial expression. <S> 1."I DONT want your help" = <S> stop bothering me, Ive already told you. <S> 2."I dont WANT your help" = <S> I prefer to do it myself, or I have to do my homework without help. <S> 3."I dont want YOUR help" = <S> I dont think that help from you would be much use, or I resent your condescending attitude. <S> 4."I dont want your HELP" = <S> I dont see how you can help, but some sympathy would be nice. <S> In most cases, both want and need would work. <S> In case 2, though, "I dont NEED your help" could mean "Thank you, but I'm OK <S> , I can do this myself" and could be said in a friendly way, where "I dont WANT your help" is more likely to express irritation. <S> I think this simple sentence displays a great deal of subtlety that in conversation would be conveyed non-verbally. <S> In writing, it would benefit by being expanded in some way <S> Thank you, <S> No thank you, <S> Ive already told you, I dont need any help from you, etc., etc. <S> In either case, getting it right, and achieving the proper emotional tone, would indicate real mastery of the language. <A> Wants and things that are not necessary for your livelihood essentially, so if you say, "I don't need your help. <S> " You are saying that my help is not necessary. <S> However, if you were to say, "I don't want your help." <S> That refers to a desire, such as I want cookies. <S> That means you do not desire my help.
| Don't need and Don't want mean different things, most of the time anyhow. I don't need help from you means that I do not require your help .
|
"You've ever not got" vs "you've never got" Are both sentences equal in meaning? "You've ever not got it" vs "You've never got it" <Q> For not to negate ever , the word not has to come right before ever . <S> Never is pretty much an abbreviation of not ever . <S> You've never got it. <S> You've not ever got it. <S> This <S> : You've ever not got it. <S> does not work very well. <S> Here is why: Google provides 2 definitions for ever : at any time. <S> "nothing ever seemed to ruffle her" synonyms: at any time, at any point, on any occasion, under any circumstances, on any account; at all times; always. <S> "ever the man of action, he was impatient with intellectuals" The first definition of ever is common, and in that case ever will come right before the verb it modifies. <S> It could also come right before the verbal ruffle <S> - e.g. "Nothing seemed to ever ruffle her". <S> The other common option with <S> ever in this meaning is to put it at the end of the sentence - e.g. <S> "Nothing seemed to ruffle her ever." <S> It will sound very strange if you stick not in the middle or put ever elsewhere in the sentence, for this meaning. <S> So your sentence "you've ever not got it" sounds like you are trying to use the 2nd definition of ever above. <S> What Google is not telling you is that this use of ever is rather fancy, literary, or dramatic-ish. <S> It's not used in typical conversation or writing unless you are trying to create those moods. <A> No, the two sentences are not equal in meaning. <S> You might hear the second in US English conversation, though "gotten" would probably be more common than "got", and the meaning would be sufficiently clear. <S> However, you would never hear the first. <S> Not ever. <S> (Note that I did not say "ever not", which is not ever said in contemporary US English.) <A> You've ever not got it, <S> You've never got it. <S> So never is = not ever. <S> You can use "not ever" instead of "never", but the use of never is more common. <S> The placement of the adverb is not at its correct position in the OP's sentennce; it should be between not and the verb gotten as follows: <S> You haven't ever gotten it = <S> you have never gotten it.
| The meaning of never is "not at any time", whereas the meaning of ever is "at any time".
|
Why do we use the article "the" in "Thank you for the flowers" when flowers is plural? My student caught me off guard.She asked me why you say "Thank you for the flowers" when the article "the" is not used for countable nouns "I like flowers". <Q> Using <S> the or not in your sentences has nothing to do with the fact that flower is a countable noun. <S> The definite article the serves to identify the flowers you have given the person who is thanking you for them. <S> When you say "thank you" it is necessarily for something that is known, therefore definite . <S> Thank you for the flowers. <S> When you say: "I like flowers" you are using the word flowers as a generic term, you are not talking about a particular set of flowers, but of flowers in general. <S> You do not use the definite article in that case. <S> But you would have to use the definite article if you were saying you like a particular set of flowers: <S> I like the flowers in your garden. <A> This sentence is similar to saying "I thank you that there are flowers in the world". <S> This is appropriate in prayer, but not so much with other humans, usually. <S> When you say "Thank you for the flowers" you are thanking the person with whom you are speaking for some specific flowers, presumably the ones they gave you. <S> This is similar to saying "I thank you that I have some flowers", which is more likely what you wished to express. <S> The important thing here is that omitting or including the definite article is not wrong in a linguistic sense, it just changes the meaning to refer to either flowers as a whole or some specific flowers in particular, respectively. <A> I think the easiest way to understand this is to understand that there is a implied portion of the phrase. <S> The full statement would be something like: Thank you for the flowers that you gave me. <S> The phrase doesn't make sense if this isn't true. <S> There are many such implied portions involving 'the' that depend on the implication being known by the other person or persons in the conversation. <S> "Thanks for the advice ", "Thanks for the beer ", " <S> Thanks for <S> the help " all presume known instances of advice, beer, and help respectively. <S> If they were not know, the listener would generally ask for clarification: "what advice exactly?" <S> Once you consider the implied part of the statement it's easier to understand how 'the' is being used here. <S> Leaving off 'the' in the following: Thank you for flowers that you gave me. <S> Now has a different meaning <S> but it's still sensible. <S> Like, for example if someone were writing a poem about their lost love of many years, they might thank them for all the flowers they ever were given, not just a specific bunch. <A> Your question hinges on the use of definite and indefinite articles. <S> Indefinite <S> I have a shoe. <S> I have shoes. <S> I am telling you that I own shoes, although I do not reveal anything about the shoes. <S> Definite <S> I have the shoe. <S> I have the shoes. <S> I am telling you that I have THE shoe(s). <S> This could mean "the shoe you were looking for" or "the shoe we were talking about"; that very much depends on the context. <S> But if you say "the shoe", then you are certain that whoever you're talking to knows exactly which shoe you are talking about. <S> You're not just talking about any random shoe. <S> When you use a definite article, you are talking about a specific item (e.g. the shoe that you were looking for. <S> Not just any shoe, but THAT shoe.) <S> When you use an indefinite article, you are talking about a shoe. <S> Any shoe. <S> Thank you for the flowers. <S> You are talking specifically about the flowers that you were given. <S> Those specific flowers. <S> Thank you for flowers. <S> The only way in which I can see this being grammatically correct is if you are e.g. thanking God for creating flowers (as a general concept). <S> Not just the flowers in your garden, or all the flowers you've ever seen.
| When you say "Thank you for flowers" you are thanking the person with whom you are speaking for flowers as a part of existence-- all flowers rather than any specific instance of them.
|
"Manager" or "supervisor" when complaining about service? If you're in a store or restaurant and dissatisfied with the work of an employee and want to complain, how will you say: Call your supervisor! or Call your manager! or some other way? <Q> (In BrE at least) Both may be used, although in my experience manager would be much more common. <S> It would also be common to ask for the manager if you were unsatisfied and the member of staff dealing with your complaint did not resolve it. <S> This means that you are asking for the person currently in charge of the shop or restaurant, not just the supervisor/line manager of the particular staff member. <S> In this context you would definitely not ask for "the supervisor", and if you did people might not understand what you meant. <S> A situation where the word supervisor might be more common would be if you were talking to someone on the phone in a call centre. <A> Yes, in AmE, those seem fine. <S> Although in certain contexts manager and supervisor are not interchangeable, I think that in the scenario described by OP, most people would not worry about the distinction. <S> I've also heard people use boss instead of supervisor or manager . <S> I commonly hear <S> Let me talk/speak to your ______. <S> I want to talk <S> /speak to your ______. <S> where you can use any of the names in the blanks. <A> Based on what I know: If you didn't like the food the first think you usually ask for is a "book of complaints" . <S> The word manager is a good a choice if wish to speak to someone who manages the restaurant. <S> Please, let me speak/talk to you manager - <S> If you are simply unsatisfied <S> Would you be so kind as to call (for) the manager - Somewhat very formal <S> I wish (would like) to speak/talk to the manager - <S> If you are really dissatisfied <S> However, it is a possible word too. <S> If there is something wrong with your dish you may call the waiter "Excuse me" and ask him to change it. <S> In most cases if you politely speak to the wait staff they'll handle everything. <S> Be cautious and avoid slang and bad words when addressing the staff. <A> I think it has to do with the nature of the complaint. <S> If it is about the service generally, ask the "the manager. <S> " If you are dissatisfied with a particular staff member specifically, ask for "your supervisor."
| I, personally, wouldn't use the word supervisor as it mostly addresses the manager of a manager, the person who supervises the work of a manager and assists him in directing and organizing the staff.
|
What do you call the imprinted pattern left behind a car in mud? What's the name for this ... chase? stria? groove? In Czech, we call it "stopa" - which literally translates as "footprint" but has a lot of other meanings as well so I can't really work out which of the tons of the English translations I should use here. Trail? Trace? Vestige? <Q> In AmE, they would be called "tire tracks". <S> Possibly also "tread marks" but that would more likely be used for marks left on a hard surface like concrete or pavement. <A> In British English it's " tyre ", and it's " tire " in American English. <A> The phrase you are looking for (in BrE at least) is tread marks . <S> They can also be called tyre tracks . <S> These are not specific to tread patterns left in mud, but can also be used if a vehicle leaves rubber tyre marks on a hard road. <A> As a non-native English speaker the first thing that came to mind is (mud) ruts . <S> Rut [ruht] (noun) a furrow or track in the ground, especially one made by the passage of a vehicle or vehicles. <S> Ruts aren't necessarily limited to tyre treads or mud (i.e. ski tracks in the snow would work too), but as far as I'm aware they generally do refer to tracks made by vehicles. <A> I'm repeating other the content of other answers, but only because I want to clarify that they are not necessarily correct, depending on exactly what you're referring to and how specific you want to be : A fairly broad answer tread marks <S> The tread of a tyre is the rubber on its circumference that makes contact with the road or the ground - the black bit. <S> You also have a tread on your shoe. <S> Tread marks (also commonly known as skid marks , as they are most often caused when vehicles brake hard and skid) are generally the black marks left on the road or elsewhere by tyres (this is the same reason why you're requested not to use black-soled shoes in an indoor gym, so you don't leave tread marks on the gym floor). <S> While it is true that the imprints of the tread are visible in the mud, these aren't tread <S> marks in a strict sense. <S> Example images of tread marks on a road surface, probably skid marks . <S> A very broad answer <S> ruts <S> A <S> rut is a a long deep track made by the repeated passage of something - most often made by the wheels of vehicles, but can also be made by water flowing downhill, by animals following a game trail, and so on. <S> It is not specific to vehicle wheels. <S> Example image of vehicle ruts in mud - note that tread marks are sometimes, but not always, visible inside the ruts. <S> Probably the least ambiguous answer tyre tracks (US: tire tracks) <S> To answer the OP's question, <S> the patterns left in mud <S> specifically by vehicles would be called tyre tracks , which is a fairly literal definition. <S> Although we can distinguish the tread of a tyre from the tyre as a whole, it's a much finer point of semantics as to which made the track in the mud (you could just as well call them wheel tracks or vehicle tracks , but these phrases are not commonly used and are less accurate). <S> Example image of tyre tracks in mud. <A> The word "track" is the closest literally to stopa -- they both can also mean to follow (as if by following footprints or hoofprints), and both have the secondary sense of a section of music <S> (probably the Czech word is a calque). <S> As for "rut", that has the meaning closest to the marks showing in your picture, but its secondary meaning, "a fixed routine" especially one you would like to break out of, has grown to overshadow the original use. <S> Also, there is the fairly rare sense of "to copulate". <S> So... maybe "tire track".
| It's mostly called a "tyre tread/track mark" or a "tyre tread pattern" , also a "tyre track" and a "tyre print" , for instance: tyre tread pattern in mud , tyre track mark in mud or tyre print in mud
|
"I have 2 twins" or "I have twins"? In dictionary , twin: one of two children born at the same time to the same mother Ex: She's expecting twins. The twins are now eight months old. Ok, let say a woman has twins at her first birth (ie, there are only 2 children) So, we say " I have 2 twins " or " I have twins "? And , what if she has twins at her second birth. Do we say " 2 pairs of twins "? <Q> "I have two twins/a set(pair) of twins" isn't ungrammatical, but it's more common and idiomatic to say "I have twins". <S> The former is a little more common. <A> "I have twins" is normal. <S> "I have 2 twins" is redundant, and not used. <S> If a mother is lucky (!) <S> enough to have twins again at her second pregnancy, you would say "I have two pairs of twins" (although you would probably be too tired to engage in conversation). <S> You can also use "a set of twins", which generalises to "a set of triplets" etc. <S> In old English the use was different. <S> A twin (or getwinnas ) meant two persons. <S> An old English speaker would understand 2 twins to mean 4 people. <S> This is not modern use. <A> I have twins - or - I have a set of twins. <S> Also related to the discussion, there is a major difference between "pair of twins" and "set of twins". <S> Pair indicates a quantity of 2 on its own, whereas set has no quantity until the rest of the context identifies it. <S> A Set of twins will always be interpreted properly as 2 people who are twins. <S> A Pairs of Twins is easily misinterpreted as 4 people - 2 people in one set of twins and 2 people in the other set of twins, then paired together in a setting to make up a pair of twins. <S> To reinforce it further, no one would say "I have a trio of triplets". <S> However they might say "I have a set of triplets". <S> But most common would be just " <S> I have triplets".
| As for two sets of twins or two pairs of twins, both are correct.
|
Position of not in a question What is the difference between the two wordings and which one is correct? (1) Why is past tense not used? (2) Why is not past tense used? <Q> You can choose either of the two <S> Why is past tense not used? <S> or Why isn't past tense used? <A> (1) Why is the past tense not used? <S> (correct) (2) Why is not the past tense used? <S> (not correct) "Not" modifies "used" rather than "the past tense": "Is the past tense used?" <S> "No, the past tense is not used." <S> Adding "Why" to the beginning of a sentence pulls the auxiliary verb into second position, but leaves "not" and the other words where they were. <S> UPDATE: <S> As pointed out by @user3081485, you could also write: (3) Why isn't the past tense used? <A> (1) Why is past tense not used? <S> This is correct, but the sentence places an emphasis on the fact that past tense was not used, and suggests a belief that perhaps it should have been. <S> (2) Why is not past tense used? <S> In this construction, "is not" should be replaced with "isn't." <A> They are both correct, but the first one sounds more natural. <S> An even better phrase would be, 'why isn't past tense used?', because it flows better. <A> You know that we have the S-V inversion in most questions in English. <S> In your examples the subject is (@Alan) the past tense , so we would invert that <S> and is . <S> "Why is the past tense not used?" <S> However, contractions have to stay together, so we'll invert "the past tense" with the whole contraction: " <S> Why isn't the past tense used?" <S> See here for a bit more information <S> Wikipedia on Contractions and Inversions .
| Both are incorrect, but if you inserted the word "the", the first one would be correct, while the second would still be wrong:
|
A person whom you consider to be your potential companion? Suppose someone wants to go on a difficult military/research mission and he needs three people to accompany him. He looks at a list of possible candidates and marks two of them as [possible/presumable/likely what?] . {one word or idiom would be best} I was thinking of the word "candidate" that I already used but neither Cambridge Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster has the definition that I need for this word. I was thinking of the words " partner " and " companion " but you are not sure if they are going to accompany you or they are your final choice. The thing is you mark them as likely to go and likely to be finally chosen by you but the choice is yours and theirs together. A person who remains to be determined by you and also yet remains unasked. I tried to look for "potential companion" and "potential partner" as one word or idiom but all I found was "catch" - {informal} a person who is considered to be very suitable for a relationship but that is only related to a relationship. I'm looking for a word like "catch" (noun) but in regard to a military/research mission and it shouldn't refer to a relationship. Thanks to SteveES and Peter I've managed to find more words "preferences" and "potentials" . However, I am unsure whether I can use them in such context. <Q> Suppose someone wants to go on a difficult military/research mission and he needs three people to accompany him. <S> He looks at a list of possible candidates and marks two of them as... <S> The story is ambiguous. <S> He could be marking the ones he likes best for the task, or proceed by subtraction, marking the anyone buts or certainly nots . <S> You probably mean the former. <S> "Preferred" and "Top choice" are the idioms that would naturally come up in the ensuing conversation. <S> So are "best fit" and "most suitable" and "would do" The word candidate is fine, except that the question of who put them forward is relevant. <S> Historically, a candidate puts him or herself forward, but in modern English usage a person can unwittingly be a candidate, i.e. being considered by other persons prior to any conversation about the role or task. <S> The problem with favourite is that there may be connotations of, well, favouritism, i.e. preference based on improper grounds. <A> I think you will struggle to find a single word which means "partner" or "companion" but also contains an implication of "potentially". <S> It does not, of course, imply partner/companion/teammate though: <S> candidate : a person seeking or nominated for election to a position of authority or honour or selection for a job, promotion, etc <S> dictionary.com <S> So I looked up "candidate" at thesaurus.com , and found "contender": <S> contender : a person, team, etc. <S> having or regarded as having a good chance to win a contest or competition collinsdictionary.com <S> Dictionaries necessarily can't cover all potential uses of a word; they're trying to fit lots of definitions in without using too much space. <S> In my experience both "candidate" and "contender" mean someone who may potentially get a position, and I would count a companion on a mission as a "position". <S> The main difference between "candidate" and "contender" is the likelihood of getting the position: if 10 people apply for a job they are all candidates, but if 2 of them are far better qualified than the others, they are the only contenders. <A> I think you maybe confusing two different things: 1) the relationship once it is secured: partner , companion ; and 2) <S> the probability of outcome: possible , potential , likely . <S> Your example of catch is interesting since it shows one side of a two-sided attraction and makes me think that choice might work for you <S> She is a possible choice , for office manager. <S> He is my choice for president. <S> might work for you, it indicates <A> I can't think of any one word that encompasses the full nuanced meaning that you would like. <S> If you want to make it clear what the role of the people chosen is, the fact that they are the preferred choices and that they have not yet fully signed up then you would have to use an adjective-noun combination, or put a description of this part elsewhere. <S> There are many options for both the adjectives and the nouns, here are a few: <S> Adjectives: likely, preferred, favoured, first-choice, possible, potential, etc Nouns: <S> comrades, recruits, candidates, companions, partners, colleagues, associates, etc <S> However, if you don't feel the need to define their role in the description, just that two candidates were chosen, you could use the word favourites (or favorites in AmE) to indicate that the two who were chosen are the preferred options. <S> E.g. Looking through the list he marked down his two favourites . <S> You could also use first choice to indicate something similar, but it would not be as good with two choices and would sound better as an adjective (e.g. "first-choice recruits").
| Picks would also be a possibility, but it would probably sound better to say what you are picking (e.g. "he marked out his picks for the role"). As a single word noun containing an implication of "potentially", your word "candidate" is great.
|
Generalization of sentences/ generic noun phrase and articles usage Take a few examples of generic noun phrases: A) Tigers are big. B) A tiger is big. C) The tiger is big. All the above three represent a group of Tigers as a whole or all tigers in general. Today I was looking up the definition of 'definite article' and it reads like this: We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe the readers knows exactly what we are referring to. Since this definition is a general one and the nouns used are generic nouns so is there any difference in the sentences given below ? We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe 'readers' know exactly what we are referring to. We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe the 'reader' knows exactly what we are referring to. We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe 'a reader' knows exactly what we are referring to. We use the definite article in front of 'nouns' when we believe 'the reader' knows exactly what we are referring to. Do all mean the same or they mean differently ? <Q> We can refer to a species in several ways in English: A) <S> Tigers are big. <S> plural <S> , all tigers B) <S> A tiger is big. <S> singular indefinite as exemplary member-at-random of the class C) <S> The tiger is big. <S> singular definite as class exemplar per se <A> Here's the tricky bit about all this: <S> If are writing about a tiger that shows up on your lawn, in the second occurrence of the word in your text, that " a tiger" becomes "the tiger ". <S> When this is taught in English, this aspect is often overlooked. <S> " Yesterday, a tiger showed up on my lawn. <S> The tiger was very bold and just marched across the grass". <S> Apples are good for you. <S> [general statement]This means the same as:The apple is good for you. <S> [general statement] <S> That said, not every USE of "the apple" will be a general statement. <S> An apple a day is good for you. <S> [general statement about eating an apple a day] <S> "Someone put an apple on the dinner table and it was all shiny and wet. <S> The apple had not been there earlier in the day." <S> See? <S> You switch from AN apple to THE apple . <S> BUT, one can also write an essay on "the apple" as a general proposition. <S> That would be the same as writing an essay about "apples" as a general proposition. <S> The title of the essay could be: <S> The Infinite Goodness of the Apple <S> [a category of fruit] <S> And it would have the same meaning if written like this <S> The Infinite Goodness of Apples <S> [the plural in English also indicates a category in this type of context] <A> Words (specifically words functioning as nouns) can be labels or tags for things, in addition to a label or tag for an entire type of things, or the abstract concept of a thing. <S> Articles help indicate "which" instance of a thing a word functioning as a noun is supposed to "label." <S> So the type of article (definite/indefinite) and whether or not it is present does affect this and can alter the implications of the sentence, which can lead to differences in interpretation. <S> In the case of reader above though, all of them won't make a difference, and it's mostly because of the context. <S> We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe 'readers' know exactly what we are referring to. <S> Author is grouping everyone who reads his book into "readers" and expecting you to assume you are in that group. <S> We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe the 'reader' knows exactly what we are referring to. <S> The can point a noun-word to an instance previously mentioned in conversation, or something that is a shared observation or experience by both parties. <S> "The reader" may not have been previously mentioned but the writer is expecting you to consider yourself as part of the shared experience of his/her text, and if the tone of the text is conversational, it can be the basis for such a context. <S> The author is assuming more than one person is actually in reality reading his/her text, and using the indefinite article to say that something applies for any single instance in this group.
| We use the definite article in front of a noun when we believe 'a reader' knows exactly what we are referring to.
|
Is "crimp an aluminium cap on" a naturally-sounding phrase? My translation from Russian: Fill the vial with nitrogen, then immediately close it with a stopper and crimp an aluminium cap on . The Russian original uses the word "завальцевать", which is basically "to crimp" here, and I want to retain it in the sentence and not just write "cap with an aluminium cap" or something like that. Maybe it's not very natural-sounding and one should write something like ... and attach an aluminium cap using a crimping instrument. A well-crimped vial looks like this: <Q> It is not equivalent to "capping", "snapping", or "putting". <S> The stopper is what closes the top. <S> The aluminum cap has a different purpose. <S> It keeps the stopper from being removed or tampered with. <S> So the relevant action is not simply putting the cap in place, it is securing it. <S> Crimping involves bending the metal to secure it in place. <S> So replacing "crimp" with a generic term for attachment leaves out important information if your intent is to accurately translate the instruction. <S> Rather than end with a preposition, you could write "crimp on an aluminum cap". <A> If I were to read that I would understand the meaning. <S> Largely, this will depend on your audience. <S> If this is a user's manual, you may consider using the verb "fit" or "affix". <S> If this is meant for people who work in manufacturing, I suspect they will understand "crimp". <S> *Note on style: <S> Fill the vial with nitrogen, then immediately close it with a stopper and crimp an aluminium cap on (it). <S> It sounds better to not end a sentence with a preposition. <S> I hope this helps, -J <A> They way you have it is absolutely fine. <S> You're alternative <S> is equally acceptable and sounds slightly more like something you'd see in an instruction manual.
| "Crimp" has a specific meaning. I think crimp is natural sounding enough.
|
Why sun 'set' and not sun 'sat'? I know that grammatically "I sat on the couch", or "I set the cup on the table". I know that if you are doing the action yourself then it is 'sat'. Why doesn't this apply to the sun? The sun is doing the action So couldn't you say "I watched the sun sat" rather than "I watched the sun set?Maybe there is a simple answer. I mean really, the sun doesn't do either right? The sun doesn't move. If anything the earth is what does all the moving. Thanks <Q> a : to pass below the horizon : <S> go down <S> * the sun sets b : to come to an end <S> [link] ... <S> but it doesn't set something down, or sit on the horizon. <S> It's a different definition entirely. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry on this use of "set." <S> Look under "Etymology" for available detail. <S> I would say that except for recent changes in language, the information you want will be in OED or good luck finding it anywhere. <A> There are multiple definitions for set. <S> A whole set of definitions, actually. <S> I believe you may be incorrectly assuming the above sentence refers to the primary definition of "put, lay, or stand (something) in a specified place or position." <S> If you use the definition "to bring into a specified state," it makes more sense. <S> Also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/set Scroll down to transitive verb, definition 6 a : to pass below the horizon : go down. <S> the sun sets <A> Set is used to describe the movement of the sun or other luminary. <S> It means to go down; to make an apparent descent towards and below the horizon. <S> (OED) <S> At the end of the day you can watch the sun set / watch as the sun sets . <S> Or, if you did this yesterday, you can say - I watched the sun <S> set / <S> watched as the sun set , (past tense (and past participle) of <S> set is set ). <S> 1816 <S> Scott Black Dwarf vi, in Tales of my Landlord 1st Ser. <S> I. 119 <S> The sun setting red. <S> 1823 <S> F. D. Hemans Siege Valencia i. 121 <S> Till the last pale star had set. <S> 1847 <S> C. Brontë Jane Eyre I. <S> v. 68 <S> The moon was set, and it was very dark.
| The sun does set if we use this common definition for set :
|
Why is past continuous wrong in this sentence? So I had an exam recently where in one problem we had to complete sentences with verbs in either past simple or past continuous tense. One of the sentences was something like this: He _______ in France when she first met him. (live) Most of us wrote "was living" there but our teacher said that the only correct answer is "lived" because this sentence states facts. That was the only explanation she gave and she dismissed our argument that there's no context suggesting that we can't emphasize the first half of the sentence, but she said we can't do that, this sentence is clearly just stating facts, we just can't understand the difference between past simple and past continuous. Now, to my knowledge and according to everything I read on the web, both can be correct, the difference is the emphasis and/or the exact meaning. Am I missing something? <Q> I have spoken English for 50 years and I can say authoritatively that the idiomatic way to express what appears to be the meaning, that he happened to be a resident of France at some particular time in the past, is He was living in France when... <S> Imagine <S> it were some other verb, "He was eating his lunch when..." <S> "He was wearing a jacket when..." <S> The only reason to use simple past would be to imply some causal connection: <S> He lived in France until she met him; they quickly married and returned to Britain. <S> He lived in France during the summer, and returned to Tuscany when the weather got cold. <S> Even in those sentences, you could say "He was living." <S> "Living in France" is almost a phrasal adjective. <S> Compare <S> He was very young when she met him. <S> He was polite when she met him. <S> Your teacher is mistaken. <S> There is nothing about the continuous that depends on the factual nature of the sentence -- it is about aspectuality and causality. <A> Both are 100 percent grammatically correct, but might be used in slightly different contexts. <S> Simple past tense might be preferred for simply stating the fact with no mention of any events that occurred during the time in question: Ex. " <S> He lived in France when she first met him. <S> Or perhaps it was Switzerland... <S> after all, it was 40 years ago and my memory isn't what it used to be. <S> " <S> Past continuous might be preferred in the context of discussing events that occurred during that time: Ex. <S> " <S> He was living in France when she first met him. <S> He had recently broken up with a girl who worked in a Paris bistro, and a whirlwind romance ensued. <S> " <S> Recall that the fundamental purpose of the past continuous verb tense is to allow one to refer to events that occurred during the time frame being discussed and give those events some background context. <S> As usual, context is king. <S> PS <S> Your teacher is 100 percent wrong, and is either (a) <S> a nonnative speaker, (b) incompetent, or (c) both. <A> There are 2 short statements in the sentence but neither depends on the other; she didn't wait for him to move to France <S> so she could meet him <S> and he didn't move to France with the expectation of meeting. <S> Maybe they did <S> but we will never know. <S> All we know is that He lived in France and She first met him (back then). <S> Simple past. <S> However, languages are alive and especially English since it is so widely spoken. <S> When I first read the question I immediately answered it with "was living" which is correct as well. <S> I believe Malvolio's "aspectuality and causality" makes the case for both. <S> I have been teaching English for 40 years. <S> Mark
| I have to say your teacher is correct although erred in giving a very short, blunt but factual explanation.
|
Can a preceding vehicle mean a vehicle ahead? When driving, you should keep a certain distance from a vehicle ahead of you (or in front of you) I would like to use "a preceding vehicle" instead of "a vehicle ahead of you" because "a vehicle ahead of you" is longer. Is it acceptable? <Q> No, it is not an idiomatic or acceptable substitute for "the car ahead", for "a preceding vehicle" does not mean "the car in front of you as seen from your location behind it ". <S> A car can precede yours through a toll gate, say. <S> It goes through sooner than yours does. <S> To precede is a spatio-temporal absolute. <S> P.S. <S> "A preceding vehicle" lacks origo , or "deictic center". <S> The idiomatic deictic meaning of the car ahead places the driver at the deictic center. <S> " <S> A preceding vehicle" does not do this. <S> "Pay attention that you don't get too close to the preceding vehicle " is a space oddity. <S> A parent wouldn't tell a teen learning to drive <S> "Don't get too close to the preceding vehicle". <S> "The preceding vehicle" is the sort of thing we find on accident reports written by the police. <A> That sentence is acceptable. <S> There are many technical articles and patent applications that use "preceding vehicles" when discussing technology for detecting cars ahead of a principal car. <S> Another option would be to remove "of you" and write: <S> When driving, you should keep a certain distance from the vehicle ahead. <A> Yes, you can use the word preceding as an adjective preceding something like a vehicle to mean front or ahead, but that's far less common. <S> You usually use the phrase "in front" or "ahead" as follows: ".......keep a certain distance from the vehicle in front". <S> "....... keep a certain distance from the vehicle ahead". <S> You can also use the front as an adjective as follows, but it's not so commin. <S> "....... keep a certain distance from the front vehicle". <S> BTW, you can also say "....keep your distance from the vehicle in front/ahead".
| Although "a preceding vehicle" would be understood to refer to a vehicle ahead of the driver's vehicle, the reference is not made from the driver's perspective but from a neutral, objective perspective.
|
Is or are in this context Which of the following is right in this context? Who is your favourite footballer and cricketer? Who are your favourite footballer and cricketer? <Q> Well, if you were curious what combined footballer-cricketer your friend liked, you would say "Who is". <S> If you were allowing that the favorite footballer and the favorite cricketer might be two different people, then you would use "Who are". <A> "Who is your favourite footballer and cricketer? <S> " is a perfectly good abbreviation of "Who is your favourite footballer and who is your favourite cricketer?" - which is too long-winded and pedantic to ever be used in practice. <A> "Who" can either be singular or plural. <S> Who is your favourite footballer and cricketer? <S> ( Who is singular) - In this case is refers to one person. <S> This gives a sense that the person you are speaking of is both a footballer and a cricketer. <S> In other words: Who is your favourite player who is both a footballer and a cricketer? <S> Who are your favourite footballer and cricketer? <S> ( Who is plural) <S> - Here are refers to more than one person. <S> This tells us that a footballer is one person while a cricketer is another one. <S> In other words this means: <S> Who is your favourite footballer and who is your favourite cricketer? <A> Edit: I was perhaps technically wrong, but I would violently reject the "correct" grammar as well, so it is perhaps better expressed as: <S> Who is your favourite footballer? <S> And cricketer? <S> or Who is your favourite footballer? <S> And who is your favourite cricketer? <A> For what you have, I think it should be: <S> Who is your favorite footballer and cricketer? <S> However I feel like this sounds better: <S> Who are your favorite footballers and cricketers? <A> If you think about it from a Latin perspective, "is" is singular in form, which means "is" is used for one thing. <S> "Are" is plural in form, so if you are talking about two people, then use "are."
| As a native BrE speaker, "Who are your favourite footballer..." just sounds wrong , because "are" is plural and "footballer" is singular.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.