source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
I want to get the meaning of the phrase 'fell flat to elicit a reply' What does the phrase 'my email fell flat to elicit a response from you' exactly mean? Does it convey from any angle a sense of bad usage? <Q> To Fall Flat <S> It is an idiom with the following meanings: To produce no effect, cause no interest, prove to be ineffective, to have no effect. <S> Your advice fell flat on her. <S> To fail completely Most of her jokes fell flat and her act was a disaster. <S> To fail miserably when attempting to achieve a result, to fail to produce the intended or expected effect. <S> He made several jokes and each of them fell flat. <S> If an entertainment or a joke falls flat, people do not enjoy it and do not think it is funny. <S> If an attempt to influence people's behavior or opinions falls flat, it fails. <S> The advertising campaign which had worked so well in the US fell flat in China. <S> my email fell flat to elicit a response from you, mean: <S> my email had no effect, failed to produce a result (have a response from you) Cambridge Dictionary <S> The Free Dictionary <A> my email fell flat to elicit a response from you <S> @yass is correct about the meaning of fall flat . <S> Fall flat to <S> X doesn't work. <S> If you fall flat, you aren't moving to anything, so it doesn't work, even figuratively. <S> Does it convey from any angle a sense of bad usage? <S> It is bad usage. <S> I don't even know what's trying to convey. <A> Your sentence is an example of poor usage because the syntax suggests one meaning while a logical analysis of the situation suggests you mean something entirely different. <S> To see this, first read this sentence: <S> Tom opened the door to go outside. <S> Notice that Tom first opens the door, <S> and then he can go outside. <S> Your sentence has exactly the same structure: <S> My email fell flat to elicit a response from you. <S> Superficially this means that first your email falls flat, and then it gets a response. <S> Your readers will see that this is silly and look for a different way to connect the ideas so that they make sense. <S> Save them the mental strain. <S> Write something like this: <S> As far as eliciting a response from you goes, my email fell flat.
| No sense of bad usage Fell flat to elicit a reply: Means failed to get a reply
|
Difference between "accompany" and "escort" I have faced some problems in using these two verbs: " accompany " and " escort ". How to define which is suitable? Maybe one of them is used only in formal context? They have almost the same meaning so I can't figure out which to choose. Thanks in advance. <Q> Accompany means to go in company with someone or something (robots), to go together with. <S> Escort is a synonym of accompany . <S> As verbs the difference between escort and accompany is that escort is to attend with a view to guard and protect; to accompany as safeguard; to give honorable or ceremonious attendance to; -- used especially with reference to journeys or excursions on land; as, to escort a public functionary, or a lady; to escort a baggage wagon while accompany is to go with or attend as a companion or associate; to keep company with; to go along with. <S> As a noun escort is a body of armed men to attend a person of distinction for the sake of affording safety when on a journey; one who conducts some one as an attendant; a guard, as of prisoners on a march; also, a body of persons, attending as a mark of respect or honor; -- applied to movements on land, as convoy is to movements at sea. <A> X escorts <S> Y <S> when X travels with Y and remains with Y the entire time, to ensure Y makes it to Y's destination. <S> It can sometimes carry the implication Y is required to go where X wants under threat of force. <S> It's unusual for this to be used where X and Y aren't a person or armored/military vehicles. <S> An escort can mean one who escorts someone as a service. <S> It is also a euphemism for a (typically non-street level) <S> prostitute especially if A) <S> the one being escorted is male, B) <S> the one doing the escorting is female, and C) <S> the context is not any of military, jail/prison, protection, bodyguard, or personal/physical security. <S> In these contexts you have nothing to worry about. <S> But be particularly careful with the term "escort service". <S> X accompanies Y <S> just means X will follow Y without the "make sure Y is safe/gets there OK" implication (or other implications) of escort . <S> It's possible for X/Y here to be objects or services, and that general means if you obtain X, Y will be included with it, or that X and Y are part of an inseparable set or group. <A> LawrenceC gives an excellent answer, but I would add that if you escort someone, you are typically protecting him from some threat or ensuring that he goes, even if he is not going willingly. <S> In the recent United Airlines case, the police arrived to escort the recalcitrant passenger from the flight. <S> If you accompany someone, you are -- at least ostensibly -- going as his friend.
| Escort has a sense of providing protection or guidance. Accompany is connected with companion , from com- , together, and panis , bread, someone you eat with. Here's what The-difference-between says: Accompany is a synonym of escort .
|
Can "which" indicate a phrase? The core stone is the information center of the new computer, which is envied by a lot of competitors of Carl's company. In this sentence, can "which" indicate the phrase "information center"? It is normally to use "which" to indicate a noun, but as for a phrase, I am not sure. <Q> "Which" is a relative pronoun. <S> It links the modifying clause following it to the preceding noun or noun phrase. <S> In this case the noun phrase is "the information center of the new computer". <S> The sentence is grammatical and standard English. <A> "The cake was burned, which made me angry." <S> ( English relative clauses # Overview - 10th item in the list ) <S> Strictly speaking, cake is the head noun of the noun phrase, which is modified: "The burned cake made me angry." <S> Analytic interpretation gives the preceding phrase "was burned" is to be modified by the relative clause, though, and clearly, the burn (or burning for friends of the gerund) is the culprit, the cake's burn, to be specific, so we could say: "the cake burn made me angry". <S> Now, because the interpretations are equal in meaning, we just say the whole sentence is modified, for simplicities sake. <S> And rightfully so, because "is" marks an equality. <S> (Edit: In that sense " which " indeed modified the whole phrase. <S> Because of the equivalence relation "to be", each noun entails the other. <S> This equivalence is "envied". ) <S> The comma is a different issue. <S> It is needed, because the relative clause is non-restrictive (see at the link given above). <S> In another interpretation which is my own opinion the comma is needed precisely to signal the whole phrase as referent. <A> I will give a slightly different interpretation, because language is inherently ambiguous and subject to interpretation. <S> This use of "which" introduces a free relative clause . <S> In this way it is also called an embedded question. <S> You can read it as such: The [noun 1] is a [noun 2]. <S> The [noun 1 or 2] is what [predicate]. <S> ... <S> The core stone is what is envied. <S> In that sense, it is a fused relative clause. <S> The comma is only needed to set off the enumeration. "that which is ..." is also used instead of "what or which". <S> I wouldn't know the difference. <S> The [noun 1] is a [noun 2] and it is that which is ... <S> Of course, because of the first clause, noun 1 now entails noun 2, so even in that sense, the relative clause applies to noun 1, noun 2 and even the whole sentence.
| Yes, a relative clause can modify a whole sentence.
|
Is it better to use past simple in that case Apologies about this. Unfortunately nothing showed up regarding the order until recently. I will get the single packed and sent to you this week. I was wondering if past perfect can fit because "recently" means "before now", so past simple in term of tense. The action of "showing" is before and completed, so can I use past perFect even if until indicates it is before? <Q> It's fine. <S> "Unfortunately, nothing had shown up until recently" just means "nothing had shown up before these appeared." <S> I disagree with those above who want to use the present perfect. <S> Do not use the present perfect here; use the simple past or past perfect. <S> The past perfect is a little more formal here than the simple past, but both are fine; "has shown up" is wrong in the example you give. <S> The present perfect would be fine if you were to toss the phrase "until recently": "Unfortunately, nothing has shown up [yet]." <A> but I wouldn't recommend past perfect. <S> Past simple can be used because you state a fact from the past <S> and there's nothing in the sentence that requires the usage of a different tense. <S> The phrase "until recently" may seem like one <S> but it's just a vague reference to a time period. <S> Unfortunately nothing showed up regarding the order until recently. <S> There is actually an example sentence using past simple in the Merriam Webster <S> dictionary at the definition of recently : <S> "Until recently I had no idea where I would end up finding a job." <S> Present perfect can be used because the word "recently" can be interpreted as part of the present <S> so you'd use it almost like "until now". <S> Unfortunately nothing has shown up regarding the order until recently. <S> This is the case of an action in the past at an unspecified time. <S> According to the usage of the present perfect on LearnEnglish : "We often use the present perfect with time adverbials which refer to the recent past" [...] "or adverbials which include the present" Because "recently" feels like it's in the past and <S> "until recently" actually can make it be in the past, it can be appealing to treat it like that and go for the past perfect. <S> Unfortunately nothing had shown up regarding the order until recently. <S> This is certainly used <S> but there's nothing in the sentence or its context to justify it, " <S> until recently" is not some action/event in the past, it's not a condition, hypothesis or wish, it's a vague reference to a time period. <S> Even though past perfect is similar to present perfect, it's always used with at least two past actions/events, see the usages here and here . <A> I'd rather use the past simple or present perfect, but for sure not past perfect. <S> Past Simple: <S> If the event is finished and no present impact. <S> For example, if you lost your keys today in the morning, then your friend came with another key and you entered your flat, and at night you are telling your brother this story. <S> In this case you may say "I lost my key today in the morning". <S> Present perfect: <S> If the event took place in the past, yet it has its influence or impact in the present, take the above example again. <S> If you lost your keys, yet you can't enter you flat, then your brother called you. <S> In this case you may tell him "I've lost my keys, and I can't open the door". <S> Past perfect: <S> I guess it doesn't work here at all. <S> Past perfect is used to describe an event before one or more events took place in the past. <S> Example, We had had our dinner, then my neighbour came to watch the daily TV show with us. <S> Hope <S> this is useful and for more clarification, I recommend you to see these lessons on how to use tenses by Anglo-Link on the YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEBRIBtq7q0&list=PL891E69DA6560B21E <S> Regards,Ahmad, <A> Ignoring the irrelevant context - please! - we have nothing showed up until recently , don’t we? <S> that's clearly the correct choice. <S> Nothing had shown up… would be fine if you were explaining what happened to a third party; not for talking to the customer who’s order was misplaced. <S> Nothing has shown up could be acceptable by itself but never with until recently ; not in this context. <S> … nothing had shown up… can’t fit the example. <S> had shown is very different from showed . <A> The past perfect -- nothing had shown up -- as another commenter noted would not be used unless it is contrasted with simple past. <S> For instance. <S> The customer was annoyed because nothing had shown up . <S> But even then, in your example case the past perfect would not be used with 'until recently', because 'recently' makes it something with an effect in the present, so more 'present perfect' territory. <S> In the previous example you could get rid of 'until recently' and write: <S> The customer was annoyed because nothing had shown up until then (or until [some specific time] <S> e.g. the end of March). <S> Even though 'recently' is often present perfect territory, it still doesn't work well in your sentence. <S> The reason is that something very clearly did show up before now . <S> It is a completed action in the past. <S> So basically the sentence you yourself gave is grammatically the best solution. <S> Nothing showed up until recently.
| You can use past simple and present perfect
|
Is the meaning conveyed in the two sentences the same? Sentence 1: I didn't think it was possible Sentence 2: I had no idea it was possible A friend asked me if Sentence 1 was grammatically correct or not. I advised him to rewrite it as Sentence 2 in case Sentence 1 didn't sound right to him. But he didn't agree to it because he thinks 'did' is used when something has been performed and 'had' is used to refer to something that someone possessed <Q> There is a subtle difference between the two sentences, however they are closely related: <S> It's all about the act of thinking, believing, and considering. <S> The person had an opinion that it wouldn't be possible. <S> " I had no idea <S> it was possible <S> " - refers to " not knowing or understanding something ". <S> When somebody says, " I have no idea " <S> it means that he doesn't know, <S> understand, he has no thought about it. <S> " Have " here indeed refers to possession. <S> The person didn't hold any idea in his head - it wasn't there. <S> " Do " here refers to performance <S> but it's an auxiliary verb here in the negative form. <S> The main verb " to think " refers to an action. <A> Without any further context, Sentence 1 merely states what the speaker thought was possible, whereas sentence 2 clearly conveys great surprise or even incredulity. <S> The discussion about the function of 'did' and 'had' has no meaning here, since there first is an auxiliary verb and the second is the main verb. <S> You are comparing the proverbial oranges and apples. <A> The second sentence is in fact correct because the idea is being possessed here. <S> In other words, someone had no idea that it was possible. <A> In my opinion, both are grammatically correct, but, with a significant difference. <S> The first sentence indicates an effort was made by the speaker to evaluate the possibility and through that evaluation had determined it to not be possibile. <S> The second sentence indicates that the speaker had no forethought of even the existance of a possibility. <S> Thus, never thought about it at all.
| Both sentences are grammatically correct; however, at least to me, the difference in meaning is all but subtle. He is right that did is used when something is performed and had is used when something is possessed. " I didn't think it was possible " - refers to two common meanings " not to consider something likely " and " not to believe that something can happen/is true/exists ".
|
A verb to describe cooking potatoes in burned down fire Grilling, roasting, boiling, etc are used to describe different types of cooking. Is there a verb to describe cooking (usually potatoes) under a pile of hot ash ? We do this sometimes outdoors in the wild. After making the fire and letting it burn down a little, we put potatoes under hot charcoal. Some wrap it in a foil tight and then put it under. Don't [the verb] the potatoes. I want them fried. Informal words are also welcome because I personally don't know of an established word to describe this in even a neutral way in my own native language so I figure in English it might be the case too. However I can think of a word in a dialect of my native tongue which is not shared by all native speakers in my country. <Q> "Roasting" is most accurate (see definition #4, "to cook or heat by embedding in hot coals, embers, etc."). <S> Since it's potatoes, though, a native speaker might instead say "baking" , since " roasted potatoes" is a dish where the potatoes are usually sliced and cooked in a pan, while " baked potatoes" are cooked whole (and often wrapped in foil). <A> Where I grew up, we used to do this with potatoes as part of a barbeque. <S> They were invariably wrapped in tin foil before being put into the coals. <S> We wouldn't have said they were being barbequed, though, as this would have suggested cooking them on top of the coals, but rather 'baked'. <A> I would use the verb "char" . <S> I don't believe this is exactly a cooking method, but it communicates an effect which would be a primary result of the cooking method we're trying to describe, and which you don't want to happen. <S> I have previously heard it referred to as an aspect of cooking steak, in direct contact with coals. <S> ("Charring the steak" or "charring the steak on [the] coals".) <S> I would therefore say "Please don't char the potatoes; I want them fried."
| To avoid confusion I would say that the potatoes were baked in the coals, but roasted would certainly get the meaning across.
|
'Back in 2000' vs 'In 2000' I'm familiar with preposition 'in' in terms of using past tense. E.g. to denote that something is hapenning during the year 2000, I can say: I joined the project in 2000 But in some authentic articles, I often come across collocation "back in XXXX", for example from here : Since EVE Online launched back in 2003 My question is: What is the difference? Does the 'back in'-collocation have some specific connotation? Thanks. <Q> You would say "back in XXXX" to emphasize that it happened some time in the past. <S> Otherwise there is no difference in meaning. <S> I graduated high school in 1984 <S> I graduated high school back in 1984. <S> You can also say "way back in" to emphasize that it happened a (relatively) long time ago, as if it was ancient history. <S> I graduated high school way back in 1984. <S> So with regard to your example: saying "EVE Online launched back in 2003" emphasizes that the game has been around for quite a while. <S> I expect this is relevant to some other point mentioned in the article -- for example that, as a result, the game is polished , or has an established player base , or that the developers are committed , or something similar. <A> Good answers all around. <S> I'll add another permutation. <S> "Back in 2003" can give a very slight impression that you're trying to set the scene, so to speak, and help the listener remember what else was going on in 2003. <S> "We founded this company back in 2003, before Twitter and Facebook existed!" <S> or "I met my wife back in 1955, when the drive-in movie cost a nickel! <S> " <S> Those are extreme examples, but the "back in" piece encourages you to consider more of the context: what else was going on back then? <S> Simply using "in 2003" connotes a bit more of a timeline-like feel. <S> "We founded this company in 2003 and we went public in 2007. <S> " That's the more formal- or legal-sounding way to say it, as topo morto described well . <S> It feels like it's trying to communicate a fact (the company was founded on this date) rather than a feeling or contextual information (the company was founded under these external circumstances). <S> Gut thing, though. <A> You wouldn't be so likely to see "back in 2003" in a formal business document or legal document. <S> On the other hand, "in 2003" might sound a bit too 'calculated' for a casual conversation; adding 'back' adds information about how you feel about how far away that time was, so it comes across as friendlier. <S> You might see something like <S> We started our company back in 2003 <S> On a company's 'about' page on their website, for example. <A> There is no important difference. <S> You could use either, based only on what sounds good. <S> That said, "back" does subtly imply a change in context. <S> When you say "back in 2003," you are implying that something about 2003 is different from the present day. <S> Now, obviously each day is different from the one before, so it's never wrong to use "back in___", and obviously <S> each day is similar to the next, so it's never mandatory either. <S> But if you're going to describe some key difference, it often sounds better. <S> For example, "EVE launched back in 2003, when the idea of a space MMO was fresh and new ." <S> There are a few other uses which work similarly, like the cliche "Meanwhile, back at the ranch." <S> (which indicates we have switched from some cowboy's exploits to a separate scene with different characters). <S> A very similar usage of "back" instead refers to the audience's focus returning to something from earlier in the presentation. <S> You hear this used often on reality shows with multiple teams: "Back at the Johnsons' house, Zed has run into some problems." <S> Note also that "in" doesn't necessarily indicate past tense. <S> Example: <S> "In March of 2020, we will begin phase three of our master plan."
| As well as emphasizing that it happened some time in the past, "back in 2003" has a more informal feeling to it than "in 2003". Using them interchangeably would be completely technically correct, as you've noted in your question.
|
Help explaining "Where am I?" vs "...where I am" I would like to explain to a non-native girlfriend that it's correct to say "Where am I?" on its own as a question, but if you want to say "Can you guess where I am?" or "Do you know where I am?" or "I don't know where I am" then the word order is flipped around. Although I am native I don't have any idea why this grammar is what it is, so I'd really appreciate any help explaining it. <Q> The subject and auxiliary verb are normally switched order in a question. <S> This process is called a subject-auxiliary inversion . <S> That's why the auxliary verb precedes the subject in your first example. <S> Where am I?(NOT where I am? <S> ) <S> However, when the question is embedded in a sentence(or inside another clause) this process does not occur. <S> Can you guess [Where I am]? <S> (NOT <S> Can you guess where am I? ) <A> Where am I? <S> This is a simple main clause which comes in the form of a question. <S> Therefore its word order differs from that of normal positive sentences: the predicate is moved in front of the subject to mark the sentence as a question. <S> Positive statement: You_[Subject] <S> are_[Predicate] here_[Prepositional Object]. <S> Question: Where_[Question word] am_[Predicate <S> ] I_[Subject]? <S> Now let's come to your second example, which is yet another question. <S> Again, let's compare it to a positive statement like above: <S> Positive statement <S> : I know <S> ** <S> where I am . <S> Question: <S> Do you know where I am ? <S> This time, we have a main clause and an (interrogative) clause, which is highlighted in bold print. <S> As you can see, the subject-predicate-inversion to mark the question only happens in the main clause while the subordinate clause remains unchanged: <S> Positive statement: I_[Subject] know_[Predicate] <S> where I am_[Object]. <S> Question: Do_[Predicate1] <S> you_[Subject] know_[Predicate2] <S> where I am?_[Object] <S> So there you have it: <S> Example 1 is just a main clause, which is why the word order is changed when forming a question. <S> Example 2 is a combination of main clause and subordinate clause, so the word order only changes in the main clause to mark the sentence as a question. <A> [1] <S> Where am I? <S> [2] <S> Do you know [where I am]? <S> With main clause interrogatives like [1], the interrogative phrase usually occupies initial position and, if it is not the subject, its placement triggers subject-auxiliary inversion. <S> But in subordinate interrogative clauses like the bracketed one in [2], there is normally no inversion. <S> Main clause interrogatives ask questions, but subordinate interrogative clauses (embedded questions) express questions, but do not themselves ask them. <S> Usually (but not always) <S> the construction can be glossed with the formula “the answer to the question”. <S> The meaning of [2] is <S> “Do you know the answer to the question ‘Where am I?’” <S> You other examples fit the same pattern as [2]. <A> For those who don't want a strict grammatical approach, this is how I'd explain (native English speaker to learner) <S> "Where am I" is a question. <S> That's signalled by the reversal of "am" and "I". <S> "Can you guess [X]" is also a question, whatever [X] might be. <S> A statement would be "You can guess [X]", without the reversal. <S> in <S> "Can you guess where I am", [X] is "where I am". <S> If I remember my grammar right, it's a noun phrase, and the object of the verb "guess" <S> (but I'm not completely certain I do remember right ).
| The cause lies in the different syntax of both examples:
|
Are you not planning going to the pub this evening Are you not planning going to the pub this evening? Don't you plan going to the pub this evening? Which sentence would a native speaker use? I am not sure whether the continuous form is possible. <Q> We can express intention more simply: <S> Are you going to the pub tonight? <S> If you want to use "planning": Are you planning on going to the pub tonight? <S> Are you planning to go to the pub tonight? <S> Do you plan to go to the pub tonight? <S> Yes, the continuous is idiomatic, but with planning on or planning + marked infinitive. <S> P.S. <S> If you want to imply that there is some doubt about the person going to the pub, which is surprising to you, you can use the negative form of the question, but the continuous, planning , is unaffected by that: <S> Aren't you going to the pub tonight? <S> Aren't you planning on going .... <S> Aren't you planning to go... <S> Don't you plan to go... <S> Ngram <A> You can use the present continuous or the present simple here: <S> Aren't you planning to go to the pub this evening? <S> Don't you plan to go to the pub this evening? <S> Both of these questions are perfectly fine and idiomatic. <S> I would tend to use the first. <S> However, notice that the verb plan takes a to -infinitive as a Complement. <S> It cannot take an -ing form of the verb (a gerund-participle). <S> The following examples are ungrammatical: <S> *Are you not planning going to the pub this evening? <S> (ungrammatical) <S> *Don't you plan going to the pub this evening? <S> (ungrammatical) <S> The Original Poster's examples use negative questions. <S> Because these are negative questions, they give us the idea that the speaker thinks we are going to the pub this evening. <A> This is the ordinary choice between the present indicative and the present continuous. <S> I plan to go to the pub. <S> I am planning to go to the pub. <S> Indicative is also used for habitual or typical actions. <S> Which is why "Are you not planning going to the pub? <S> " is (somewhat) more idiomatic: <S> it contains the idea of current action. <S> The alternative "Don't you plan going to the pub?" vaguely suggests that the speaker thinks you are the kind of person who generally plans to go to clubs.
| Continuous means that you are doing it right now .
|
How should I reply when I answer some question on Stack Exchange sites, people thank me and say it helped? In order to be polite and answer in a social way I have had some hesitation to choose which phrase I should use. You are welcome. I'm glad it helped. You are welcome. I'm glad I could contribute. You are welcome. I'm glad that I could help. No problem. I'm happy that I could help. If you have better phrases, please add, since it's fun to learn more. <Q> I commend your desire to be polite! <S> However, since your question is specifically about “stackoverflow sites”, I recommend you do <S> not respond to “thank you” comments or post your own “thank you”-type comments. <S> The “What should I do when someone answers my question?” <S> section of the site's Help Center says this: Please do not add a comment on your question or on an answer to say "Thank you". <S> Comments are meant for requesting clarification, leaving constructive criticism, or adding relevant but minor additional information – not for socializing. <S> If you want to say "thank you," vote on or accept that person's answer, or simply pay it forward by providing a great answer to someone else's question. <A> All your examples are fine. <S> I would offer the following advice to make it sound more natural to a native, however, the most important of which can be summarised by saying keep it short . <S> Shorten <S> "You are welcome" to <S> "You're welcome" . <S> You don't necessarily need to say I'm in the follow-up sentences, as this is obvious to the reader from context. <S> Saying something like "Happy to help" or " <S> Glad it helped" is fine. <S> In fact, if you use the word "I" or "me" too much, it can come across as being self-congratulatory/boastful/self-centered/self-important. <S> (Flagrantly stealing from Robusto's comment) <S> You can often shorten "you're welcome" or "no problem" to the acronyms YW or NP . <S> Use exclamation marks or smiley faces to appear more jovial, e.g. "Happy to help!" <S> or "You're welcome :)" . <S> Contribute is probably more appropriate if it was a group effort, <S> e.g. a discussion, otherwise, help is probably more appropriate. <S> You can also use "to be of service" (e.g. "Glad to be of service"), but "help" is again probably more informal/generally appropriate. <S> If you don't know whether the OP has found something helpful yet, you can use <S> "I hope" to indicate that you would like your contribution to be helpful. <S> You could say something like <S> "I hope you find it useful/helpful" . <S> (Especially if you are Australian/speaking to an Aussie) You can use the phrase <S> "No worries" in a similar way to "No problem". <A> None of the above. <S> Comments are not supposed to say thank you or anything in return. <S> Comments are not recommended for any of the following: Compliments which do not add new information (" <S> +1, great answer!"); instead, up-vote it and pay it forward; Source: <S> https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/comment <S> Edit: Comments are not for extended discussion either. <A> Your responses #1, #3, and #4 are entirely appropriate since you're answering directly to an individual. <S> #2 might be more for a general or bigger audience/community. <S> Depending on what the original question was <S> Glad I could help. <S> Good luck! <S> may also be appropriate. <A> When people thank me I usually say: You're welcome, glad it helped. <S> By the way thanks are immaterial in the Stack Exchange sites, so you can vote on or accept my answer if you find it useful. <S> By saying so you also have the chance to get an upvote.
| The simple acknowledgement of thanks is often sufficient ("You're welcome"), you don't necessarily also need to state your happiness for being helpful.
|
The best way to answer a question without being rude When I answer some question on the Stack Exchange sites, I usually use a phrase like: You should change. I recommend you. You are supposed to. You can use. Is it okay to use the word you all the time? I just thought it's maybe like I'm ordering someone? I want see some different approach. I'm aware that the answer should be MVC (minimum verified complete). <Q> If you're worried about sounding too "bossy", the culprit often isn't the word you . <S> Instead, it's the verb after the word you . <S> For example, these phrases make it sound like what you're about to write is absolutely correct, and there is no other valid way of doing something: <S> You should change... <S> You are supposed to... <S> The solution I often use is to couch the language in a less assertive way: <S> You might want to consider changing... <S> You probably should think about trying... <S> By using words like might, probably, and often instead of words like should, must , and always , your answers are less likely to sound like you are touting the only right way to do something at the exclusion of other possible solutions. <A> I would use phrases such as (see what I did there?) <S> I would use phrases such as... <S> Another way to say this is... <S> One solution that worked for me was... <S> If it's a language / logical / mathematical question (subjects with hard rules) and you know that the original post was wrong, I think you are helping the person by pointing that out clearly and explaining why. <S> They should not be offended, but there is also no need to focus on the person, rather focus on the problem and attempted solution. <S> If it is a softer subject where many options are possible, or the question isn't wrong but can be improved, you can suggest an improvement . <S> Finally, I'm sure you can find lots of good examples on each site, just by reading questions and answers. <S> The tone of communication and culture surely varies depending on the topic. <A> When the answer states an objective fact, it may be so stated without any reference to the person asking. <S> You shouldn't say "you" if you're stating a fact. <S> You are supposed to mention the person you're giving the advice to, using the pronoun "you." <S> Odd-numbered sentences in this answer are done right; even-numbered sentences are done wrong.
| When you're just giving advice, it's probably fine to mention the person you're giving the advice to; however you may want to avoid stating such advice in concrete, absolute terms.
|
Does an indefinite-article mean always 'one'? Suppose I am an event organiser and while conducting a game I announce that -"Whoever wins this game, I will get him a chocolate". Here I used the word 'a chocolate' so does it mean 'one chocolate' or 'any chocolate' or 'more than one chocolate' or 'anyone chocolate' ? <Q> I'm saying "in this specific case" because the word "chocolate" is sometime uncountable and the <S> it refers to any kind of chocolate as a general title. <S> see below . <S> You don't need to say "a chocolate" in order to refer generally to any kind of chocolate, because chocolate by itself (without indefinite article) does it already. <A> It is more correct to say: Whoever wins this game gets a chocolate bar. <S> This accounts for multiple winners and genders, and specifies it's a chocolate bar, and not say a bonbon. <S> If you only want the first winner, then say: Whoever wins this game first, gets a chocolate bar. <A> A chocolate only ever means one of three things: a chocolate sweet, individually wrapped; a chocolate sweet, unwrapped, which came from a cheap packet; a drink of chocolate. <S> The wrapping might be in a twist of metalicky, plasticky stuff and it might be in an individual depression in a blow-molded plastic tray; that matters little. <S> A chocolate is never the same as a bar of chocolate nor a piece broken from a bar… <S> By the way, supposing you really were an event organiser, there is no possibility you would say that <A> It means 'one chocolate', i.e. the item shown in the top-left of the picture below.
| In fact, when you say "a chocolate", mainly it means a single piece of chocolate, because the function of the indefinite-article in this specific case is to denote that it's singular.
|
Am I using "in the background" correctly? I want to say I am working on this problem in my free time and it won't affect my daily tasks. Is the following correct? I am working on this problem in the background. <Q> in the background <S> 2 behind the scenes , unnoticed, out of the limelight <S> Rosemary likes to stay in the background. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> In the background is closer in meaning to being unseen, hidden not "free time". <S> So I am working on this problem in the background <S> sounds like you are trying to hide something or keep it a secret. <S> I would stick to free time , spare time or time off . <S> free time <S> Noun <S> (uncountable) <S> Time that can be spent on one's own activities rather than work. <S> I love to play football in my free time. <S> (Your Dictionary) spare time uncountable noun <S> Your spare time is the time during which you do not have to work <S> and you can do whatever you like • In her spare time she read books on cooking. <S> • I spend a lot of my spare time watching videos. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> time off noun time for rest or recreation away from your usual work or studies <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> A more informal phrase is "on my down time". <S> Another phrase to consider is on the side : on the side 1. <S> in addition to your regular job or activities <S> He drives a bus, but he's a tour guide on the side. <S> (TFD) <S> On the side suggests you have a primary task or problem that you're working on and that this problem is secondary. <A> As mentioned in the comments, if you say you are working on it in the background you may be understood as saying you are spending company time on the problem. <S> I would say I am working on this project on my own time Or <A> I am working on this problem in the background isn't = <S> I am working on this problem in my free time. <S> The former sentence expresses your intended meaning. <S> The latter meansthat you are working on this problem in a place or situation in which people cannot notice you.
| I am working on a side project in my free time.
|
Use of did and wanted in one sentence I wanted to know if we can use did and wanted in the same sentence.For example in the following sentence: What did he wanted to prove through the experiment? Is this a correct sentence? It uses did and wanted together. <Q> In English we can only have one tensed verb in a verb phrase. <S> The auxiliary DO is always tensed. <S> It is always either past tense or present tense. <S> If we use the auxiliary DO , the Complement verb phrase will always use a PLAIN form of the verb. <S> This is the word you see in the dictionary. <S> She didn't WANT a chocolate. <S> Notice in the sentence above that because did is in the past tense, the verb want cannot be past tense. <S> It is in the plain form. <S> Notice also that the verb want is not present tense. <S> The following sentence is ungrammatical: <S> She didn't want <S> s a chocolate. <S> (ungrammatical). <S> For these reasons the Original Poster's example needs to use the verb want in the plain form: <S> What did he want to prove through the experiment? <A> And the verb to do is sufficient to mark the tense. <S> What did he want to prove through the experiment? <S> ( did marks past tense). <S> But there is an exception for this rule. <S> You can use do/did with a past tense form of verb in a cleft-sentence because the verb to do functions as a lexical verb, not as an auxiliary. <S> All he did was eat the food. <A> Declarative sentence in the simple past in English:He wanted to prove something with his experiment. <S> Interrogative sentence in English: Did he want to prove something with his experiment? <S> Interrogative pronouns follow the interrogative sentence rule: What did he want to prove etc. <S> How did he want to prove etc. <S> Where did he want to proveWhen <S> did he want to prove etc. <S> The word did in the simple past and the words do/does [careful with the s in the third person] are the helping verbs used to make interrogative sentences in English. <S> In the interrogative form, the subject and the verb are inverted. <S> Do you like tea?Did you like the tea served at the party? <S> This is basic English grammar. <S> And that is the proper terminology for explaining it in the simplest way. <S> Please do not edit this answer. <S> It is structured the way <S> I want it to be structured.
| When using a verb to do , you must use the plain form of verb after it.
|
"Stretched too thin": Would the meaning of the phrase change without "too"? My colleague, a native-English speaker, in his message apologized for not replying to my emails right away. I know that he is an awfully busy person and besides his professional activity and family, he has his old mother to look after, his children born during his first marriage to support, and so on and so forth. What I want is to ask him, both politely and idiomatically, not to apologize and, as soon as I understand his situation, I’d like to add a phrase that would show my understanding. I was thinking of the phrase: I know you're stretched too thin on several fronts. But “ be stretched too thin ” means that a person who tries to do many things at the same time, can’t give enough time or attention to any of them. With my friend, it’s totally different: He does many things at the same time, giving enough attention to them all. The matter is that he has to temporally sacrifice one or two of his responsibilities for carrying out the others, thence he may be a little late with carrying out those others. In this regard, the phrase “stretched too thin” to me, seems somewhat not matching the real situation perfectly. I thought, what if I use the phrase “you are stretched thin on several fronts” ( without "too" )? Would this hit the bull's eye? Could you kindly suggest a couple of phrases of the same meaning? <Q> Stretched thin is fine and what you described. <S> I think an alternative phrase is the simple <S> "you're really busy", or the idiom have a lot on your plate : <S> have a lot/enough on your plate also have your plate full to have a lot of work to do or a lot of problems to deal with <S> I don't want to burden my daughter with my problems; she's got enough on her plate with her husband in prison. <S> Simon can't take on any more work. <S> He's got his plate full as it is. <S> (TFD) Example. <S> Colleague: <S> Sorry for responding late. <S> I had to do XYZ. <S> You: 1. <S> Don't worry. <S> I know you're really busy. <S> 2. <S> Don't worry. <S> I know you've got a lot on your plate. <A> <A> They have slightly different meanings to me. <S> If someone told me that Bob is stretched thin , I would get the impression that he has a lot of work going on. <S> I'm imaging a scenario such as me asking my Boss if Bob could help me on a project, and <S> my Boss saying "No, Bob is stretched thin as it is". <S> Bob is handling what he has, but he can't take anymore. <S> If someone told me Bob was stretched too thin , I would get the impression that they not able to handle everything going on. <S> As per the same example, if my Boss said "No, Bob is stretched too thin", I would imagine a follow up of "I'm already having to pull him off other projects".
| Stretched thin would be fine; it's entirely idiomatic and expresses exactly what you describe.
|
Is there a difference between "I'll go and fetch it for you" & "I'll fetch it for you"? fetch : to go to where somebody/something is and bring them/it back fetch somebody/something: to fetch help/a doctor The inhabitants have to walk a mile to fetch water. I heard people say " I'll go & fetch it for you ". Since " fetch=go to ... & bring it back ", so I would think " go " is unnecessary in " I'll go & fetch it for you ". So, we can just say " I'll fetch it for you ". Is there a difference between " I'll go and fetch it for you " & " I'll fetch it for you "? <Q> The one who includes "go" might intend to ensure that you recognize that (s)he is doing you a favor. <S> It is highly contextual. <A> Not really. <S> "Go and fetch it" implies that "it" is farther away, often in another room. <S> Either use is fine though. <A> I'll fetch it for you. <S> I'll go and fetch it for you. <S> Both the sentences are grammatical and have the same meaning except that the second sentence is informal. <S> In spoken English, you use the verb go with "and" plus another verb to intensify or emphasize the purpose of doing something. <S> Look at the following sentence: <S> Right. <S> It's five o'clock. <S> I'd better go and fetch my mother from the station (Cambridge). <S> However, the use of the fetch without "go and" is more common.
| There is not a functional difference, but it might imply a difference in the disposition of the speaker.
|
Can I use 'glutton' for someone playing video games a lot? One of the meaning of glutton is "a person with great capacity for enduring or doing something" which is very close to an informal word in my native language which means eater e.g. we say he's a video game/driving/computer eater which means he does these activities a lot and often it implies that he's good at them, too. Can I use glutton to make this concept in English? He's a glutton for videogames/driving/computers. If not, any suggestions? (I did some search online but I frequently came across glutton for punishment that's why I thought it might be wrong to use glutton in this way) Edit : Let me expand the scope to verbs and expressions. I'm looking for a way to express this concept in a concise and idiomatic fashion. <Q> People (at least those who don't play them) would understand you if you said "He's a glutton for video games". <S> Similar colloquial ways to express "excessive consumption" or "excessive use": <S> He overdoes it with the video games. <S> He's addicted to video games. <S> He's married to that game console. <S> He's a game-aholic. <S> He's a video-game zombie. <S> He won't let go of that game controller. <A> You could say, "He pwns at video games." <S> This does not mean that he plays a lot of video games, but it's strongly implied as "to pwn" at something <S> , you'd probably do it a lot. <S> This is also an excellent translation as it is also current and modern-day slang as is the word you are trying to translate from your native language. <S> Meanwhile, "to pwn" at something <S> means to be really good at the thing . <S> And "pwn" is versatile as you could say also use it to say that someone beat you in a game, "You pwned me!", you could also use it in real life, "He totally pwns you in basketball," and you could also use it just by itself, "Pwned!" <A> Other possibilities: <S> He's a great one for video games. <S> To be a great one for X means to be a big fan of X, or a frequent and enthusiastic doer of X. <S> He's a maniac for video games . <S> Maniac literally means "someone who has a mania ", but is used informally to mean "someone with a very strong enthusiasm".
| He's a video gaming maniac or
|
What does 'of' mean in "that most precious of gifts"? I don't know the meaning of 'of' in this sentence (also in the picture): My job: to take that most precious of gifts you give me - I think that 'to take that most precious gifts you give me.' is good enough.But why does the sentence above obstinately include the 'of' in the sentence?What is the difference in meaning? <Q> of indicates ownership or membership. <S> It's not just any precious gift, but the most precious one of the gifts that you have given me . <S> "That most precious gifts you give me" isn't correct because that is used for singular things, and gifts <S> is plural. <S> "The most precious gifts you give me" or "Those most precious gifts you give me" refer to all of the gifts, rather than one out of the gifts, which is what the of indicates. <A> /That most precious gift you give me/ is not ungrammatical. <S> It means this gift is the most precious one you are giving me. <S> That implies there are others that are not as precious as this one. <S> However, the meaning of that sentence is not the meaning of "/That most precious of gifts?. <S> Take these phrases as further examples of this structure: <S> The funniest of men <S> The wisest of brothers <S> The richest of women <S> The stupidest of ideas <S> The dumbest of politicians <S> The craziest of ideas <S> The oddest of places <S> They do not have the same meaning as saying: the dumbest politician. <S> The use of the + superlative + of + noun is stronger and clearer. <S> This a stylistic device in English. <S> It packs more of a wallop than: the funniest man, the richest woman, the stupidest goat, the dumbest politician and differs in meaning slightly. <S> There is really no group or class of noun here. <S> why? <S> Like this: Of all the politicians (as a group), he is the dumbest . <S> Or: He is the dumbest of all politicians . <S> As can be seen, that is not the same as: <S> He is the dumbest politician (but not the dumbest man). <S> In this last sentence, there is no group against which his dumbness is being compared. <S> [Joke: Am I really writing that??] <S> Ergo, there is a slight difference in meaning created: <S> He is the dumbest politician [but he might be the smartest of <S> men].VERSUS He is the dumbest of politicians [n the group known as politicians]. <S> It is more emphatic and makes very clear that the superlative form of the adjective is being used to put the person, animal or thing in a group. <S> Verb <S> : you give me implies that the gift is a general notion just like: <S> The support you give me helps me in school. <S> [a general notion] <A> This usage reflects a somewhat "elevated" style. <S> Normal: the most precious gift <S> Elevated: this|that|the most precious of gifts <S> The elevated version means "Of all possible gifts, the one which is most precious". <S> There is no gift more precious than it, the most precious gift in the whole world. <S> The normal means "the most precious gift of the (limited) set of gifts under consideration". <S> The most precious gift of those gifts, but not necessarily of all gifts. <S> Moreover, the demonstrative that assumes (rhetorically) a universal consensus of opinion on the matter. <S> P.S. <S> I do not take "you give me" as a restrictive clause here. <S> P.P.S. Let me try to explain my P.S. <S> I understand the noun phrase "that most precious of gifts" to be actually this: that most precious [gift] of gifts <S> The determiner <S> that determines the nominal "most precious [gift] of gifts". <S> What about "you give me"? <S> If you give me restricts "gifts" <S> (gifts you give me), because of the present tense <S> the reference would be to gifts that could be given at any time, from time to time, the one you are giving me now, those that have been given in the past, and those that are yet to be given. <S> Since we cannot single out an acknowledged superlative ("that most precious") from a set that is not yet complete and bounded , "you give me" cannot restrict "gifts". <S> It can only restrict "most precious [gift] of gifts", which is a bounded set with a single member: the best of the set of all possible gifts. <S> Now, if it had said "that most precious of gifts you could give me" or "that most precious of gifts you could ever give me" or "that most precious of gifts you have given me" or "that most precious of the gifts you give me", then it would be bounded, and it would support selection of the best from that bounded set, and "you could give me" could restrict either "gifts" or "most precious [gift] of gifts".
| You could interpret it as "The most precious one out of all the gifts you give me." The use of the plural noun means the adjective in the superlative is referring to an entire group as a class of people, animal or things.
|
Are "sort" and "order" interchangeable? Do both sentences mean the same thing? Please, would you order the papers by number? Please, would you sort the papers by number? <Q> "Sort" and "order" are generally interchangeable, and in your example, they are perfect synonyms. <S> The one difference is that "order" can only be used for things that actually have a pre-defined ordering, like alphabetical or numeric. <S> I could ask you to sort buttons by color, but asking you to order them by color wouldn't make much sense. <S> An ordering also implies an overall structure where each item has a specific relationship to the items before and after it. <S> At the post office, for example, they'll sort letters by their destination, in which case they only care about each letter's category but not its relationship to other letters. <S> The postman may then order letters for his delivery route, in which case each letter's relationship to the others is important. <A> "Order" in this instance means "to arrange methodically", while "sort" means "to group methodically". <S> Which is correct depends on your desired outcome. <S> If you have a set of numbered papers that you wish to have grouped into categories according to the numbers, then "sort" is correct. <S> Ex, if your set of papers have the numbers {3, 5, 2, 1, 2, 5, 5, 4} , then the result of "order" would be {1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5} , while the result of "sort" would be {3}, {5, 5, 5}, {2, 2}, {1}, {4} . <S> That being said, "sort" is often used in place of "order", with situational context making the intent clear. <A> In this context they would mean the same.
| If you have a set of numbered papers that you wish to be arranged in numerical order, then "order" is correct.
|
Introductory word meaning "considering what was previously said" Is there an introductory word or phrase which means considering what was said ? German-made parts are way too expensive. Taking it into consideration , we ordered Chinese ones. <Q> What about good old "so"? <S> German-made parts are way too expensive, so we ordered Chinese ones. <S> This is by far the most natural way of saying this. <A> I guess you want to use a subordinate conjunction (or a phrase with similar functionality) which simply means "because". <S> In this context, I can mention several ones as below: <S> Thus <S> Therefore <S> Hence consequently <S> However, I think you can reword that sentence to a more concise sentence: <S> Since German-made parts are way too expensive, we ordered Chinese ones. <S> We ordered Chinese ones because German-made parts are way too expensive. <S> And many other similar sentences. <S> Note : In line with the constructive feed-backs, "due to the reason that" and "due to" has been replaced by "because". <A> Given : assigned as a basis of calculation, reasoning, etc.: <S> Given A and B <S> , C follows. <S> dictionary.com <S> So your sentence would read: German-made parts are way too expensive. <S> Given that , we ordered Chinese ones. <A> Your phrase as-is is exactly what I'd use. <S> Except I would probably change it to "this," not "it." <S> German-made parts are way too expensive. <S> Taking this into consideration, we ordered Chinese ones. <S> Meanwhile, if you want a one-word answer, you could use, " thus " and various other synonyms for "thus." <S> German-made parts are way too expensive. <S> Thus , we ordered Chinese ones. <S> If you want to consolidate your sentences even more, you could try a semicolon. <S> German-made parts are way too expensive; thus , we ordered Chinese ones. <S> Semicolons show you really know your stuff, add sentence variation in construction, (slightly) lead into the next train of thought without breaking the reader's flow and just look cool . <A> If you definitely want a single word, then I would go with 'accordingly' - "in a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances". <S> "German-made parts are way too expensive. <S> Accordingly, we ordered Chinese ones." <A> Consider: <S> In light of or similar phrases . <S> From the Macmillan Dictionary because of a particular fact In light of your good driving record, we’ve decided to overlook this offense. <A> The majority of answers are looking to satisfy the original requirement and don't seem to consider sentence order. <S> What you are trying to convey can be said in a single short sentence without archaic words like 'thus' and without the use of complex punctuation <S> I.e. <S> We ordered Chinese parts because the German ones are too expensive. <A> Knowing that German-made parts are way too expensive, we ordered Chinese ones. <S> Or if you were to keep the structure same you could say German-made parts are way too expensive. <S> Knowing that, we ordered Chinese ones. <S> knowing Showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people. <S> Reference
| In this regard With this regard Under this consideration ...
|
Meaning of "of" in the sentence, "This song reminds me of your children"? What is the meaning of "of" in the following sentence, This song reminds me of your children. Why should we use "of" after "remind me"? What is the difference between "This song reminds me your children" and "This song reminds me of your children" and "This song reminds your children to me"? <Q> This song reminds me of your children. <S> Here in this sentence the verb - remind - takes two complements - me and of your children . <S> One is a Noun Phrase (NP), and the other is a Preposition Phrase (PP). <S> The first complement expresses who is being reminded, and the second complement expresses what is being reminded. <S> Let's focus on the PP - of your children . <S> Here the head Preposition is of and it takes a NP - your children as it's own complement. <S> There is no meaning of the head preposition - of - here. <S> We call this use Grammaticised use of Preposition . <S> We can't change this preposition to something else, that means this preposition is fixed when it comes to the complement of the verb - remind . <S> The alternative sentences you provided was all wrong, except the one I quoted at the beginning of my answer. <A> You need to understand the phrase remind me of as a whole; it means bring to mind or calls up my memories of . <S> See the phrase defined at the Cambridge Dictionary : <S> remind sb of sth <S> /sb to be similar to, and make someone think of, <S> something or someone else: Your hair and eyes remind me of your mother. <S> I never wear grey because it reminds me of my old school uniform. <S> You remind me of someone I used to know. <S> I liked her immediately because she reminded me of Sally. <S> He reminds me of my dad. <S> Something about her manner reminds me of an old school teacher I used to have. <A> remind <S> [indirect object] <S> [direct object]. <S> I've been searching for a while <S> and I've been unable to find a good resource explaining it, <S> so I've come up with the following myself (so parts of it may well be wrong). <S> It can be summarised by saying "that's just how remind is used in English". <S> The best way I can think of explaining it is that the verb remind is always followed by its direct object, which I guess makes it a monotransitive verb, which is a verb that can't take an indirect object. <S> (DISCLAIMER: <S> the previous sentence is the bit I'm not quite sure about, someone more knowledgeable may end up refuting this.) <S> However, as more explanation is usually required when using "remind" (to explain what should be, is being or was remembered), it can be followed by either: Nothing , if the thing being remembered has already been established (e.g. "Thanks for reminding me" ), A prepositional phrase (usually using "of", but sometimes "about"), if a "thing" (i.e. noun or noun phrase) is being remembered (e.g. <S> "You remind me of my sister" or <S> "Remind him about dinner at the weekend" ), A to-infinitive , if an action is being remembered <S> (e.g. "Remind me to reply to that email" ), or A "that" clause , if the thing being remembered forms a clause (e.g. "She reminded me that the conference is on Tuesday" ). <S> Sometimes the "that" is left out, but is still implicit (e.g. "I reminded him (that) we are meeting tomorrow" ) <S> Therefore, out of the possible sentences you have provided, only the one that includes "of" is grammatically correct. <S> The example with "to" in is using "to" as a preposition, so is not correct. <S> It would be correct <S> if it was used in a to-infinitive, e.g. "This song reminds your children to call me" .
| No, you can't use remind in the form [subject]
|
Tricky possesives in English In this sentence: Jane's roof was destroyed in the tornado. The roof is not actually Jane's, it is the roof of Jane's house. What does grammar tell us? <Q> In this case, if Jane owns the house, presumably she owns the roof on that house, so it is "Jane's roof" in the very literal sense of possession. <S> A possessive can indicate a physical attachment. <S> You say that the roof is really "the house's roof". <S> That is certainly a valid thing to say, as the roof is attached to the house and is part of the house. <S> We use a possessive for all sorts of human relationships. <S> Occasionally you hear a feminist object to the phrase "my wife" on the grounds that it implies that her husband owns her <S> and she is property. <S> But this is nonsense. <S> Women say "my husband" as often as men say "my wife". <S> I say "my mother" and "my brother" and "my uncle" <S> and I certainly don't think I "own" those people in any sense. <S> For that matter, a slave might well say "my master", indicating the exact opposite of ownership. <S> Almost any sort of relationship or association might be conveyed by a possessive. " <S> Jane's company", "Jane's city", "Jane's favorite ice cream flavor", etc. <S> Without context, it is difficult to say what a possessive means. <S> "Jane's car" might mean the car that Jane owns because she bought and paid for it. <S> It might mean the car that the company owns and that Jane is using in the course of her job. <S> It might mean the car that Jane invented. <S> It might mean the car that Jane is riding in at the moment, as in, "Which is Jane's car?" <S> "Oh, she's riding with Bob. <S> " If Jane is an auto mechanic it might mean the car that she is working on right now, as in, "Which is Jane's car?" <S> "She's doing the break job on the 2003 Toyota. <S> " I could come up with dozens of other possible relationships. <A> The grammatical sense of possession does not imply the ownership of something in legal terms. <S> You're thinking too much into it. <S> So, when we say that Jane's roof was destroyed in the tornado, the most logical inference one could make from a statement like this <S> is that the root of the house where Jane lives was destroyed by the tornado. <S> You could argue that maybe that's not what you meant. <S> Maybe what really happened was that Jane bought roof materials at a hardware store, left them at a bus stop and they were later destroyed by a tornado and her house <S> has nothing to do with it. <S> Well, remember grammar does not equal semantics. <S> If that's what you meant, then you should have used a more precise description of the situation to convey the idea. <A> "John's football team" could mean variously the team he plays for, the team he owns, the team he manages, or the team of which he is a supporter. <S> It could also simply be the one he picked out in a sweepstake as to who would win a particular tournament. <S> One thing that a "possessive" does not confirm is "legal possession". <S> This is especially evident with abstract nouns, such as "Smith's absence (was a handicap to the team)". <S> He doesn't own the notion of "absence". <S> And "Parkinson's disease" is not a disease from which Parkinson is suffering but one which he identified and codified a long time ago. <S> In the village in which I live there may be a spot called "Molly Porter's corner". <S> Molly Porter may have died 100 years ago, but the place is still identified as "Molly Porter's corner".
| A grammatical possessive can have many shades of meaning. When you say something like the book's cover or the house's roof , what is typically meant is that there is a relationship of one thing belonging to another as if being in possession of that another thing.
|
Overblown balloon: explode or burst? I want to describe how to blow and explode a balloon so do we say balloon will explode or burst if you over blow it? Which describe it better: "explode" or "burst"? I checked online some sources say we can say "blow out" for both entering air to balloon or exploding it. <Q> Blew out is understandable, but I don't think it's common. <S> In my experience, the only thing I can think of that blows out (in the sense of "exploding") is a tire. <S> My tire blew out! <S> Between <S> explode and burst <S> , I think burst is better suited. <S> Explode is more often used when the "explosion" was very violent, and it is especially apt when it was chemically induced. <S> You can also say that it popped . <S> In my opinion, pop is softest, while explode is least soft (not soft at all): <S> pop < burst < explode . <S> I provide relevant definitions and an Ngram search below. <S> burst verb (used without object), burst or, often bursted, bursting. <S> to break, break open, or fly apart with sudden violence: <S> The bitter cold caused the pipes to burst. <S> pop verb (used without object), popped, popping. <S> to burst open with such a sound, as chestnuts or corn in roasting. <S> explode verb (used without object), exploded, exploding. <S> to burst, fly into pieces, or break up violently with a loud report, as a boiler from excessive pressure of steam. <S> (Dictionary.com) <S> I redid the search with "balloon will pop" vs "balloon will explode" vs "balloon will burst" to try to better match the OP's "balloon will ____". <S> Here are the results <S> : Notice that "balloon will explode" does not map. <S> Between pop and burst , I think they're equally acceptable, with the slight distinction I made above. <A> The most common word for a balloon disintegrating on purpose is popping , because it's a sudden but fairly small event. <S> Bursting is also acceptable, and is slightly more common when there's no deliberate attempt. <S> (See frequencies below from Google Ngrams . <S> _DET_ means articles like <S> a and the , <S> and I used it for cases like "he popped the balloon"; <S> _VERB_ means verbs like will , did , etc, most of which fit cases like " <S> and then the balloon burst".) <S> Exploding is too strong a word. <S> Blowing out could theoretically be used, but it's usually used in cases where there's no confusion, and especially when the failure occurs in only one direction instead of all directions at once (for example, a seal on a pipe can "blow out", sending whatever's inside out in a jet). <A> You can't really use overblown , because it has another meaning: bigger or more important or impressive than it should be . <S> According to the Oxford <S> dictionary (see meaning 2), overinflated would work as an adjective. <S> If you want a verb, you can use over-inflate: it's not really a standard word, so you should really use a hyphen. <S> If you over-inflate a balloon, it will burst. <A> You could say either Inflate the ballon until it explodes . <S> Inflate the balloon until it bursts . <S> and both sentences would be understood with the same meaning. <S> When a balloon bursts <S> it creates an explosive sound. <S> However, the word you are looking for is burst especially since you making the balloon fail by purposely increases the internal air pressure. <S> If there is too much rain water buildup <S> a dam will burst open <S> Container boxes have burst ratings to describe the amount of internal pressure they can take before failing. <A> Popped would be once the balloon has been inflated and tied off. <S> Another way to think of it in my mind is burst is accidental, while popping is more a purposeful action.
| To my mind, I would use burst if the balloon failed while inflating.
|
What's the opposite of 'profanity'? Profanity is socially offensive language. What is language free from cursewords. Is there a word to express the opposite concept of profanity? Should I use simply politeness here or is there a more sophisticated word to cover this concept in the following sentences? [the word] is an important quality which needs to be internalized in children in young age. Consider [the word] seriously in this place. They won't take it easy in here. (On a sign in a public place): Please Observe [the word] <Q> propriety Google Dictionary pro·pri·e·ty p(r)əˈprīədē/ noun the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals. <S> "he always behaved with the utmost propriety" synonyms: decorum, respectability, decency, correctness, protocol, appropriateness, suitability, good manners, courtesy, politeness, rectitude, morality, civility, modesty, demureness; <S> the details or rules of behavior <S> conventionally considered to be correct. <S> plural noun: proprieties <S> "she's a great one for the proprieties" the condition of being right, appropriate, or fitting. <S> "they questioned the propriety of certain investments made by the council" <A> can always be used as antonyms of profanity. <S> Decency is an important quality which needs to be internalized in children in young age. <S> Consider moral attitude seriously in this place. <S> They won't take it easy in here. <S> (On a sign in a public place): Please Observe Respectful Behavior. <S> When in doubt, you can always resort to using "profanity" itself. <S> For example in the second sentence, Seriously refrain from profanity in this place. <S> They won't take it easy in here. <A> If you're open to phrases, the closest I could think of was respectful language or respectful discourse . <S> This is often used in schools to tell kids not to curse. <S> However, it encompasses more than just a lack of curse words. <S> It also includes not using language that is disrespectful, hateful, offensive, etc based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or other groups targeted by prejudice and discrimination. <S> Two possible alternatives are clean language * and polite language . <S> Clean is used when the curse words have been censored in a song, often "clean version". <S> One of the dictionary entries is inoffensive in language or content; without obscenity. <S> (Dictionary.com) <S> Polite again would include more than just lack of curse words. <S> It would include other well-manner, refined language. <S> Three more less formal alternatives are PG language , G-rated language or family-friendly language (as @Willow suggests). <S> PG and G-rated come from the MPAA film ratings. <S> PG Rating <S> A PG movie rating stands for Parental Guidance, as some material may not be suitable for children. <S> There may be mild strong language and some violence, but there will not be substance use or abuse. <S> (ThoughtCo.) <S> g-rated <S> 1 : <S> having a rating of G; broadly : relating to or characterized by a lack of violence, obscenity, or sexual explicitness • a G-rated novel <S> 2 : innocent, clean • G-rated fun (M-W) <S> In common usage, PG is used to say no curse words, especially strong curses, like the F and S words. <S> It could also suggest language without other obscene materials. <S> Example: <S> Hey, keep it PG! <S> As it suggests, family-friendly language suggests that it is suitable for families. <S> It would imply no curse words, but again, it could also suggest language without other obscene materials. <S> * <S> A cursory Google search shows that this has some kind of special meaning in psychology, but the context should clarify that you're talking about language without profanity. <A> The other answers are better options for colloquial use, but the word profane simply refers to things that are not sacred . <S> As a result, the opposite of profanity is also sanctity . <S> However, common usage has pushed profane to mean vulgar and offensive, so sanctity might now be too extreme of an opposite.
| The words like decency, politeness, respectfulness, etc.
|
Be somewhere "on time", "at that time" or "in time"? Do both imply the same meaning? John told me to be there at 6pm. I will be there on time. John told me to be there at 6pm. I will be there in time. John told me to be there at 6pm. I will be there at that time. I can feel that in time needs a for or a to but am not sure. Like in I'll be there in time for the show to start . or I'll be there in time to see it . ( on time won't work) <Q> On time = <S> punctual in time = timely with respect to something which will happen or a situation that may arise. <S> The meeting starts at 10AM. <S> Please be on time. <S> Don't be late. <S> The train left at noon. <S> I arrived at 11:45, but not in time to get a seat. <S> The seats were all taken, and I had to stand in the aisle. <S> If we place the order now, the office furniture should arrive in time for the new employees. <A> "On time" simply means at the specified time. <S> In your first example sentence, the speaker will be there at the specified time (6 PM). <S> "In time" suggests a deadline that must be met. <S> You can use "for" after it to say what the deadline is for, but if it's already relevant contextually, you can often leave it out. <S> The two can be mutually relevant, though. <A> "In time" can mean two things: Eventually. <S> " In time , you will understand what I'm saying to you, thought right now, you don't understand." <S> With an adequate amount of time to perform a subsequent action. <S> "Will we be at the mall in time for me to run inside to the ATM before it closes?" <S> "On time" means there's an expected time of the day that something's going to occur at. <S> It's a more exact term. <S> "When we looked at the monitors in the airport terminal, it told us that Flight 12345 was scheduled to arrive on time at 5:35 p.m." <A> On time = at the appointed hour In time = before some event is finished. <S> That is the difference. <A> I come from a long career in programming, so my thoughts would be logic based. <S> In the context you have presented: On Time refers to the specified time. <S> In Time refers to any time prior to as well as including the specified time <S> If this was geometry, 6PM would be a point on a time line. <S> In Time would not need to be a solitary point, it could be another line, an intersection, line segment etc that shares that point.
| On Time would be a reference that only states that you would be at that point on the timeline. Their meanings are similar, but they are not the same.
|
How to respond politely when someone tells you something useful? How do I respond politely when someone tells me something useful? I'm thinking of the following but not I'm not sure: thanks for letting me know thanks for informing me thanks for reminding me that good to know It seems thanks for letting me know might sound bitchy according to this answer on Quora . I know remind can be used when I already knew something before then someone would remind me in case I forget, but can it be used when I know it for the first time? And good to know seems okay when someone tells me something about themselves. Can I use it when say someone leaves a useful comment under my post? <Q> The given link says <S> In case this information is widely available and you have been previously informed on the specific info, your “thank you for letting me know” could sound sarcastic and bitchy, so careful… especially if it is your boss reminding you or highlighting something… maybe best check on this infor [sic] in depth before thanking for it! <S> Notice that in the scenario, the information is "widely available". <S> If the information is somehow obvious and it's likely that you already knew it, then it could sound sarcastic. <S> In writing, I think it would be harder to tell how you mean it, but in speech, it would be clear if you use a sarcastic tone. <S> Actually, I think any of the phrases could sound sarcastic or "bitchy" in a scenario as described above. <S> However, if you have good intentions and use a polite tone, then it should be fine and you shouldn't worry. <S> That said, I think they're all good, except number 3. <S> You need an "of": thanks for reminding me of that. <S> I know remind can be used when I already knew something before then <S> someone would remind me in case I forget, but can it be used when I know it for the first time? <S> Technically, no, because they wouldn't be reminding you. <S> But if you want to give the impression that you knew it, then you would use it. <S> Again, be careful, as it might sound rude or condescending. <S> And good to know seems okay when someone tells me something about themselves, can I use it when say someone leaves a useful comment under my post? <S> Yes, you can use "good to know" when someone tells you something useful. <S> Additional phrases: <S> If you want to sound a little more formal, you could use something like I (really) appreciate your comment/response. <S> Thank you. <S> Your comment/response was (very) informative. <S> Thank you. <S> More casually, you could say Thanks for the info/information! <S> I didn't know that. <S> Thanks! <S> That was useful. <S> Thanks! <S> Similar to remind as above <S> would be <S> Oh yeah, thanks! <S> Sometimes you say " <S> oh yeah <S> " when you remember something that you should have known, or when something should have been obvious but you didn't see it at the time. <A> And if you want to be emphatic, there's nothing wrong with "Thank you very much!" <A> Typically in an informal situation in the UK - "Cheers" would often be an acceptable alternative to Thanks <S> /Thank You.
| "good to know" is a great response -- as is "Thank you".
|
Shall I use is or are in this sentence? I am writing down this sentence in my diary: Her words are an encouragement to me But then, I think, is should be used, because I am considering her words asa whole thing. Yet, I am not very sure if I am correct if I write this, Her words is an encouragement to me <Q> " Are " is better suited in this case even though you're considering her words as a single entity. <S> You can always consider replacing "words" with something else, for instance: <S> Her comment is an encouragement to me. <S> Or some other similar variant. <A> 'Are' refers to plural subjects in the present tense. <S> 'Is' refers to singular subjects in the present tense. <S> So your final example is incorrect English, it would sound very awkward if it were spoken. <S> You could write this sentence in a form which uses 'is' by referring to the way these words reached you, for instance: <S> Her writing is a real inspiration to me. <S> Her speech is an inspiration to me. <A> " Words " is a plural noun and not a mass noun. <S> You can't use a singular verb after it. <S> Her words are an encouragement to me. <S> (correct) <S> (mostly spoken English) if you consider the words a senseless, pointless, obnoxious or meaningless thing: <S> Her words <S> (What she said) means nothing to me. <S> I don't care even if she's down on her knees before me. <S> Examples of such usage: <S> Dead Man's Gold by Cameron Judd - "Her words means nothing. <S> She'd naturally cover for her husband." <S> The Dark Hatred. <S> SWEET <S> GUN'S - "She knows he is joking and his words means nothing <S> but then why did he say those words with such a serious face." <S> If you wish to speak about a single entity you can use this words depending on the context: Speech Comment Remark Utterance Statement Advice Compliment Suggestion Jabbering
| You cannot consider her words as a whole thing when you are speaking about each single distinct element creating a whole and thus encouraging you, but you can do this in informal English
|
Countable nouns which have the same/similar meaning with crap/garbage? I wonder if there are countable nouns that can be used to describe the same meaning with crap/garbage. Preferably in oral English? This TV series is a/an _______, I don't want to watch it! <Q> You can always quantify noncountable nouns using a counter word. <S> Example #1: <S> This TV series is a bunch of crap . <S> I don't want to watch it! <S> Example <S> #2: <S> I don't want to watch it! <S> And that's basically how it's typically done in English. <S> There are literally dozens of counter words to choose from: a pile of crap, a piece of shit et cetera. <S> Take your pick. <S> As for countable words, it's very difficult to fill in that black, to be perfectly honest. <S> If you really do want to use a different construction there, then you need to get familiar with idioms expressing the idea of something being of inferior quality. <S> This TV series is the pits . <S> I don't want to watch it! <S> Though, there are still a lot of simpler ways to say it: <S> This TV series sucks, man . <S> I don't want to watch it! <A> If you are strictly looking for countable (or singular) nouns, some similar words are joke , farce , flop , and drag . <S> joke noun (RIDICULOUS) <S> [ U ] <S> infml something considered to be so bad or worthless that it is ridiculous: <S> The playing conditions on the muddy field were a joke. <S> The midterm exam was a joke (= too easy). <S> farce noun (SITUATION) <S> [ C ] a ridiculous situation or event, or something considered a waste of time: <S> The meeting turned out to be a farce since no one had prepared anything. <S> drag noun (BORING EVENT) <S> [ U ] infml someone or something that is unpleasant and boring: Waiting in a doctor’s office is such a drag! <S> flop noun (FAILURE) <S> [ C usually sing ] infml a failure: <S> The movie was a complete flop. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> Despite there being a number of different words for garbage , like rubbish , trash <S> and so on there are very few countable noun versions. <S> As Cookie Monster has already mentioned, you can use collective nouns to quantify those nouns. <S> With regards to your specific example, a word like dud , bomb or bust could be used. <S> While its definition is slightly different, it's often used in a similar context.
| This TV series is a crock of shit . One possible idiom that comes to my mind that would possibly work in your particular context would probably be the pits :
|
Alternative (polite)phrases to "it's a shame..." to avoid possible offending In English, the "shame"has the following meaning a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute However, it's common to hear people say something like (1) It's a shame we can't take them home with us. (2) It's a shame that you haven't read this book. In such situations, speakers definitely don't mean "a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute" by "shame". But for many non-native English speakers, it still sounds rude and offensive to listeners. For instance, I never dare to say to my professors that (3) It's a shame you haven't return our midterm exam papers. I feel like, though I am not sure, that I should always try to avoid saying "it's a shame..." to anybody that I should show respect to(am I right?). So I wonder if we can replace "it's a shame" in (1)(2)(3) by other phrases(as polite as possible) in order to avoid the possible offending. <Q> it's a shame that is an idiomatic expression that means <S> it's a pity that . <S> You should not take it literally as should be the case with most idioms. <S> So, when I say that it's a shame that I didn't buy this book for such a low price , I'm making the point that not buying the book for such a low price is as though not doing it <S> were a shameful act. <S> Of course, there is absolutely nothing shameful in not doing that. <S> I'm just using this idiom to better convey the idea behind the situation. <S> In no way does this sound offensive or inappropriate. <A> Actually, you're considering the wrong meaning. <S> Most dictionary definitions of shame have 'a regrettable or unfortunate situation or action.' <S> or a variant of it like ' <S> An unfortunate development' among the alternate meanings. <S> That is the meaning that applies in this case. <S> So when you say something like 'It's a shame we can't take them home with us.' , plug that meaning over there. <S> There's no manner of offence, mostly, when it is used like this, although you could use even the phrase ' an unfortunate development ' to offend someone if you really wanted to like: <S> It's a shame he came along. <S> And when used like that, there's no replacements you can use for 'It's a shame' to make it polite, without changing the sentence's meaning. <A> When travelling in Korea and Japan, I have always used the form: <S> It might have been better if... <S> or Another way would be... <S> This way you avoid suggestion that the person you are addressing has committed an error. <S> You are suggesting an improvement. <S> I heard these constructions used by English-speaking Koreans when telling me that I have made a mistake. <S> I would suggest that, if they are using these phrases, they will not cause loss of face. <A> You can use 'it's a pity' or 'it's unfortunate' if they sound more polite to you. <S> It's unfortunate that you haven't return our midterm exam papers. <S> According to the dictionary: pity ( n. ) <S> A matter of regret: <A> (1) I’m sorry (to hear <S> ) we can't take them home with us. <S> (2) I’m sorry (to hear) that you haven't read this book. <S> It doesn’t really work for your third example, though. <S> I think any sort of expression of pity/shame/sorrow/etc. <S> here will come off as passive-aggressive, because it would make it clear that you think the professor did something wrong. <S> (3) <S> I’m sorry you haven't returned our midterm exam papers. <S> I would reword that last one to express your own wish to get the papers back, or make it a question about when you’d get them back, maybe like <S> I was wondering when we could expect to get back our midterm exam papers.
| Another alternative is “I’m sorry (to hear)”, which might sound less offensive to you since it’s you , the speaker, who is expressing remorse: It's a pity she can't attend the reception .
|
accidentally opened the door enough Can one say He accidentally opened the door enough that they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough so they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough so that they could see inside the office. He accidentally opened the door enough for them to see inside the office. ? He didn't intend them to see inside the office... It was an accident... Many thanks. <Q> The first and the fourth sentences are the most correct. <S> The fourth seems the most natural to me. <S> The problem with the second and third sentences is that the use of so implies that the man intentionally opened the door to let people see inside, which contradicts the use of accidentally to describe the action. <A> He accidentally opened the door enough for them to see inside the office. <S> Seems to me the best possible way this sentence can be put. <S> Saying "so that they could see inside the office" would imply that the door opening was intentional when it wasn't. <A> Of your options, (1) and (4) would be readily understood without problem. <S> But the clearest way to put it is: <S> This precisely conveys the scope of the accident (opening the door too wide) and the consequence (it was wide enough for ...). <A> Yes.
| They're all correct and have your intended meaning. He accidentally opened the door too wide, enough for them to see inside the office.
|
Any tips for pronouncing "th" sound right after the "s" sound? So I find pronouncing "th" sound right after an "s" sound particularly difficult. Example: This is the pen. I tend to pronounce "d" instead of "th" sometimes. Any helps please? <Q> D" occurs when your tongue is behind your teeth, while "th" occurs when you have your tongue pressed on the tip of your top teeth. <A> I can't offer anything definitive, but as a (former) singer, my answer would be to come to a full stop after <S> is before starting on the . <S> This is one of the big challenges with <S> The Star Spangled Banner where you have lyrics like " Whose broad stripes and bright stars " and " And the rockets' red glare " and it is frequently performed in large, echo-y stadiums and diction is absolutely critical. <S> (Too often one hears about "brahstripes and brystars".) <A> After whispering "This is the pen" to myself over and over again, I found the following: In transitioning from "is" to "the", my tongue moves into a position similar to /d/ <S> but with a slight gap for air to pass through. <S> It continues moving into a more natural /th/ position (tongue between the upper and lower teeth), while getting ready to pronounce the vowel. <S> Now that I really think about it, it's quite a complex movement! <S> Hopefully that helps though.
| Stick your tongue out a little more when making the "th" sound. " Experienced singers can do this very quickly but it does take practice.
|
Idioms of shame and embarrassment: along the lines of "lose face" If you recommended someone for something, for example, a job, as an adult obviously, they would be responsible of their own actions. However, unacceptable misbehavior or unacceptable incompetence would affect you (not legally but rather socially) because you recommended them. Is there an idiom or idiomatic expression to express the part where you would be blamed or ashamed of actions of someone whom you recommended or probably praised? There might be many but there is this Libyan idiomatic expression the literal translation of which goes: "it would be in your face". The meaning is unacceptable or embarrassing things they do, as a result, would disgrace/embarrass you. The lose face came to mind but I guess there might or should be another one that is more apt or specific in this common situation. A made up example: No, he cannot do as he wishes. I am after all the one who brought him here; any stupid mistakes like that would be "in/on my face". <Q> Any stupid mistakes like that would make me look bad : make (someone) <S> look bad 1. <S> To do something stupid or embarrassing which makes the people who are associated with you (your boss, your classmates, your family members) ashamed: Sit down and behave yourself! <S> You're making us look bad. <S> (Phrase Mix) <A> An English idiom somewhat similar to your Libyan one is (to have) egg on your face , although it means "to be embarrassed by something" and isn't specific to being held responsible for someone else's actions. <S> You would use it like <S> If I recommend him and he does badly, then that will be egg on my face . <S> You would use it like <S> I chose him, so if he does badly, then that's on me . <A> Stangdon mentioned "egg on my face" which is a good idiom to express the embarrassment you describe in the Libyan expression. <S> Some others that express the responsibility aspect are "... <S> neck on the line" <S> You can't just sit around all day. <S> I talked the boss into giving you this job. <S> If you mess it up, it's my neck on the line. <S> or "...on my head" Don't worry. <S> I know you don't think this is a good way to fix this coke machine, but I told everyone that it is my plan. <S> If it fails, it will be on my head. <A> One expression is "reflect badly/poorly on ...". <S> His friend was fired after only a week on the job, which reflected poorly on his recommendation. <A> One could say: Your actions reflect on me <S> I'm guilty by association <S> This includes me byextension <A> Sticking one's neck out: to take a risk Putting one's neck on the line: to do something dangerous or something that you could suffer for
| Another, more general idiom is to say that something is on somebody, meaning that it is their responsibility or fault.
|
am I a native speaker? Ever since I was born, I'd lived with an American family. They were missionaries from Atlanta and they lived with me and my family for over 14 years. So I literally grew up with their kids and they taught me English and my brother and I would teach them Portuguese (I'm Brazilian btw). They went back to Atlanta in 2010 and I sign up for an English school just to get a certificate or a diploma or something to prove that I speak English. Later on, I got a scholarship to study high school in Canada for 6 months, only to find out that everybody, literally everybody, I talked to would presume I was American. Some people would even argue with me. So anyways, ever since I came back, I've been working as an English teacher, I mostly teach kids and advanced students. But what intrigues me is that I hear a lot of people saying they are fluent or advanced English speakers (some of them are even English teachers) and their accents is just terrible. They sure know a lot of words, grammar and can speak and talk naturally, but they all have accents. And so one time I wrote on my resume "native speaker" and all of my friends made fun of me. They still do actually. I just don't know if "fluent" is enough of word to describe my English. <Q> From Wikipedia: A heritage language is the language someone learns at home as a child which is a minority language in a society, but because of growing up with a dominant language, the speaker seems more competent in the latter and feels more comfortable communicating in that language. <S> This term comes up most often in regard to, say, children who grow up in the US in a Spanish-speaking home. <S> In your case, your own parents might not have been native English-speakers, but you clearly grew up in an English-speaking household. <S> I think this term is probably a bit more indicative of your actual language skills than either fluent (which, as you say, can often apply to folks who learned the language as an adult and who therefore never fully acquire a "native" accent) or <S> native (as heritage speakers may have gaps in their language or cultural knowledge, for example because they did not have the years of schooling in the heritage language's literature that someone growing up in that language's culture would have had). <A> someone who has spoken a particular language since they were a baby, rather than having learned it as a child or adult... <S> Cambridge Dictionary <S> It sounds to me like you fit the definition of native speaker, but I think I'd use fully fluent or fluent . <S> If you are teaching conversational English, you are fluent but, if you are teaching grammar, I'd suggest you join us here for some practice. <A>
| You could say that you are a heritage speaker of English. If you would like to stress the extent of your fluency, I'd recommend saying you have near-native fluency .
|
Is "hunch" the right word for this situation? When I was leaving home for a language learning center, something inside my mind was trying to tell me to walk instead of taking a bus or I would be late for the class. I might be too tired to walk so I chose the bus, and then I was late. Given that situation, is it formal to use "hunch" in the following sentence? A hunch was trying to stop me from taking a bus to the English learning center. Or using the sixth sense is better? <Q> A "hunch" doesn't seem like quite the right word here. <S> It would be possible to say "I had a hunch that, if I took the bus I would be late." <S> A simple word to use instead might be "feeling": " <S> I had a feeling that I should avoid the bus". <S> Or if you want quite formal: "I had a premonition that if I took the bus I'd be late. <S> " <S> The word "intuition" is another possibility. <S> I would prefer these to "sixth sense" in this context. <A> To add onto the good answers people have already given, I wanted to address the general form of these types of sentences. <S> As Tᴚoɯɐuo already mentioned, hunches are not actors who try to make you do things, but merely inform you. <S> This is true of any of the other words or phrase you may use instead. <S> You can see that in James K's example: I had a hunch that if I took the bus I would be late. <S> In this example you can see that hunch has been changed to merely inform your decision-making, rather than actively make the decision by stopping you. <S> However, other feelings and emotions can take a more active role. <S> Something like: <S> My fear was trying to stop me from entering the building. <S> Fear makes more sense in this sentence because the effects of fear on a person are more involuntary and out of a person's control. <A> Try gut feeling <S> A gut feeling was trying to stop me from taking a bus to the English learning center. <S> Or alternatively intuition <S> might be correct too <S> My intuition was telling me to walk instead of taking the bus. <A> I think I would say: Something told me not to take the bus to the English learning center. <S> "Something told me" is an expression for the feeling you described -- when an instinct tells you something is true or that you should act in a certain way, even though you have no concrete reason for doing so. <S> You might also use it like: <S> He said he was at school, but something tells me <S> he was at the movies with his friends. <S> But hunches are usually objects, not subjects. <S> To say that the hunch "told you" something doesn't sound totally natural to me. <A> How about "premonition"? <S> From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) <S> [wn]: premonition n 1: <S> a feeling of evil to come; "a steadily escalating sense of foreboding"; "the lawyer had a presentiment that the judge would dismiss the case" [syn: {foreboding}, {premonition}, {presentiment}, {boding}] 2: an early warning about a future event [syn: {forewarning}, {premonition}] <S> Actually, a few others in this definition are not bad on their own...
| Your use of "hunch" is certainly understandable here, and perhaps you could say that when you didn't take the bus you were "acting on a hunch".
|
What is the difference between 'It seems like' and 'she seems'? There are two sentences. She seems crazy. It seems like she is crazy. I don't know the difference between two sentences in meaning.Could you tell me the difference in meaning between two sentences? <Q> Firstly, both sentences are a subjective opinion given by someone, and they have exactly the same meaning. <S> However, the difference lies in the syntax. <S> This means that it is the opinion of the speaker, and the speaker doesn't shy aware from admitting it. <S> However, It seems like she is crazy <S> is an impersonal sentence <S> (See here for more details and examples). <S> This means that, although it is still the speaker's opinion, they are distancing themselves from it, by saying "It seems that" + their opinion. <S> They are trying to make themselves sound more objective or neutral, even when giving an opinion, which is always subjective. <A> It's very difficult to answer this sort of question because the nuance is almost imperceptible. <S> There is a very slight retreat from assertion in "it seems like". <S> She seems crazy <S> ~ She is acting crazy. <S> It seems like she is crazy ~ <S> From her behavior, one would conclude she was crazy. <A> Like X means: not actually X, but sharing some or an incomplete amount of the attributes of X not actually X <S> but you could substitute X for whatever you are talking about. <S> X can be a word or a phrase. <S> Like X is often used as a crude hack in informal speech when the speaker (hopefully not writer) cannot immediately think of a good word and wants to "adjective-ify" a phrase for use as a subject complement. <S> She seems crazy <S> This means from what we can see, we believe her to be crazy. <S> She seems like she is crazy <S> This technically means "from what we can see, we believe her to be not actually crazy but sharing some or an incomplete amount of the attributes of 'to be crazy' ". <S> So this is a softer way to say she's crazy without directly accusing her of being that way - or we are making a guess based on appearance, someone's description, etc.
| She seems crazy is considered a personal sentence.
|
What's the meaning of the sentence in this New york Times editorial? When the Federal Reserve made its first tentative step toward ending its era of extraordinary monetary intervention, it earned a nickname: the taper tantrum. Global financial markets metaphorically bawled like a toddler on news that the Fed planned on “tapering” its stimulus program. That was nearly four years ago. Ever since, the Fed has moved to decrease access to easy money with the caution of a technician defusing a powerful bomb. After raising its interest-rate target above near-zero levels in December 2015, the Fed waited a full year before doing so again, the slowest pace of rate increases in the modern history of the central bank. As far as I searched, easy money means a condition in which banks and lenders can loan money easier and borrowers can acquire money more easily from lenders. Then 'decrease access to easy money' means to make it difficult to acquire money? and I don't understand the meaning of 'technician defusing a powerful bomb'. <Q> The confusion stems from how you divided up the sentence. <S> "With caution" refers to how the Fed has moved, not to money. <S> It might be easier to see by rearranging the sentence: <S> Ever since, the Fed has moved with the caution of a technician defusing a powerful bomb to decrease access to easy money. <S> They have moved with extreme caution in adjusting monetary policy. <A> The editorial is saying that access to money was made more difficult by cutting back on stimulus programs. <A> This is a metaphor comparing the Fed to a technician defusing a powerful bomb. <S> A technician defusing a powerful bomb is a person who would be very careful and possibly nervous as well. <S> So it's a way of saying the Fed was being extremely cautious, worried that the economy could explode if they weren't careful.
| The phrase, " with the caution of a technician defusing a powerful bomb ," is metaphor comparing the caution of the Fed in implementing this policy with the caution of a man defusing a bomb.
|
Is "motivate people's willingness" grammatically correct? I saw a sentence like this on the Internet: I hope this site will motivate people's willingness to learn English. I thought that there were some mistakes in the sentence, so I fixed the sentence like this: I hope this site motivates people to have the willingness to learn English. Do you think that I fixed the sentence well? <Q> You are right that sentence 2 is better, since it is people not willingness which the site is attempting to motivate. <S> Even so, I think it is still too verbose. <S> The words motivation and willingness are near synonyms, and to include both of them is unnecessary and awkward. <S> Surely <S> "I hope this site motivates people to learn English" is quite sufficient, isn't it? <A> There's nothing grammatically incorrect with the first sentence. <S> Your corrected sentence deviates from that meaning a bit. <S> Instead of modifying the level of willingness, the sentence talks about modifying whether a person has or doesn't have willingness at all. <A> The first sentence is a bit awkward because it's as though willingness itself is the thing that is being motivated. <S> I think your revised version is slightly better since it is more clear that the people are the ones being motivated. <A> It's perfectly correct to say "motivate willingness", "motivate desire", or "motivate opposition". <S> For example: Reconstructing Education: Toward a Pedagogy of Critical Humanism (1992) says: <S> They claimed that a strong feeling of individual self-worth was a necessary condition to motivate students' willingness to contribute to a group. <S> Strategies for successful classroom teaching (1998) says: Postinstructional design also can result in motivating students' willingness to participate in group activities. <S> The restoration mode from Milton to Dryden (1974) says: ...which serves partly to motivate her willingness to talk with the Hind Literature of the Sturm und Drang (2003) says: <S> Although the play does not explicitly motivate her willingness to go to the masked ball with him... <S> Teacher Education Yearbook XXV (2017) says: ... <S> her involvement in the Peoria Counts project generated hope through success and confidence visible in the collective positivity needed to motivate her willingness to become... <S> Writing: the shapes of experience (1967) says: <S> And so James takes the liberty of simplifying the old lady in terms of her cupidity, which, whether it was true in reality or not, was necessary to <S> motivate her willingness to take a lodger in the first place <A> It's technically correct, but may not mean exactly what the author seems to have intended. <S> This kind of usage of "motivate" is uncommon but not unheard of. <S> I've truthfully seen this usage primarily in the sense of a "motivating example" in mathematics textbooks. <S> A "motivating example" is an example of some concept or procedure that shows why you'd even bother with it in the first place. <S> So, in this context, "motivate people's willingness" means "explain why you'd be willing to learn English in the first place." <S> The problem with this usage is that it's not clear if the purpose of the site is to make people willing to learn English or to explain why some people actually are willing to learn it. <S> Technically, it should mean the latter (which probably isn't what the author intended). <S> TL;DR <S> Your edit is an improvement. <A> Answer - should be comment. <S> The word willingness here is synonymous with with being motivated - If a person is motivated then they are willing. <S> In this sense the word 'willingness' is superfluous and adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence. <S> If you want to correct the sentence then remove the superfluous word: <S> I hope this site will motivate people to learn English. <A> This is sunjuntive sentence so the language can be a little ungrounded. <S> Losing 'will' may have been an unnecessary cut, however I thing willingness is the wrong word. <S> I have a willingness to do my taxes. <S> Not a passion for doing my taxes and no even an interest in doing them. <S> I passively try to get them done. <S> The original wording works aside. <S> Acting on a part of a person is an action that affect the whole.
| Motivate may seem like an odd modifier for willingness, but it's effectively a shorter way of saying "affect a person's willingness to learn English in a positive way" and I think it works fine here. The first sentence is grammatically correct, but it doesn't mean what the author thinks it does.
|
What is the difference between "slice", " split", and "divide"? I know and have seen all the three words used in various context and it interests me whether they are interchangeable most of the time or they are bound to areas of usage? Can slice , split and divide be used with more than two parts, pieces? Can we divide, slice or split along a line or at some point? Can all the three words be used with planes, 3d-objects, hard and soft surfaces? <Q> Although all three words have very similar meanings, they are not necessarily interchangeable. <S> Slice is most commonly associated with food, and the word by itself does not suggest a division of two equal parts. <S> An example: Can you slice those tomatoes for me? <S> Also, slice suggests a more precise division. <S> On the other hand, split is usually considered to suggest a division of two parts and is less precise. <S> I used an axe to split the coconut. <S> Other uses of the word include mathematics. <S> The work was divided evenly and fairly between the group members. <S> Ten divided by two equals five. <S> I am by no means a certified linguist and am only making suggestions based off experience as a native speaker. <A> Slice - Cut into thin strips. <S> Can also mean to smoothly cut with a knife or blade, whether making cuts in something, or cutting completely through something. <S> A graceful, fluid, thin movement through something that separates that something can be called a slice. <S> Split - Separate into portions neatly. <S> This can refer to distributing many pieces of something, breaking something into portions, or cutting something into portions. <S> There is no implication on the shape of the pieces, but somewhat of a n implication that the pieces are the same size unless you say otherwise. <S> If you split something with a blade, and it's not in half, it could be assumed to be a heavy blade like an axe. <S> Divide - Simply means to make or keep separated. <S> Things that are divided may not have been one unit and may not need to be cut with anything. <S> Can be used for things like groups of people, etc. <S> Can have an implication that you want to keep things apart or separate and not have them mix for some reason. <S> You can slice, split, and divide things into more than 2 pieces. <S> Divide is the most abstract of the terms. <A> Slice is a word generally reserved for food. <S> Slice is quite tied to the idea of cutting with a sharp utensil like a knife, and thus it's really only used for food-related splitting. <S> It's often worded like to slice up something. <S> Split implies an idea of equity; that the splitting involved is roughly equal unless otherwise specified. <S> It also implies a tacit approval of the splitting amongst all the interested parties. <S> Divide is generally a more forceful term. <S> To be divided is to be in disagreement and the use of divide generally follows this theme. <S> You'll often see it used in anything conflict-related or where the splitting is forcefully uneven. <S> However, it is also used in a more mathematical sense when you're splitting things into discrete sets, such as if you were to divide up pairs of socks. <S> With regards to lines, divide is the word most often associated with them. <S> The phrase dividing line is quite common. <S> Of course, as with most things in English, there are contexts where more than one, if not all of these terms could theoretically be used interchangeably.
| Divide and split are used when doing so upon a particular line or point. Finally, divide is the most versatile word of the three and generally does not suggest a particular amount of divisions unless otherwise indicated.
|
The opposite of "wanted" When a person is wanted everybody wants to work with him, he's popular and is always asked for. But is there an opposite for wanted , meaning a person who isn't popular at work, someone whom nobody wants to work with. I was thinking of the word outcast but I doubt it can refer to such a meaning considering its definition. I would like to fit it into this context: My friend is always wanted while I am always [this word]. <Q> The obvious answers are the words you've mentioned, but with un prepended: unpopular or unwanted . <A> You could easily say that "people (at work) avoid him", but if you want to use an adjective (grammatically speaking a past participle used as an adjective) you could use shunned . <S> Definition of shun: <S> in the wiktionary : "to avoid, especially persistently." in Cambridge <S> online : "to ignore someone and not speak to that person because you cannot accept their behaviour, beliefs, etc." <S> Here are examples of the use of the word in this context: <S> In a book about Michael Jackson: <S> A man who won eight Grammys just four years earlier was shunned on that night; ( Michael Jackson & the Music That Was , The Voice of One, 2016) <S> In a conversation in a contemporary "romance": My mother, you see, was shunned when she became pregnant with Roland and me. <S> ( Mated in Mist: <S> A Paranormal Shifter Talon Pack Romance , Carrie Ann Ryan, 2016) <S> In an autobiography: At play time I was shunned. <S> The boys and girls didn't want to talk to me. <S> ( He Touched Me: <S> An Autobiography , Benny Hinn, 2001) <S> In a detective novel: <S> You knew what would happen to his family if he was shunned. <S> ( Roots of Murder , Janis Harrison, 1999) <S> In the written press: <S> Those born on Skye are shunned if they say anything against the wind farm. <S> They no longer exist. <S> ( The Telegraph - 05/06/2005) <S> They survived Ebola. <S> Now they are shunned ( The Washington Post , 13/08/2014) <A> What about unwelcome ? <S> unwelcome <S> : not wanted or welcome • unwelcome news • an unwelcome guest <S> (M-W) <S> This is especially apt if you are trying to join some groups or activities. <S> I think <S> the simple avoided could work: <S> avoid transitive verb <S> 1 <S> a : to keep away from : shun &bullet <S> ; They have been avoiding me. <S> (M-W) <S> Ignored could work, especially if you are actively trying to get everyone's attention or approval. <S> In my opinion, the first part of the sentence implies that it is because you are not wanted. <S> ignore transitive verb <S> 1 <S> : to refuse to take notice of (M-W) <A> There are some good answers, but I wanted to add Pariah to the mix. <S> one that is despised or rejected In your sample sentence <S> , it would read like: <S> My friend is always wanted while I am always (treated like) <S> a pariah. <S> It is pretty strong though. <S> You wouldn't necessarily use it to describe a one-off situation, rather if the rejection was a fairly regular occurrence. <A> b. <S> The expression of such an attitude in behavior or speech; derision: heaped scorn upon his rivals. <S> c. <S> The state of being despised or dishonored: held in scorn by his rivals. <S> Archaic One spoken of or treated with contempt. <S> tr.v. <S> scorned, scorn·ing, scorns To consider or treat as contemptible or unworthy: an artist who was scorned by conservative critics. <S> To reject or refuse with derision: scorned their offer of help. <S> See Synonyms at despise. <S> To consider or reject (doing something) as beneath one's dignity <A> Disliked. <S> From Cambridge: <S> Dislike ( noun ) <S> a feeling of not liking something or someone. <A> Actually, outcast is a pretty good word to use here. <S> The usage would be like so: <S> My friend is always wanted, while I'm always the outcast. <S> or as others have noted, if you're not actively cast out of groups but rather just not noticed: My friend is always wanted, while I'm always overlooked. <S> My friend is always wanted, while I go unnoticed. <A> Undesireable <S> Either in the adjective form: having qualities that are not pleasing or wanted an undesirable effect or the noun form one that is undesirable <S> Seem to fit here. <A> Repulsive would fit in case where you describe a person you don't want to work with, but with a more emotional <S> (they behave badly, smell/look unpleasantly), rather than objective (if they are a low productivity worker) sense. <A> I feel like out of place would fit here. <S> Out of place : [...] <S> Fig. <S> [of someone ] awkward and unwelcome. <S> (*Typically: be ~; feel ~; seem ~.) <S> I feel out of place at formal dances. <S> Bob and Ann felt out of place at the picnic, so they went home. <S> My friend is always wanted while (I am always/ <S> I always feel) out of place. <A> I like Anathema, myself. <S> As in, "Gideon was anathema at the office." <S> It has the connotation of someone who is avoided, shunned, and held in low regard. <S> Anathema, in common usage, is something or someone that is detested or shunned. <S> In its other main usage, it is a formal excommunication. <S> The latter meaning, its ecclesiastical sense, is based on New Testament usage. <S> Wikipedia
| If you want something with a negative ring to it you can use scorned a. Contempt or disdain felt toward a person or object considered despicable or unworthy: viewed his rivals with scorn.
|
Which is correct: "will resume" or "will be resumed"? Here are the two sentences using will resume and will be resumed .What is correct here? Also, is it true that will should always be followed by be ? My office process will be resumed once I complete 2 months in the state. My office process will resume once I complete 2 months in the state. <Q> Both are grammatical. <S> "Will" is followed by the basic form ("infinitive") of almost any verb (the only exceptions I can think of are modals like "can", "may", "should", none of which has an infinitive). <S> "Resume" is one of a large class of English verbs which can be used both transitively (of the person causing or initiating a process), and intransitively (of the thing undergoing the process). <S> They are sometimes called ergative verbs . <S> So The chair resumed the meeting and <S> The meeting resumed are both possible. <S> Other examples are "roll" ( He rolled the trolley aside ; <S> The trolley rolled down the slope ) and "start" ( <S> She started the car ; the car started first time ). <S> In the transitive sense, these verbs can be used in the passive, so The meeting was resumed by the chair . <S> So in your example, both the process will resume and the process will be resumed are grammatical and idiomatic. <S> There is a slight difference in meaning, in that the process will resume suggests that it will happen automatically without anybody needing to do anything, whereas the process will be resumed suggests that somebody will make it happen; but these are only suggestions, and may not reflect a real difference in the objective events. <A> An answer to your first question 'will' is not always followed by 'be'. <S> Sometimes 'will' is a noun, as in last will and testament. <S> Sometimes 'will' is followed by the simple form of a verb as in " <S> I will go shopping". <S> "my residential visa application process will be resumed" <S> what this means is that someone will resume the application process. <S> This someone might be a government worker. <S> "my residential visa application process will resume" <S> what this means is that the process itself will resume. <S> Both a process can resume and a person can resume a process. <S> In 1 'will be resumed' is passive which means that the noun coming after the noun is the one doing the action. <S> For example, in "I was hit by Jim", that means that Jim did the hitting because 'was hit' is passive. <S> In 2 'will resume' is active so the noun before the verb is the one doing the action. <A> The difference between both is the tense. ' <S> was in the near future. <S> While 'will be resumed' is the future perfect tense with begs the question of time. <S> Both sentences are alluding to something restarting, the time line however begs the difference. <S> That is how I understand it. <A> I am sorry <S> but I beg to differ with the last comment: 'will resume' and "will be resumed' <S> are both in the simple future tense, the 1st one is in the active form whereas the 2nd one is in the passive form. <S> Here's an example of the future perfect tense in both forms: <S> I will have bought that book before the end of the week (active). <S> That book will have been bought by the end of the week (passive). <S> The second one sounds very clumsy indeed but is grammatically correct.
| Will resume' is the simple future tense that implies that is will go back to what is
|
Words to describe the state of being in a marriage Just a brief question about marriage-related words in English. You see, in Russian language we have two words to describe "state of being in marriage", one for man ( женатый мужчина = married man), and different word for woman ( замужняя женщина = married woman). In English, so far as I know, there is no such variations. Am I right? In Russian we can make some jokes or give an extra meaning, based on using these two words, for example one can say " замужний мужчина ", which may mean: man who married on strong, masculine, or feminist-like woman; man who spend too many time with one particular man (gay-related joke); real gay couple ( gay marriage are prohibited in Russia, so we use in more "figurative" sense ) and so on... Same is true for " женатая женщина ". So I am wondering , does English have a special word to describe: Man who married masculine (strong, independent) woman Woman who married feminine (weak, spineless) man Man who married man Woman who married woman I think we can use "lesbians couple" and "gay couple" words in third and forth cases, but they describe more "state of being the lovers", not "state of being in a marriage", are they? Maybe some idioms exist? Thanks. <Q> English does not make the same distinction between male and female gendered nouns. <S> For example in French there is " le " and " la ", and in German there is " die " and " der ", this does not happen in English. <S> In marriage, if Lisa married David Klein, in many Slavic languages her name would become Lisa Klein" ova ". <S> This does not happen in English, it would simply be "Lisa Klein". <S> For " state of being in marriage ", English only has " Mrs. " and " Miss " for women as titles, whereas French has " madame " and " mademoiselle ", but even " madame " <S> may be ambiguous. <S> Usually in English, the description of marriage is given by additional surrounding context (additional adjectives such as " gay ", " straight ", " vanilla ") as opposed to using a specific noun. <A> As Peter mentions, in general English has no distinction between male and female with verbs relating to marriage or relationships. <S> For example, "married", "dating", "seeing each other", "in a relationship", "partners", "having a fling", "friends with benefits", "casual sex", "one-night stand", and many others, all are gender-neutral and can apply equally to straight or gay couples. <S> However there are many words to characterize the nuances of married life, many of which are colloquial or vulgar. <S> Aside from the basic honorifics (Mr., Mrs. Miss, and Ms.) there are these: A "henpecked" husband is one whose wife constantly nags him and orders him around, and who is generally the subordinate in the relationship. <S> The vulgar term is "whipped", short for "pussy-whipped", although this can apply to married or unmarried men in a relationship with a demanding woman. <S> A "matriarch" is a strong woman who is the head of a (usually large) family, and who is usually controlling. <S> A "patriarch" is similar for men, although there can be some religious overtones, as with the male leader of a religious group. <S> For gay male couples, there is often some distinction between the "top" and the "bottom" in the relationship. . <S> More crudely this can be referred to using baseball metaphors as "pitcher" and "catcher". <S> A man who supports a (often much younger) woman financially, usually as his mistress, would be called a "sugar daddy". <S> A woman who is in a relationship simply because the other person is wealthy would be called a "gold-digger". <S> Note these terms can also be used for the opposite gender ("sugar momma/mommy"), or for gay relationships. <S> As far as I know there is no special term for a homosexual marriage. <S> We just call it a "marriage". <S> Since it's not always clear how to refer to the two people in the marriage, "partner" is a good catch-all term instead of "husband" or "wife". <S> Note "partner"can also be used for heterosexual relationships, married or otherwise, so it can be somewhat ambiguous. <S> (Edit): Or "spouse" for a married couple. <S> (thanks BradC!) <A> A masculine woman (that shows stereotypically male traits) would be referred to as a "tomboy". <S> Even as a native speaker I find the titles for females confusing, so here's a cheat sheet: <S> Miss: <S> Unmarried Woman (young, 30 and under) Mrs.: Married Woman Ms.: Married Woman that kept her maiden name, divorced woman, older unmarried woman (30's and up)
| English has almost no gender-specific adjectives, so you would say "married" either way. However, there is the word " cuckhold " which has certain power/sexual/fetish meanings for a husband.
|
Idiom for making others feel bad to make myself feel good? Are there a stable expression for a situation when Person A blames B and tells how B is bad in order to make himself (A) feel good ? I would say something like "feed ego at cost of others", but I google it and it looks like "feed ego" has rather positive meaning in English and means "making feel good by doing good work or receiving a compliment". <Q> You could say She tends to belittle people. <S> That is, to treat them as inferior or insignificant. <A> I don't know an idiom that would express the sadistic pleasure of inflicting pain in others either physically or mentally, but there's a word borrowed from German. <S> Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as: <S> schadenfreude: <S> enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others; a feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people. <S> EDIT: <S> However, Wikipedia describes an equivalent English expression: Roman holiday: metaphor from the poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage by George Gordon, Lord Byron, where a gladiator in ancient Rome expects to be "butchered to make a Roman holiday" while the audience would take pleasure from watching his suffering. <S> The term suggests debauchery and disorder in addition to sadistic enjoyment. <A> You could say that person A often " puts people down ". <S> See definition 1(c) of "put down [phrasal verb]" at the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary entry for the verb put . <S> I am a native speaker of English, and I am familiar with the word "schadenfreude". <S> But I feel that, at least in English, "schadenfreude" carries no implication that there is communication between the people of any kind. <S> If person A heard that person B is in a tough situation and feels joy, that's probably "schadenfreude", but I don't think that's the situation kim123 is trying to describe. <A> I don't know of a word or phrase that captures everything you are describing. <S> I think to make himself feel good sounds fine. <S> So I recommend a few ways to change the first part of your sentence. <S> I provide this simplified model: Person A ____ <S> Person B to make himself feel good. <S> Aside from the other good answers, I think <S> bully <S> (mentioned in the comments) and ridicule are also possible. <S> bully transitive verb 1 : to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion : to act like a bully toward • bullied her younger brother) <S> (M-W) <S> ridicule : to laugh at and make jokes about (someone or something) in a cruel or harsh way : to make fun of (someone or something) <S> (M-W) <S> The context should imply that B would feel bad. <S> Crudely, you can say crap on (mildly offensive) or shit on (offensive): <S> shit on somebody — phrasal verb with shit uk <S> /ʃɪt/ <S> us /ʃɪt/ <S> verb present participle shitting, past tense and past participle shit, shat or shitted offensive to treat someone very badly and unkindly: <S> He made his money by shitting on other people. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> Lastly, you don't need it, but I think it's idiomatic to include just in the sentence. <S> It stresses the idea that Person A only does that to make himself feel good. <S> It makes A look really bad. <S> Person A ____ Person B <S> just to make himself feel good. <A> I feel strongly that there is a phrase for this -- but I just can't think of it! <S> Eventually I stumbled upon something like building yourself up by tearing others down . <S> It returns quite a few search results (if not for that exact phrase, then several sub-phrases), but doesn't seem to be a direct quote of anyone in particular -- although I guess that's pretty much what idioms are. <A> What I'm about to suggest is not an idiom or a phrase, but a very specific word which has the exact same meaning as the title. <S> Sadist a person who gets pleasure, sometimes sexual, by being cruel to or hurting another person - Cambridge Dictionary <S> You can say that A is being sadistic towards B . <S> This word often has a negative sexual connotation associated with it, which is why I personally wouldn't recommend using it. <S> ( By the way, I'm a little surprised that nobody even thought of it. ) <A> Bucket Dipper <S> There is a kids book, which I don't recall the name of. <S> In the book, all people are said to have imaginary happiness buckets. <S> The amount of happiness in it can get more or less. <S> Bucket fillers <S> fill their buckets with happiness by being kind to others and in the process, fill others' buckets too. <S> Bucket dippers try to fill their own happiness buckets by dipping into others' happiness buckets (i.e. stealing their happiness by being mean and putting them down). <S> But they can never really get a bucket brimming with happiness; sometimes they just keep trying. <S> It's a useful observation about how some people work. <A> "Feed ego" is a positive term and "cost of others" is a negative. <S> The negative aspect affects the victim (the one being blamed) but the one doing the blaming will have a positive gain on their ego (thus feeding their ego). <S> Overall the effect is negative to an outside perspective but to the one trying to feel good <S> the effect is a positive one or, in this case, they wouldn't be doing it. <A> You are describing the most common, obvious form of verbal abuse. <S> Verbal abuse is a form of psychological abuse.
| Your potential answer, "Feed ego at cost of others" does describe exactly what you want.
|
Bread like a brick name What do you call bread that looks like a brick? A loaf of bread? A brick of bread? Or some other way? <Q> These are loaves of bread <S> (source: rackcdn.com ) <S> It is not easy to have a bread loaf form in the true shape of a brick since the top is not naturally flat. <S> In your example, bread in that form are mini-loaves since they are cut from a bigger production loaf which is easily done with German pumpernickel which is notoriously dense and heavy. <A> I would say a loaf of bread, or if you had the space, a loaf of bread that looked like a brick. <S> Saying some bread is a brick in English implies it is "like a brick" in density. <A> I would go with 'slab' as mentioned by @1006a <S> slab <S> a thick plate or slice (as of stone, wood, or bread ): <S> Examples of slab in a Sentence a thick slab of homemade bread https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slab <A> If you zoom in on the image (and can read German) you will see that it does not show a solid mass of bread: <S> Die Packung enthält 7 Scheiben zu <S> je ca. <S> 72 g. <S> So it is not a bread, or brick, or loaf, or slab at all. <S> It is simply 7 slices of bread packaged together. <A> If someone told me they had a brick of bread, I would also wonder as to whether or not the bread was stale or hard, like a brick. <A> This is not a loaf , because it is not the entire unit that was baked in one go. <S> Brick of bread is not an expression generally used in English, at least not in any dialect with which I am familiar. <S> This is a pack (or packet , preference may depend on dialect) of bread containing 7 slices cut from a larger loaf.
| To me (USA, first language) saying a brick of bread, while perhaps uncommon usage, would indiciate more specifically the rectangular prism shape that you see.
|
What's the meaning of "snuggle time"? What's the meaning of 'snuggle time' in this sentence, this is a coaching/parenting advice from a brochure: Spend snuggle time reading with toddlers and preschoolers. I've searched and found that it is related to cuddling and lying in a comfortable way, but I don't fully grasp the meaning of the sentence. Maybe this is a cultural practice that is not common in my culture. Is this when a parent and a child lie together and do something? <Q> OK, you're looking for something beyond dictionary definitions of snuggle . <S> A picture is worth a thousand words, so here is a range of examples: Credits: Images 1-6 courtesy CanStockPhoto , Image 7 courtesy pixabay <S> Snuggle basically means being physically close or in physical contact in a cozy, comfortable, affectionate or comforting way. <S> Some picture examples of snuggling and reading with children: <S> Credits: <S> Image 1 courtesy Parenting Counts , Image 2 courtesy Reading Corners for Kids Credits: <S> Image 1 courtesy Dreamstime , Image 2 courtesy Reading and Art Credit: <S> Image courtesy Register-Herald <A> This expects that you have some time being physically close with your children. <S> It might be that you sometimes watch TV together with your child on your lap. <S> Not a specific cultural practice, normal physical closeness between a young child and their parents. <S> The brochure suggests that instead of watching tv (for example) you should read to your children. <A> Not lying together, necessarily. <S> Although lying side by side on a blanket watching the night sky or in bed watching TV would be snuggling. <S> Most likely it would involve side-by-side physical contact while reading or even playing a game like pat-a-cake or this little pig. <S> It could include having the child sitting in your lap while playing or doing some recreational activity (coloring book, singing, whatever). <A> Spend snuggle time reading with toddlers and preschoolers. <S> It means to read to the children while in close physical contact. <S> So the child would be in lap or sitting next to adult. <S> This could also be done while putting child to bed with adult sitting on edge of bed, or laying next to the child. <S> For this type of activity with young children (pre-reading themselves) typically a story picture with pictures would be used. <S> There would typically be just a few sentences per page so that the pictures would change quickly as the story was read by the adult.
| The suggestion in the brochure is to spend time reading with toddlers and preschoolers while snuggling with them, which, I suppose, would provide some focused, affectionate time with them and create a warm, comfortable, happy association with reading.
|
What does the expression "scale the numbers" mean? I was reading an article about web design and had problems understanding the meaning of the phrase "scale the numbers". Does it mean the results were sorted from 0 to 1? Context: After creating a bunch of these algorithms, I ran it on some sample data, scaled the numbers between 0 & 1, and plotted the results. Full text <Q> To be honest, I have no idea what he meant since he says he, "scaled the numbers between 0 & 1" yet some of the numbers are over 1. <S> So what I believe he meant to say is that he normalized the numbers relative to some other number -- so that the results can be expressed as a ratio of that number, rather than just raw data. <S> For example, suppose I take a survey asking people about their favorite ice cream flavors, and these are the results: 44 vanilla 35 chocolate <S> 22 strawberry 12 mint <S> 7 <S> other <S> The total number of people surveyed is 120, so I can divide each by 120 to get the following normalized ratios: 0.37 vanilla 0.29 chocolate 0.18 strawberry 0.10 mint 0.06 <S> other <S> Alternately, I could normalize the values relative to the top score (44) and thereby show ratios relative to the post popular flavor: 1.00 vanilla 0.80 chocolate 0.50 strawberry 0.27 mint 0.16 other <S> Alternately I could normalize relative to the lowest value, or the mean, or some other significant number. <S> Which I choose depends on the point I want to make. <A> When you scale something, you adjust the total size or amount but maintain the original proportions or relative sizes or amounts of the components. <S> Think of "scale" in the sense of a ruler divided into certain units. <S> One way to think of it is changing the unit of measurement without changing the values. <S> A map, for example, might have a notation like 1" = <S> 1 mile (in the US, anyway), meaning units of inches on the map are equivalent to units of miles in real life. <S> You change the overall size or amount just by changing the units you measure with. <S> Another example of scaling would be a recipe, where you want to make a lesser or greater total amount of something and need to keep the ingredients in the same proportion. <S> If you keep the unit of measurement the same when you scale, you adjust the values <S> so they are in proportion. <S> Use the recipe analogy. <S> In volume measurement, 4 cups equals one quart. <S> Say a recipe calls for 1 quart of X and 4 quarts of Y, and you want to make 1/4 as much. <S> You could change the unit of measure from quart to cup, making it 1 cup of X and 4 cups of Y. <S> Or, you could keep quarts as the unit of measure and adjust the values to 1/4 quart of X and 1 quart of Y. <S> The second alternative would be scaling the values (or numbers), between 0 and 1. <A> What he has done in the calculation is rescaled / renormalized the values for the 3 factors: <S> xHeight, contrast, and formality. <S> The assumption is that these 3 dimensions accurately describe a font face and should be the least correlated with each other and other factors that he calculated. <S> This forms his basis for measuring fonts. <S> Notice that he is using a 3 dimensional space based on these 3 factors (instead of the standard x,y,z). <S> He then normalized the numbers so that the maximum value is 1 and the minimum is 0 which creates a (0,1) interval or unit-vector for that dimension. <S> Scaling or renormalizing in this way ensures the individual unit vectors (one for each font) can be compared with one another (gets rid of outliers). <S> By using unit vectors, he can then calculate the distance (Euclidian), which he is using as a measure of similarity between each vector (font face). <S> You can confirm the distance calculation using this 3D calculator . <S> It is also why the distance calculation is greater than 1, since it is not rescaled / renormalized .
| When you scale numbers to fit in a certain range, you pick a value that is within the range for the largest example, and then make the other values proportional to their original relative size.
|
What is the difference between "is mandatory" and "is a mandatory"? Which best fits this sentence? For conferencing to happen, internet connection is _________. mandatory a mandatory When I try to search, I found both of them in use and I got confused. <Q> The sentence "X is Y", where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, is an unexceptional sentence. <S> "Jim is old", "cats are friendly", "attendance is mandatory." <S> The sentence <S> "X is a Y", where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, implies the adjective has been promoted to a noun for some reason. <S> Almost any adjective can be promoted to a noun, but fairly few ever are. <S> For example, if you said, "Jim is deplorable", you are implying Jim deserves strong condemnation for some reason. <S> If you said, "Jim is a deplorable", that means something very different. <S> Last year, Hillary Clinton was running for president and said, "To just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of [her opponent Donald] Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. <S> Right? <S> The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it." <S> (Whatever else you say about her remark, she managed to promote six adjectives to nouns.) <S> In reaction, many Trump supporters tagged themselves "deplorables"; saying "Jim is a deplorable" means specifically he is a Trump supporter. <S> "Mandatory" has no such widespread use as a noun, but it's easy to see how it could happen in a community. <S> Perhaps in your academic department, some courses are optional and others are mandatory, and this distinction is widely understood; the phrase "a mandatory" might come to mean "a mandatory course" -- just as in the workplace a temporary worker is "a temp", or in a haberdashery a large-size suit (or a large-size customer) is "a large". <S> Within the context of your department, you might easily say, "Occ Civ [Occidental Civilization] is a mandatory"; out that context, the sentence would be unintelligible. <A> In both the cases, mandatory is an adjective. <S> What you're missing is the context. <S> is mandatory <S> is <S> a mandatory Structure #1 is obvious. <S> For conferencing to happen, internet connection is mandatory . <S> Structure #2 doesn't stand alone. <S> Mandatory is describing a noun and whatever it is describing must follow. <S> For conferencing to happen, internet connection is a mandatory condition. <A> For example, Russian communists used to be called "Reds" after the color they identified their movement with. <S> High-beam headlights for a long time were called "brights"—an adjective serving as a noun. <S> There are countless other examples in English. <S> The primary use of the word mandatory is as an adjective, but it could be used as a noun under the right circumstances. <S> For example, There are certain mandatories that must be followed to do this job correctly: be attentive, be prompt, be courteous. <S> Compare this with the adjectival phrase "nice to have," which is turned into a noun with increasing frequency: <S> That is not a mandatory condition, but we all feel it is a "nice-to-have." <S> This is how people talk in the real world of English, whatever anyone else may tell you. <S> Also note that the plural form, mandatories , is listed by some dictionaries as a noun all by itself, referring to people who have been given a mandate, or who are mandataries .
| Mandatory can be used as a noun, as can virtually any other adjective.
|
Which suits the most? One of my friends asked me about my absence in class for the duration of the previos month. Which one of these should I reply with? I burnt my hand. I had burnt my hand. I have burnt my hand. <Q> Since you burnt your hand one month ago, it's an event distant enough in the past that you'd use the first option (I burnt my hand). <S> In general you'd always use the "simple past" in cases like this. <S> That addresses your main question, but just in case it helps, here is more info for how you could use the other options: <S> The second choice is used to show itself as a usually more distant past compared to another. <S> So you'd say "I had burnt my hand before I moved". <S> The third choice is for something much more recent, like today or this week. <S> It would be the answer to a question like "What happened?" <S> (Note that "burnt" vs "burned" is a question of British (1st) vs American (2nd) English, when you are talking about past tenses and participles) <A> Past Simple , that is " <S> I burned my hand" , is the best choice. <S> You use it to speak about events that happened in the past. <S> The Present Perfect <S> , that is <S> " I have burned my hand" , can be used to speak about actions shortly before the present that have a connection with the present or situations that happened just now at the moment of speaking. <A> I burnt (burned) <S> my hand is the most appropriate for casual conversation.
| "I had burned my hand " , that is Past Perfect , can be used to speak about the past that precedes another event or situation in the past.
|
Is there a word for losing something in order to gain some other thing? For example I want increase the speed of a memory system in a computer but this will cost more money or decreasing the capacity will also gain more speed. So I have to lose capacity and money in order to gain speed.More general example, when losing one quality in return gaining other quality in more technical perspective usage . So I'm wondering if there is a word out there for this? <Q> Trade-off <S> A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situation that involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. <S> More colloquially, if one thing increases, some other thing must decrease. <S> From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-off <A> So I have to sacrifice <S> capacity in order to gain speed. <S> " Sacrifice ," Verb, Definition 2, Google <S> So I have to compromise <S> capacity in order to gain speed. <S> Compromise: expediently accept standards that are lower than is desirable. <S> " Compromise ," Verb, Definition 2, Google <A> Not a singular word, but the phrase “opportunity cost” describes this situation well. <S> “The opportunity cost of higher speed is a loss of capacity.” <A> The verb “to gambit” comes from the world of chess and is sometimes employed in other field. <S> “He gambits this in order to get that.” <S> The root of the word is the Italian ‘gambetto.’ <S> In the Oxford English dictionary I could only find gambit as a noun, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it used as a verb in a phrase as well. <A> I kind of like the word 'compensation' for this, though there is some nuance. <S> It's used in chess as well <S> : He sacrificed his rook but his position is better so he has compensation. <S> It's used in other contexts as well of course: I was compensated. <S> (implies an original loss of something, potentially time or materials) <S> In your example: We will have less capacity, but this is compensated by an increase in speed. <A> The traditional phrase is "a sprat to catch a mackerel". <S> This dates from the mid 19th century—for example, see this Oxford Reference —and is still current: for example as the title of a book published in 2010 .
| Sacrifice: give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations.
|
Sanctioned me the loan vs sanctioned loan to me Which one of the following sentence is correct / better ? The office sanctioned loan to me . Or The office sanctioned me the loan. From my point of view first sentence seems correct to me as it sounds like the office sanctioned the loan to me that is office allowed / permitted / approved a loan to me but the second sentence gives a wrong meaning , atleast to my ears , it sounds like the office sanctioned "me the loan " . ( "me the loan" sounds like a single object which is getting sanctioned by office ) or even if I split 'me the loan ' then it sounds like "me" is getting sanctioned by the office that "me" is getting approved by the office not loan as it is immediately followed by sanctioned. Am I right ? The confusion arise because as per the book which I second sentence is correct. This is a active / passive conversion question and this was the given statement . I was sanctioned the loan by the office. <Q> Grammatically, both sentences mean the same thing. <S> Consider these very common sentences which display the same structure: <S> The man gave me the pencil. <S> English speakers understand that when two objects come after the verb without prepositions, the first is likely the indirect object (the recipient) while the second is the direct object (the thing given). <S> While this sentence can be parsed as you propose (to make "the pencil" a description of "me"), it would be almost impossible for a native speaker to understand it that way, even if you used very exaggerated inflection. <S> The man gave the pencil to me. <S> In this case the order of the objects has been reversed, but the roles have been preserved by inserting the preposition "to" to show which is the indirect object. <S> Since your sentences about the loan follow this same pattern, they are grammatically and semantically correct, but native speakers will find them hard to understand. <S> There are three reasons for this: 1) <S> The verb "to sanction" is not often, at least on American English, used to refer to approvals granted in the ordinary course of business. <S> It suggests a declaration from a higher external authority, perhaps a government official, that a certain course of action is lawful. <S> Applications are "approved" or "granted". <S> Business decisions are "approved" or "affirmed" by those higher up in the organization. <S> 2) <S> This sentences structure is not usually used with the verbs "sanction" and "approve". <S> But, it is used with "grant" and "give". <S> So you could say "The bank gave me a loan". <S> 3) <S> The verb "to sanction" has a second, nearly opposite, meaning: to take strong action to discourage disapproved conduct. <S> The unusual wording and usage in your sentence will confuse many listeners who will not know which meaning of "sanction" is intended. <S> There are many idiomatic phrases which you could use. <S> A good one is: <S> The office approved my loan application. <S> less formally, this can be shortened to: <S> The office approved my loan. <A> See definitions in M-W, for example. <S> A sanctioned loan is a loan that has been officially approved or in some cases, that complies with regulations or other predefined rules and conditions. <S> The latter usage might be seen in a discussion of whether some series of loans violated the law. <S> "Sanctioned" could be used to describe them as being in compliance. <S> But in typical usage, "sanctioned" <S> isn't normally associated with personal loans, at least from normal sources. <S> "Sanctioned" is usually reserved for something that is not a routine matter and requires approval at a high level. <S> Sanctioning a person usually refers to punishing them for violating a law or rule. <S> So none of your examples are great in terms of normally applied meaning (or grammar). <S> Approving a loan, or approving you for a loan, would be more typical language. <A> Neither one of those sentences makes much sense. <S> Instead say "The bank approved my loan" , or "I was approved for the loan by the bank" , or, less commonly, "The bank approved me for the loan" .
| "Sanctioned" has a number of meanings, and they are usually different when applied to a person or a loan.
|
"Promise to tell" in negative Is there any subtle nuance in meaning between: You promised not to tell anyone. You promised to tell no one. <Q> Both the sentences are grammatical, with the same meaning. <S> The use of "not .... anyone", though a bit less formal than "no one", is far more common and idiomatic. <S> Besides, no one is stronger and more definite than not.... anyone. <A> <A> They are essentially the same, but you asked about any subtle nuance. <S> To me, promise not to tell <S> is less definitive than promise to not tell or promise to tell no one . <S> " <S> Promise not to tell" is bigger picture. <S> Of all the things you do, telling won't be one of them. <S> " <S> Sorry, I promised not to tell but with everything I do, I forgot about that one." <S> It could even be taken as wiggle room. <S> "Sure I promised not to 'tell', I only hinted." <S> Promise to not is a specific and unequivocal promise about the action in question.
| Both of you sentences are correct, although You promised not to tell anyone may be preferable since it emphasizes the not telling
|
What happens to the cars produced in this factory? I don't understand structure of that sentence: What happens to the cars produced in this factory? Why not: What are the cars happen? All what I saw are: what [do] ... or what [have] or what [be]. Why in this sentence 'happens' follows after 'what'? <Q> This pattern <S> What are the cars _________. <S> is a question form of the statement: <S> The cars are __________ what. <S> In that pattern, what is a direct object: What are the cars burning? <S> (that is, what kind of fuel?) <S> The cars are burning diesel fuel. <S> Since happen is an intransitive verb, it does not take a direct object. <S> We cannot say: The cars are happen what. <S> ungrammatical <S> And since we cannot make that statement, neither can we ask the question <S> What are the cars happen? <S> ungrammatical <S> An event occurs. <S> An action happens. <S> Accidents happen. <S> This car's door is dented! <S> Something happened to the car . <S> The prepositional phrase to the car after happened expresses the idea <S> "event occurred having an effect on the car". <S> Something happened which produced an effect on the car. <S> Something happened to the car. <S> What happened to the car? <A> I don't understand structure of that sentence: <S> What happens to the cars produced in this factory? <S> Why not: What are the cars happen? <S> For he/ <S> she/ <S> it in the simple present tense <S> , add 's' in the verb. <S> But there isn't 3rd person singular in your sentence. <A> This is covered in Collins COBUILD English Grammar (Digital Edition) under the subtopic 5.22 Wh-word <S> When a wh-word is the subject of a verb, or when it forms part of the subject, the word order of the clause is the same as that of a clause in the declarative , i.e. the subject is put first, followed by the verb. <S> (Emphasis mine) <S> This is what happens here, the wh-word (what) is used as the subject in your sentence so it follows the same order in a declarative sentence. <S> However, you need a do-support <S> (if there's no auxiliary) when the wh-word is used as an object of a preposition or verb. <S> What <S> do <S> you need? <S> It will be clearer if your undo the wh-fronting. <S> Like this <S> You need <S> what ?
| To happen means 'to occur'. The wh-word (what) is used as object of the verb need .
|
"on MY way to school" vs "on THE way to school" I just wonder between I am on the way to [location] and I am on my way to [location] I wonder what the differences are. <Q> I am on the way to school <S> has the feeling of being on the route to school in the standard fashion I am on my way to school has more a feeling that you are rushing or that you may be focussed than usual to get to school. <S> The standard answers to the question <S> Are you coming? <S> are <S> I am on my way! <S> I'm making my way over now! <A> I'm on my way to school. <S> What you're doing now, traveling to your school. <S> I'm on the way to school. <S> Where you are and the path or road you're taking now. <S> Where did you meet him? <S> --I met him on the way to school. <S> When did you meet him? <S> --I met him on my way to school. <S> The car-fire is on the way to school. <S> You can't miss it. <S> --I'm <S> on the way to school now, <S> but I don't see it. <S> Whereas on my way to school refers to what you're doing at the moment, going to school. <S> Sorry, I can't talk now, I'm on my way to school and am running a little late. <S> I have to be on time today. <A> Not a native speaker, but after consulting all the dictionaries I could find, there are a few things I picked up on. <S> You'll use both or when you mention the destination. <S> I can pick you guys up on the way back <S> I'll drop by his place on my to the store <S> But, in answer to, say, someone asking you if you've set off (when they're waiting for you etc), while you can probably use either, it's more usual to use <S> I'm on my way , rather than <S> I'm on the way <S> (when not mentioning the destination) When talking about doing or experiencing something while on your way somewhere, when you DON'T mention the destination, you'll usually use on the way , and not on my way <S> I can fix you sandwich to eat on the way <S> ( on your way doesn't really sound right, but it would <S> if you added the destination or direction: I can fix you something to eat on your way there ) <S> Finally, to be on your way can be used in the sense of leaving a place, "get going", as in "I'd better be on my way- <S> it's getting kind of late" , <S> "I should be on my way" - but not on the way <S> I'm not by any means sure if I'm right or not, these are just a few observations, so I don't know whether they're anything to go by, but I figured they'd be worth mentioning nonetheless.
| on the way to school can refer to the road or path that leads to school but school might not be your destination: It seems a lot has to do with whether or not the destination or direction is mentioned.
|
Does "A Steep Learning Curve" mean learn fast or learn in a hard way? How do I understand the phrase a steep learning curve ? I feel confused about it. Does it mean someone learns something fast or something is difficult for someone to learn ? <Q> A Learning Curve is a graph depicting relationship between learning and amount of effort. <S> And the learning is the outcome. <S> Steep refers to a slope rising or falling sharply and is almost perpendicular. <S> It's very difficult to climb steep curve or mountain and takes lots of efforts and time. <S> From the question asked on our sister site English Language & Usage <S> In informal usage, a "steep learning curve" means something that is difficult (and takes much effort) to learn. <S> It seems that people are thinking of something like climbing a steep curve (mountain) — it's difficult and takes effort. <A> Perhaps this has already been stated but I wonder if, from a mathematical standpoint (keeping with the graph metaphor), we consider learning as work. <S> We will keep that on the y-axis and then have time represented on the x-axis. <S> Then let us take the example of learning to fly a plane (a very difficult skill to master). <S> Whether you learn to be a master pilot over your entire life or within a few years, the amount of work needed to learn the skill is the same. <S> Taking the analogy further, let us say that a war is about to break out and we need pilots tomorrow. <S> We could say that the learning curve is steep for this learning process. <S> Later, the war ends and someone wishes to learn to fly for enjoyment. <S> They have the opportunity to learn over their entire lifetime. <S> We could say that this leisure process would have a much flatter learning curve. <S> Both end up expending the same amount of effort to learn to fly but one had a steeper learning curve than the other did. <A> The vast majority of people who say "steep learning curve" know nothing about mathematics or steep or curve. <S> What they mean is that it will take time and require effort to learn. <S> That's all it means. <S> You need not consult mathematicians for the answer. <S> If you feel this is a mathematics question you've come to the wrong forum.
| Therefore, “ A Steep Learning Curve ” refers to something difficult to learn.
|
So, "My eyes are irritated" or "My eyes are irritating"? " My eyes are irritated " or " My eyes are irritating "? On Ngram much more people say " irritated eyes " than " irritating eyes ". Googling "My eyes are irritated" returns 24k results ( Link ) Googling "My eyes are irritating" returns 40k results ( Link ) I would say "My eyes are irritated" does not make sense because only human can feel , human's eyes can not feel . (we say " I am very excited because the film is very exciting ") " My eyes are irritating " sounds better because it is making the man irritated. So, " My eyes are irritated " or " My eyes are irritating "? <Q> my eyes are irritated my eyes are uncomfortable and hurt my eyes are irritating my eyes are annoying someone <S> Usually your eyes, themselves, will not irritate someone, however staring will. <S> My eyes are irritated. <S> My eyes are irritating me. <S> would basically have the same meaning that your eyes are bothering you, the first by implication, the second by direct mention <A> The eyes have nerve endings that relay information to the brain. <S> ▶ <S> Dust particles in the air irritate my eyes. <S> My eyes are irritated. <S> My friend's cat cuddles up to me only when I'm wearing sunglasses. <S> My eyes must be irritating. <A> In AmE, "irritate" is most often transitive, although a few speakers use are irritating to mean "are getting irritated" or "are having irritation". <S> {This chemical} subj irritates <S> v.t. <S> {the eyes} object . <S> The noun for the resulting state is irritation . <S> The predicate adjective formed from the past participle is irritated . <S> The adjective irritating and the progressive form of the verb irritating mean "causing irritation". <S> My eyes are irritated because I was working with that chemical, which is irritating to the eyes. <S> -- What is the name of the chemical irritating your eyes? <S> The relatively rare intransitive use where it means "to become irritated" or "to have irritation": <S> My eyes are irritating a lot lately. <S> They are always itchy and tearing. <S> Normally, we'd see the reflexive "My eyes are irritating me ..." which would be analogous to "My knee has been paining me lately".
| In this way, our eyes do feel, and "my eyes are irritated" is quite logical.
|
How to say "this number is the most frequent" in one word? Let's say I have the next array of 9 numbers: 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1. I want to say that 2 has the highest frequency in the array. But I thought I could write this in one word. I also thought of "2 is the most frequent". Which is the best way to say that a number is the most frequent in an array? <Q> Two is the most frequent (spelled frequent ) sounds fine to me. <S> Alternatively, you could write something like <S> The number two is the most frequent value in the given array. <S> I think the "one word" you are looking for is mode . <S> It is mathematical terminology. <S> In the given array, two is the mode . <S> mode <S> The mode is the value that appears most often in a set of data. <S> (Wikipedia) <A> If you really need a single word for some reason, you could choose commonest : commonest superlative form of common : most common. <S> common Occurring or happening regularly or frequently; usual. <S> For a mathematically-rigorous word, you should use mode : mode <S> ( statistics ) <S> The most frequently occurring value in a distribution. <A> Some more suitable words: Predominant, Preponderant, Principal. <S> All can be used to mean "most frequent", and are better known than "mode" (which is rarely if ever used by anyone who isn't a mathematician) while also sounding more professional than something like "commonest". <S> E.g. "The preponderant number is 2". <A> You could say " prevalent " or " abound " For arrays the fixed phrase "most frequent value" is widely used. <S> In mathematics the term <S> "mode" is common. <S> Here's a good explanation of what a mode is - Most frequent values in array . <A> As the question mentions an array of numbers, seems to me mode is absolutely the correct answer (and had I got here quicker <S> I think that would have been my one-word answer). <S> This used to be taught at primary level in the UK (until 2015), so not obscure terminology :)
| " Most frequent " seems reasonable to me.
|
Is "being on the bats" an expression? I was watching Family Guy and in one episode, Peter tries to show a group of students he is serious by breaking a table with a baseball bat. However, he knocks over the rack full of baseball bats and keeps tripping and falling on them. Eventually he gives up and says OK, we'll pick this up on Monday. Do any of you know my wife, Lois? Tell her I'm on the bats and to come get me. She'll know what it means. Here is a clip from Youtube: Peter Struggles With Baseball Bats | Season 15 Ep. 18 | FAMILY GUY . Although it's literally true, this seems like a strange thing to say so I was wondering if "I'm on the bats" has another meaning that I'm not aware of. I thought I knew a lot of expressions and I don't know what this is supposed to mean, so possibly I just misinterpreted the tone of voice. Is there a joke here that I missed? <Q> Obviously, this is an excerpt from the full program. <S> Lois probably knows that Peter has installed the baseball bats in the classroom, since he's probably been having problems with the class. <S> The joke is two fold: 1) you would have to know that being on a baseball bat is not a usual thing <S> 2) <S> Peter always meets with misadventure by someone telling Lois that Peter is on the bats <S> even though she will not know the exact circumstances, she will think it is an odd thing to be told and then wonder <S> What is he up to now? <S> or she will realize as the viewer knows, that something has gone wrong, as it usually does. <S> So on the bats is a literal phrase, but the context is very important to understand it. <A> No, it's not a common expression. <S> In this case, "on the bats," literally means, "lying on the baseball bats". <S> The joke -- not particularly funny -- is that Peter is an idiot who so frequently gets into trouble that his wife is used to having to come to help him out. <S> So when he makes a seemingly meaningless comment it's expected she would understand the context. <A> I believe part of the joke is how ridiculous and specific the expression is and that his wife will somehow "know".
| I have never heard of the expression in my life.
|
Which is the correct English out of the following sentences. I gave her your number. or I gave your number to her Which is the correct English out of the following sentences? I gave her your number. I gave your number to her. Please explain me the better ways to form the above sentence. <Q> Both ways are correct English. <S> I gave her your number <S> This is a perfectly fine response, and the slightly less formal of the two. <S> I gave your number to her <S> This is a slightly more awkward construction, but is also slightly more formal. <S> One thing to note is that in some contexts, they can imply that something else has happened since then (especially if you stress the word "gave", e.g. "I gave her your number <S> , it's not my fault she hasn't called!"). <S> There are a couple of other constructions that emphasise the past tense on its own: <S> I've given her your number (or <S> I have given her your number ) <S> Both of these are perhaps more natural to hear to an English speaker, especially the first one (because "I have" is contracted to "I've"), and can emphasise that you've simply completed the action and given the number. <A> I gave her your number. <S> I gave your number to her. <S> They are just different in pattern; the former is called dative-movement pattern and the latter is called a prepositional pattern . <S> In the dative-movement pattern, the indirect object is taken out of the prepositional phrase. <S> Though both are fine, you have to remember that if the direct object is a form of pronoun, the dative-movement pattern is not usually possible. <S> "I gave her it " ? <A> Both are fine and both are correct English, however, look at this Ngram chart . <S> As you can see the "gave [someone] your number]" is much more frequent than " <S> gave [someone's] number to" .
| As fixer1234 said both are fine, grammatical, and idiomatic.
|
Why is " wear some appropriate clothes" wrong? I was given this two questions in a test. The correct is the second one. I can understand it sounds better, but why would be the first one wrong? Is there anything wrong about some regarding countability? If you are called for a job interview, wear some appropriate clothes. If you are called for a job interview, wear an appropriate outfit. <Q> We can also add 'appropriate attire', 'outfit' is more specific and suggests that all the pieces of clothing should go together as a unit. <A> Provided this test is about grammar, both sentences look correct to me. <S> The latter is probably 'better' in that it's more specific, but I cannot see anything wrong with the first sentence. <S> If you are called for a job interview, wear appropriate clothes . <S> Perhaps the test writer prefers clothing over clothes, which also works and retains the meaning. <S> If you are called for a job interview, wear some appropriate clothing . <S> Having said that, I don't believe the first sentence to be incorrect grammatically. <A> wear an appropriate outfit. <S> presumes <S> they entire clothing ensemble (outfit) goes together. <S> Your first sentence might be better as If you are called for a job interview, wear (some) appropriate cloth ing . <S> but as others have pointed out wear appropriate attire <S> might be more idiomatic since business attire casual attire are usually used phrases. <A> In the first sentence, some sounds a bit surplus, that's why the second is considered better, although technically both are correct. <S> A lot of other possible options have been mentioned. <S> I would also add: [...] dress appropriately. <S> or [...] dress accordingly. <A> I think the answers by Peter and Mohit Wadhwa might reflect what I see. <S> I don't think either sentence in the question is wrong. <S> To me, the difference is more of a nuance that makes the second a better fit. <S> People would understand or figure out the intent of the first sentence from the context. <S> But it sounds a little off to my native ear because it is unnecessarily ambiguous and it would be more natural to just use more precise wording; words more typically associated with the situation. <S> "Clothing" is a collection of individual items and isn't usually the word of choice if you are talking about a coordinated outfit. <S> "Appropriate" has many possible contexts, even in association with a job interview, especially if you are referring to a collection of items rather than an outfit. <S> For example, dressing in consideration of the weather, the amount of coverage in terms of modesty, clothing and shoes that facilitate activity if the interview might involve extensive walking or other exertion, etc. <S> An appropriate "outfit" or "attire", on the other hand, goes to the appearance and coordination of the items; how they look together. <S> Either of those terms wouldn't preclude consideration of the weather, modesty, movement, or other characteristics, but the focus would be on "looking the part" or "dressing for success", which would be the intended meaning.
| Perhaps the test writer considers the some in the first sentence superfluous; you can rewrite the first sentence without it and retain the meaning.
|
what's the meaning of “not even a twist”? It appeared in the following conversation. A: It's about time you went home, don't you think? B: You plan on saying "I'll take you" again, and coming with me, don't you? Well, I was going to go home even without you telling me. It's late. A: Ah, I'll take you home. B: Uwah,not even a twist. B is a brother of "A"'s girlfriend. A want to go out,but don't want his girlfriend knows where he exactly go. So he make that excuse. And he did it the other day. I referred to a dictionary. The closest meaning is: A twist in something is an unexpected and significant development. But it seems that it doesn't match the context of the sentence well. <Q> In the conversation, A expresses the expectation that B is predictable and that the next thing B will say is "I will take you". <S> That's exactly what B says next. <A> Your dictionary definition is correct; however "twist" can sometimes refer to strong emotions that make your insides feel as if they are (literally) twisted up . <S> She felt a momentary twist of guilt for what she'd done to him, but it soon passed <S> In this case, I actually have no idea what "not even a twist" means in this context. <S> It could be a slang used by that particular dialect of English. <S> Or it could be the first character <S> doesn't even feel a "twist" of emotion at the second character's offer -- which would still be a kind of slang, since it's not a common use of "twist". <S> So your guess is as good as mine. <A> It refers to pressuring someone into doing something they don't necessarily want to do, and, importantly in this case, is often used to imply only token resistance. <S> Example: <S> Me: Shall we order pizza for dinner tonight? <S> Wife: <S> Oh, all right then, if you twist my arm ... <S> In this case, my wife and I both want to order pizza, but she pretends to resist for humourous effect. <S> In this case, it appears that B expects A to try to pressure them into going home. <S> B is saying that they planned to go anyway, so A does not have to twist their arm into leaving.
| The "not even a twist" looks like A's remark on the exact conformance of B's actual plan to the predicted one, not showing any effort to introduce variation. If I had to guess, I'd say it's referring to the idiom twist [your] arm .
|
Take a height. Dont be afraid. Mummy do A mother and a little girl went to clinic. The nurse is trying to take the little girl height. The girl was afraid and doesn't want to take a height. " Take a height . Dont be afraid. Mummy do." the mother told her as she try to take a height by herself. Does it sound gramatically correct and natural? Do we say "take a height" when measure someone's height? <Q> Additionally you could say: "Let's measure your height. <S> Don't be afraid. <S> Mummy will do it." <A> This is a situation where we can use have or get : <S> Go ahead, have your height taken (by the nurse). <S> or Go ahead, get your height taken (by the nurse). <S> They are analogous to "have your hair cut" or "get your hair cut". <S> Have|get <S> + something <S> + past participle. <S> This pattern is used when someone else is doing something for us. <S> We have the choice to say who the other person is in a by -phrase. <S> We can add the by -phrase or leave it out. <S> You could also use <S> let : <S> Go ahead, let the nurse take your height. <S> Go ahead, let the nurse measure how tall you are. <S> Let + someone + non-finite clause complement. <A> The conversation actually sounds completely natural if the little girl is one or two years old . <S> Mommy do is a key line since a two year old will understand that Mommy is doing it also
| Please try the following for a more natural sound: "Measure your height" At that age, many of the added words an adult would say are lost on kids and are not used.
|
How can I convey going through an entire avenue when giving directions? If I want someone to go by an entire avenue ( from the beginning to the end) to arrive to my house. What should I say? Go all over Benavides avenue? Go all the way Benavides avenue? Thanks in advance! <Q> Your sentence is understandable and acceptable Go all the way down Benavides Avenue (until) ... <S> Go down Benavides Avenue, until you can't go anymore , then... <S> Quite often instead of "go", "follow" is used Follow <S> Benavides Avenue <S> until it ends, then... <S> "Go all over" would not be the correct way to express this since it may imply swerving back and forth over Benavides Avenue (all over). <A> You can use "Go all the way down Benavides Avenue." <S> Couldn't find a full description of the phrase, but you can see it focused on in this question from the English Language and Usage SE. <A> I think the idiomatic way to say this would be "Go the whole length of Benavides Avenue" or "Go to the end of Benavides Avenue".
| if Benavides Avenue ends e.g. a "T" junction, you could also say Go to the end of Benavides Avenue, then ...
|
"Pull your band off first." He wanted to take off his shoes. He grabbed the end of shoes but can't take off. " Pull your band off first. " I told him. What do we call the highlighted part in the image? <Q> Generally they are called closures and more specifically, it is a velcro closure <S> You could also tell you friend to pull on the velcro and pull the top open <A> In AmE, I would call it a strap , or a Velcro strap if it uses Velcro. <S> In BrE, it looks like it's called a closure or a Velcro closure . <S> The description of <S> these shoes says Velcro closure for easy on/off for young children <A> Here's a similar pair of shoes on Zappos . <S> The product description calls it "hook and loop" but "Velcro" is the name brand of the style of fastener. <S> Most usage isn't brand specific, though. <S> This usage is called " generic trademark ". <S> It's the equivalent of using "google" for "search the internet" or "band-aid" for plastic bandage. <S> In fact, I'm not even sure I knew that Velcro fasteners were called "hook and loop" until now. <S> So, for your sentence I would recommend: <S> Undo the velcro straps first. <S> Note that if you are not using the brand name to mean the actual brand, it's customary to use a lowercase initial letter rather than uppercase. <A> The name for that part of the shoe is not very common, or at least not very standardized in American English. <S> The material that temporarily binds together is called Velcro , a common and well-known word, but that's not the name of the thing. <S> Officially, it's called a hook-and-loop fastener , hook-and-pile fastener , or touch fastener , but you'll seldom encounter those terms outside manufacturers' literature and sales catalogs. <S> Velcro fastener and Velcro strap are the most ordinary everyday terms for the thing, but they're a little unwieldy to say. <S> In everyday speech, people usually use the name of the material metonymically to refer to the thing you're asking about. <S> For example, someone could say: Undo the Velcro first. <S> You wouldn't ordinarily say "Do the Velcro" for the opposite action, though that's possible. <S> Do up the Velcro is clearer. <S> People even say: Tie the Velcro. <S> Untie <S> the Velcro first. <S> or they avoid naming the fasteners explicitly, like this: <S> Untie your shoes first. <S> Tying and untying refer literally to shoelaces, of course, but people often still use these verbs even for shoes with Velcro fasteners. <S> It's like the way people speak of "dialing" a telephone number on a mobile phone—even people who've never have seen a telephone dial . <S> Velcro is a mass noun in all these sentences, like "food" in "Eat your food. <S> " It still denotes the material. <S> You wouldn't say "a Velcro" to refer to one fastener. <S> Because it denotes the material, the word Velcro is actually a little ambiguous here: it could refer to one fastener or both, since both are made of the same material. <S> Finally, here are probably the two most ordinary and natural verbs for "tying" and "untying" it—still using the name of the material metonymically for the thing you're asking about: <S> Fasten the Velcro. <S> Unfasten <S> the Velcro first.
| They're generally called " Velcro straps".
|
Can I say "constitute/contribute the largest group"? Actually I was practicing for my English writing test, and I'm not sure whether such usage is correct. Any help will be appreciated. As described in the second figure, married couples constituted the most dominant group in terms of adult marital status in both 1970 and 2000, though the corresponding percentage dropped from 70% to under 60%. People who never married contributed the second largest group in both years, which accounted for roughly 15% then 20% of the total population of adult Americans. <Q> "Contributed", however, is not. <S> If you don't want to use "constituted" in consecutive sentences for stylistic reasons, olegst's suggestions are excellent. <S> You could also simply use "were" <S> People who never married were the second largest group in both years <A> Contribute means to help, to give something, to participate: <S> This author contributes to our magazine. <S> This factor contributes to the majority of aircraft accidents. <S> I suggest the following wordings for the second sentence: <S> People who never married made up the second largest group in both years. <S> People who never married formed the second largest group in both years. <S> or even: <S> The second largest group in both years consisted of people who never married. <A> I would use other verbs: formed/belonged in the most dominant/the second largest group <A> I believe the synonym you seek is: comprised . <S> from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: "to be made up of" <S> The factory was to be a vast installation, comprising fifty buildings. <S> Jane Jacobs <S> The play comprises three acts. <S> in your example, you would simply replace contributed with comprised ; thus resulting in the following: People who never married comprised the second largest group in both years as others have said, the word contribute should not be used in the manner of your example.
| "Constituted" is both semantically and grammatically correct the way you are using it.
|
Can the passive voice be used without a subject For example in this sentence: "Your message was sent" I think here sent is not the past form. It's an adjective right? Or isn't it? <Q> Technically speaking, your sentence does have a subject: <S> Your message was sent. <S> with <S> your message being the subject. <S> Your example is correct. <S> If you want additionally to specify who performed the action, introduce them with by : <S> The book was written by him. <A> You are right! "sent" is not a past tense verb; it's a form of past participle. <S> The subject 1 in your sentence is your message . <S> ACTIVE : <S> Someone subject sent past tense verb your message PASSIVE : <S> Your message subject was sent past participle by someone <S> The passive structure with the by-phrase is called a long passive ; the passive structure without the by-phrase is called a short passive . <S> 1 <S> The subject is not necessarily the doer of the action. <S> See 5.1 subject and predictate <A> You sent a message. <S> What happened? <S> "sent". <S> Who "sent"? <S> You. <S> Subject: You Predicate: sent Object: (a) message Your message was sent. <S> What happened? "was sent". <S> What "was sent"? <S> Your message. <S> Subject: <S> (Your) message Predicate: was sent <A> All sentences need subjects (except in some conversational English). <S> The confusion lies in the difference between active and passive. <S> The key difference isn't word form, it's the function . <S> In the active voice, the subject does the action, while in the passive voice, the subject receives the action. <S> Therefore, in this sentence: You sent the message. <S> "You" is the subject, and does the action (sending the message). <S> However, in this sentence: Your message was sent. <S> "Your message" is the subject, and it receives the action of sending. <S> How do we know that "your message" is the subject? <S> One simple way is to notice that it's before the verb. <S> Remember that in English, the subject comes before the verb except in some poetry and really old literature. <S> Another, more contextual, way you can identify the subject is by remembering that in the passive voice, the subject receives the action.
| The past participle is needed in prototypical passive structure. In English passive structure, the by-phrase (by someone here) can be omitted if you think it's unimportant or if it's unknown.
|
What is a non-integer string? My English is not so good. Can someone please tell me what a non-integer string is? <Q> What is probably meant by non-integer string is the ascii representation of some input which would not evaluate to a number, <S> the is not consisting of only numeric digits [0 <S> ...9] <S> 17 <S> 123456789 <S> 0xabc <S> are all examples of integers. <S> any other characters [a... <S> z, A...Z] and other non-digit characters would be fine. <A> More context would be fine, but my programming background hints me that a non-integer string is one that is not a text representation of an integer value. <S> Some examples of integer strings: 45 <S> -5 <S> +100500 <S> 0xffab <S> etc, that is, any format format for integers as accepted by, say, scanf or atoi functions. <A> This is a computer-related term. <S> String refers to a sequence of characters that is used as data. <S> The characters can include letters, numbers, and symbols. <S> An integer is a "whole" number, i.e., a number with no decimal or fractional portion. <S> If you are referring to a single digit, that is an integer. <S> Numerical values can be used for mathematical calculations. <S> Non-numerical values can't, they are treated as text. <S> But numbers can also be treated like text. <S> "String" typically refers to data that is treated as text. <S> "Non-integer string" includes both a number reference and a text reference, implying that your source is using a more general definition of "string", to include any sequence of characters (text or numerical), so I'll assume that here. <S> To complicate things, data can be stored as a predefined type, which ensures that it will be used in the intended way. <S> Text is one type. <S> Numeric data can be stored as an integer value or a "floating point" value, which is a number that can have a fractional part. <S> A string isn't limited to a stored value, it can be created on-the-fly. <S> That can include expressions or formulas that are evaluated by the software to produce a string. <S> Also, a string of numerical data that is stored as text, or results from manipulating text, can be converted by the software into a number that can then be used in calculations. <S> So non-integer string could refer to a number of things depending on how precisely the term is being used, or the context, including but probably not limited to: a sequence of characters that does not evaluate to a numerical value that can be used in a math calculation a sequence of characters that does not evaluate to an integer characters stored as a datatype of text numerical values stored as a floating point number
| A non-integer string is everything else.
|
Describing the position of elements of a web page Here is a screenshot of the Visual Dictionary Online website's homepage as displayed in my browser: My question is: How would you refer to the position of the image of the reindeer on the web page? In this case, I don't want you to tell me the reindeer is "above the Image of the Week box", or "below the heron", etc.; i.e., I don't want its position expressed in relation to other elements of the web page; the only thing allowed for now is the page itself, which you may picture as a blank sheet of paper with our buddy Rudolph on it. I'm only insisting on this requirement because those (other) elements may not be present on other web pages. I'd describe the position of the reindeer like this: 1a. The picture of the reindeer is at the right side of the web page. 1b. The picture of the reindeer is on the right side of the web page. 1c. The picture of the reindeer is in the upper-right section/area/quadrant of the web page. The second question is regarding the position of the Search button, which is located just below the navigation bar, in the middle: How would you describe the position of the Search button with respect to the Google Custom Search search field? My attempt: 2a. The Search button is (located) to the right of the search field . 2b. The Search button is next to the search field, at the right . 2c. The Search button is next to the search field, on the right . <Q> It really depends on how specific you want to be. <S> None of the sentences are grammatically incorrect, so the specificity is the only real difference between them. <S> With regards to 1a and 1b , they're basically equivalent. <S> I think on sounds slightly better than at , but it wouldn't be a mistake to use at in this context. <S> They both say the picture is on the right side of the page, but that doesn't specify its height on the right side. <S> It could be right at the top, right at the bottom or anywhere in between. <S> If you want to be specific, 1c is the most so. <S> With the second set of sentences, 2a is the least specific. <S> Depending on the web page fluency of the person reading, they may know contextually that Search buttons are almost always directly next to their search fields. <S> However, if they are not too fluent, that might not be clear with 2a . <S> Because of this, I would opt for 2b or 2c . <S> Again, I think on sounds better, but either is fine. <A> To describe the portions of your layout example, you might use The reindeer is located at the top of the third column underneath the banner header and navigation bar. <S> In UI layout, the last column (third column in this case) is always on the right, and the reindeer is at the top of that column. <S> The search box is just under the navigation bar at the top of the middle column . <S> For UI layout, you can use a grid system similar to Bootstap or Foundation where column define the horizontal locations on the page. <S> The vertical locations are usually then determined by content which " float " within the columns. <S> The basic layout of the page is 1) <S> header banner <S> 2) <S> navigation bar 3) search bar <S> 4) three columns 4-a) <S> top of first column is a an image search box, then a theme <S> navigation sidebar followed by social media links 4-b) <S> middle column is the main body with examples and explanations 4-c) <S> third column is the advertising sidebar <A> In idiomatic English, the audience being average native speakers with no knowledge of web-design terminology... <S> Taking into account your direction to imagine the page as otherwise empty (no banner, no columns, no other images or divisions): <S> Now for the search button: The search button is located immediately to the right of or just to the right of the Google Custom Search box.
| The reindeer picture is located in the top right quadrant of the page or almost at the very top right of the page .
|
"In the world" or "across the world"? I am confused when to use 'in' and 'across' when I am saying something like This food is the most expensive in the world. or Japan has the biggest aquarium in the world. I think "in the world" is correct for the sentences I wrote. But when should I use "across"? Would the sentence still be correct if I said Japan has the biggest aquarium across the world? <Q> If you are making a comparison (which includes superlatives), "in" refers to the population from which you are making the comparison. <S> The biggest X in Y refers to the biggest X of the examples found in Y. "Across" refers to dispersion; M-W defines it as meaning "throughout". <S> For example, French-speaking people "across" <S> Europe refers to French-speaking people wherever they might be throughout Europe. <S> So to your examples, you might say, "This food is the most expensive in the world" (correct), or "This food has become expensive across Asia", meaning throughout Asia. <S> "Japan has <S> the biggest aquarium in the world" would be at least grammatically correct. <S> "Aquariums have become popular across the world" or more idiomatic, <S> "Aquariums have become popular worldwide" would be an example of usage for "across". <A> Japan has the biggest aquarium in the world. <S> is the correct sentence, if you wanted to use across , you might say If you search across the world, you will find Japan has the biggest aquarium. <S> Usually for superlatives in the world is used. <S> He is the fastest in the world. <S> They are the tallest in the world. <S> London is the most expensive city in the world. <S> Maybe you can think of it as across the world <S> describes an expanse , whereas in the world describes a location, but sometimes they can be interchanged <S> Ray's pizza is the best pizza in NYC. <S> Ray's pizza is the best pizza across NYC. <A> Today's events happen to provide an excellent example <S> British Airways is the only airlines in the world, to have cancelled all of their flights across the world.
| When you talk about "across the world", the term "worldwide" is more typically used.
|
Sentence improvement : through the proper channels vs through proper channels Which among the following sentence is best to choose considering it is asked in a MCQ pattern based exam ? Your complaint must be made through the proper channels A) through proper channel B) through proper channels C) with proper channels D) no improvement Given options should replace just the bold part of the sentence. C is grammatically wrong. A is also wrong as it changes meaning here. (Changes channels to channel). I am confused between option B and D. Do we need use here the article the or not ? <Q> The idiom is through the proper channels <S> so D would be correct, it is fine as is. <A> The best choice here is D) <S> no improvement . <S> Both through the proper channels and through proper channels (without a definite article) can be used, but in this case the definite article is better because the speaker presumably means some particular "proper channels". <S> You might imagine the conversation in real life continuing like this: <S> Your complaint must be made through the proper channels. <S> Start by submitting a work order request on our website, and if you aren't satisfied you can file an appeal with the Board of Overseers. <S> I suspect the definite article is much more common in the imperative for this reason, even though you can find many examples of the phrase without an article in other contexts . <A> Channel means System or Method <S> so Channels is Wrong because it is not done by multiple methods or systems.
| It is THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL which means THROUGH PROPER METHOD or THROUGH PROPER SYSTEM which is correct grammatically.
|
"My older brother, Ted, is a good ten years older than me". Does 'good' mean 'at least or more' in this case? Below is a paragraph in my English textbook: Andrea - There are six of us in our family, my parents, me, the twins and my older brother, Ted. Ted is a good ten years older than me and the twins – they are girls – are two years younger than me. We had a good childhood out in the countryside. My parents were always busy with the farm and so we didn't get the help with school work and things like that that children get today. But my parents were very loving, especially my father. I regret not helping more around the farm because now I realise that it must have been very hard for my parents, especially as my grandparents lived so far away. Source: http://sinhngu.com/f_view.asp?CID=1908&QID=17677 The Oxford Dictionary says the word 'good' in this case means 5.1 Used to emphasize that a number is at least as great as one claims. ‘they're a good twenty years younger’ The Longman Dictionary also gives the similar meaning: a good three miles/ten years etc at least three miles, ten years etc, and probably more He’s a good ten years younger than her. However, I feel it quite strange. Because if Ted is a person who Andrea hasn't known yet, then she can guess he is at least ten years older than her (by looking at his appearance or his photograph). In the passage above, Ted is her older brother, then Andrea must know exactly how old Ted is. He must be ten years older than her. It cannot be less than or more than 10 years (8, 9, 11 or 12 years). That's why I feel it quite strange when I understand the meaning of that sentence: '...Ted is at least and probably more ten years older than me...' Could you kindly tell me whether I have understood that sentence correctly? <Q> She is not saying Ted is a good ten years older than me <S> because she doesn't know how old he is, she is saying this to show the spread in ages within her family and emphasizing that Ted is much older than she is, and she is closer in age to the twins. <S> By saying this, one might expect that Ted would be in a different stage of life while growing up than the speaker is. <S> If you know of families where there is a large ge gap between the kids, you will know what I am referring to. <A> Using "good" with measurements is not necessarily an indication of equal to or greater . <S> Often it's just used for emphasis . <S> I live so far out from a city that I have to drive a good hour just to get to a grocery story. <S> In the above sentence it doesn't matter whether the drive is exactly an hour or more than an hour. <S> The point is that it's a long drive . <S> It's the same in your example. <S> Andrea is perfectly aware how old her brother is, so with the use of "good" she emphasizes the difference in their ages. <A> I want to add on to Andrew's answer above by adding an antonym suggestion as well, for comparison. <S> Ted is a good ten years older than me. <S> In the above sentence, a good suggests that the amount should be interpreted as significant. <S> It is essentially the opposite of just in the sentence below: <S> Ted is just ten years older than me. <S> In each case they suggest an importance of the value: a good suggests that one should interpret the amount given as significant. <S> By contrast, just suggests that one should consider the amount given as insignificant. <A> The question already includes references <S> so I guess what the questioner is looking for is experiences and opinion. <S> even if it isn't bigger, it isn't much smaller. <S> And if it is bigger it's still a good guess. <S> E.g. <S> "a good 20 miles" is probably between 19 and 25 miles, and most likely closer to 21 miles. <S> "At least 20 miles" on the other hand is equal to or greater than 20 miles, but it could be a lot greater.
| In my experience "a good" is used to indicate a some uncertainty about the exact value but that it is probably bigger thant he given number and
|
What is the difference between "normal" and "regular"? We were required to wear uniform on ____ school days. A. normal B. regular C. common D. ordinary I think in a way the four options all work. But the answer is regular. Why? <Q> Your sentence should read, as Peter points out: <S> We were required to wear uniform s on ____ school days. <S> Having gone to a school where uniforms were mandatory, I believe the word you are seeking is normal . <S> This is the word we employed at school. <S> The word <S> normal in most cases can be used in place of the remaining three words: regular, common, and ordinary. <S> I would say that regular is not a good fix, especially if the school lodges students, since weekends are also considered "school days" at some schools, even if one does not attend classes. <S> Normal school days <S> where days in which classes were held (Monday through Friday) <S> and we made exception of days like Sports Day or Picnic Day . <S> These sort of days were not normal days at <S> our school and school attire was not enforced on students. <S> Regular school days to me gives to me a sense of time frame. <S> Sports Day could still be a regular school day: 8:00 AM - 3:00 PM. <S> But it is not a normal school as classes are suspended for the day! <A> In your sentence We were required to wear uniform s on ____ school days. <S> " uniform " should be plural since presumably the entire student body is being referred to. <S> All four options are possible normal school days <S> regular school days <S> common school days ordinary school days <S> However " common " may have the meaning of " unified " or " joint " depending on how the school is structured. <S> For example, if the " upper " school and " lower " schools are separate, when they are brought together it may be referred to as " common ", or if there are " sister " schools, when they are brought together. <A> With given options, even I'd go for 'regular.' <S> Why? <S> When it comes to days: <S> A normal school day means that it was 'just normal,' and not hecticor something like that <S> The word <S> common could be a close one but in the context of a school <S> I incline toward regularity <S> Ordinary to me is the same as 'normal.' <S> It was just an ordinary day - nothing special. <S> ' <S> Regular' is the only word I feel goes there. <S> And, even in collocation 'regular uniform' is pretty common. <S> Check this: <S> I have two uniforms: regular and sports! <S> Place <S> any of those words instead of 'regular,' in the given example, and you won't feel comfortable. <S> [In schools, regularity is of major concern!] <S> :)
| " Normal ", " regular ", and " ordinary " have the meaning of " routine ".
|
A word to describe someone who expects you to act one way but does not act in the same way What is it called when someone expects you to act or do something a certain way, that they consider "right" or "acceptable", but does not act or do what they expect from you, to you in return? Is there another word or term other than "self-entitled", if that is even a fit, itself? It's been driving me crazy trying to pin point a word that fits this description. <Q> You might be looking for hypocrite . <S> hypocrite <S> someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere: <S> He's a hypocrite <S> - he's always lecturing other people on the environment but he drives around in a huge car. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> I'm not entirely sure what "self-entitled" means. <S> Perhaps entitled to yourself? <S> I think the one you might be think of is the following. <S> Note that it doesn't seem to fit. <S> entitled adjective (usually disapproving) <S> feeling that you have a right to the good things in life without necessarily having to work for them &bullet <S> ; He's so entitled! <S> • The college attracts both the entitled children of wealthy parents and a large number of scholarship students. <S> (OALD) <A> With respect to @Max <S> I wish to add that " hypocrite " is a noun, while you can also use the adjective " hypocritical ". <S> Also notice that this word carries an offensive degree. <S> I know you are looking for a single word, yet I wish to add that there is an idiom: <S> Not walk the walk - Not to back up one's talk with action. <S> Usually in combination with " talk the talk " talk the talk ... walk the walk - <S> If you say that someone talks the talk but does not walk the walk, you mean that they do not act in a way that agrees with the things they say. <S> A phrase to mean the same thing would be " <S> He doesn't practice what he preaches " In Russian <S> we have the word " противоречивый " - inconsistent <S> that means: if a person says that something should be done in a certain way but doesn't do it himself, or says one thing but does the other, or claims for a certain behavior toward him but expects another. <S> In this case he's inconsistent, or his actions are inconsistent, or his words are inconsistent, or even both. <A> If you are not of equal social status: Hypocrite (or self-entitled) isn't the right word here. <S> Take a king for example, he expects you to bow before him, but he won't bow before you. <S> If you are of equal social status: The person might still not be a hypocrite. <S> Think of a smoker that tells you not to smoke. <S> It's a good piece of advice, but he isn't following his own directions. <S> Just because someone doesn't do what he is preaching doesn't make the advice is bad or the person is a hypocrite (or self-entitled). <S> So to conclude everything, you could say his ratio of giving advice (or having expectations) vs. following own advice (or fulfilling the expectations from another man's perspective) is bad. <S> But there is no word for it that I know of. <A> Someone who calls the scorched kettle black, and is meanwhile scorched black themselves, is a pot . <S> As in the expression, " the pot calling the kettle black ": "The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that seems to have been of Spanish origin, versions of which began to appear in English in the first half of the 17th century. <S> It is glossed in the original sources as being used of a person who is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another and is thus an example of psychological projection. <S> (Wikipedia) <A> What about Pharisee ? <S> A Google search gives as second definition: a self-righteous or hypocritical person Wikipedia <S> give some more explanation here : <S> Because of the New Testament's frequent depictions of Pharisees as self-righteous rule-followers (see also Woes of the Pharisees and Legalism (theology)), the word "pharisee" (and its derivatives: "pharisaical", etc.) has come into semi-common usage in English to describe a hypocritical and arrogant person who places the letter of the law above its spirit. <S> Jews today who subscribe to Pharisaic Judaism typically find this insulting and some consider the use of the word to be anti-Semitic. <S> Note the last sentence, though... <S> See also Matthew 23:3 <S> So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. <S> But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
| I think the word you're thinking of is simply entitled , which has a few different meanings.
|
Is there any difference between the pronunciation of "Write" and "Right"? I made a little research but I found very difficult to discriminate their pronunciation. Also, I think that in informal speech it's harder to distinguish than in a slow and clear voice. Then, in practice, Is there any difference between the pronunciation of "Write" and "Right"? Or the difference comes through the context that they are placed in. In addition, if you could help me with a non-specific question: Should I try to be more clear in my pronunciation rather than try to be more similar to native (US, UK, etc.) pronunciation? I ask this because sometimes when I try to speak with a better pronunciation (like trying to remove my portuguese accent), it turns out to be more unclear, indistinguishable. Thank you! <Q> " Right " and " Write " are both pronounced as [rʌɪt]. <S> There is no difference in pronunciation by grammar defaults, however, depending on the dialect it may slightly vary. <S> Concerning your additional question, two things should be cleared out: <S> Try to be as clear as possible and try to sound lucid so anybody can understand the words you speak. <S> Try to bring in some British or American accent into your voice little by little without ruining your clarity. <S> I, myself, am not a native speaker but I always try to copy people who speak fluently and with clarity. <S> I especially love book reader. <S> Their voice and clarity is almost always amazing. <A> (At least in BrE, <S> and I'm pretty sure elsewhere) <S> There is no difference in pronunciation between "right" and "write", it's all about context. <A> Write' is spoken with the lips more pursed and 'right' is spoken with tongue further back in the mouth pointing upward toward hard palate. <S> There must be a difference in sound but difficult for most to distinguish. <S> Maybe the differences do lie in dialectic differences, I speak with a Southern accent.
| I believe there is a difference in speaking the words 'write' and 'right'. '
|
Usage of "have got" Can I use have got in sentences like these? My mother wants to have got a child (or) My mother wants to have a child. He may/might/could/can/should (modal verbs) have got a car (or) he (modal verbs) have a car. Can I use have got in future form? I think have got can be used in past tense, except progressive, past perfect, present perfect and future tense. He had got a motorcycle / he had a motorcycle. He has got a red apple / He has a red apple. He will have got a dog / He is having got a dog / He has had got a dog / He had had got a dog. The correct are: He will have a dog / He is having a dog / He has had a dog / He had had a dog. <Q> If have is being used in the rather abstracty/vague sense of "to experience" or "to consume" (but often stands in for a more specific verb), have got can't be substituted and still mean an emphatic form of have in the same sense. <S> Have got in these instances will change the sentence to where it means to obtain something rather than consume something. <S> I had some cereal = <S> (I experienced some cereal - I ate some cereal) <S> I had got some cereal = <S> (I obtained some cereal - <S> I have a box or bowl of it but haven't necessarily eaten it yet) <S> I had some of my medicine and now feel better. <S> I had got some of my medicine. <S> (I can't feel better because I am now holding it but haven't necessarily consumed it) <S> I had sex yesterday. <S> I had got sex yesterday <S> (Sounds <S> like I had to do or trade something to get it.) <A> When have is being used as a modal verb (or helper verb), then you cannot use "have got". <S> This is true for possessive uses of have: I have three dollars. <A> The pertintent point here is that 'to have a baby' means, when said by a woman, 'to go through the process of pregnancy and end up with a child'. <S> If you use 'have got', it sounds like you've been given a baby, as in, been chosen to adopt one, or that you have just kidnapped a child. <S> A babysnatcher bringing home a baby would say 'I've got a baby', and an infertile couple granted <S> one by an adoption board would also say 'we've got a baby'. <S> An infertile woman may want to have a baby, but she would not say 'I want to have got a baby'. <S> If waiting for an adoption board decision, she would say 'I want to be given a baby.
| When have is being used as a main verb, you can replace it with "have got", but only in the present tense.
|
What does it mean "to talk over someone"? I saw this video where two policemen, in three different times tell citizens "Don't talk over me" (0:12) or "you are talking over me" (3:37 also 3:44). It seems that all of these mentions in the video are with the same meaning. Anyway I don't know what it means but based on the context, I can guess that the meaning is "don't talk to me in a way that you are over me or better than me". Isn't it? I searched for the meaning on this online dictionary and I'm not sure which one of the definitions matches this context, if any. talk over Discuss thoroughly, as in Let's talk over the entire plan and see if we discover any flaws. [First half of 1700s] Win someone over by persuasion, as in We talked them over to our point of view. [First half of 1800s] Also see talk around.See also: talk talk over v.1. To consider something thoroughly in conversation; discuss something: We talked the matter over. The panel talked over the proposal. To succeed in gaining the favor or support of someone by persuasion: We talked them over to our side. To speak and be heard amid some loud noise: It is impossible to talk over the noise of the machines. <Q> When a person is the object of the preposition over , "talking over" is a type of interruption. <S> The policeman was saying something, and the other person started talking before the policeman had finished all of what he was going to say. <S> Often when a person is interrupted, they will stop talking and let the other person go ahead and make their statement. <S> However, the original speaker may not stop talking when the other person starts, expecting that the other person will quickly realize that they need to go back to listening and stop their interruption. <S> When this does not happen, and both people end up speaking at the same time, the interrupter is said to be "talking over" the original person. <S> When someone is being persuaded, the phrasal-verb construction requires that the phrasal verb be 'split', with the object coming between the verb and the phrasal particle: "I talked him over". <S> When someone is being interrupted, they will be placed after the preposition: "I talked over him". <A> Here, talked over isn't a phrasal verb. <S> The word talk is the verb, and over is the preposition, meaning: <S> Higher in volume or pitch than : <S> He shouted over the noise of the taxis <S> (That definition is found in Oxford Living Dictionary , definition 2.5.) <S> So the policeman is effectively saying, "Don't shout and drown out what I am saying; be quiet." <A> It doesn't have anything to do with rank or social status or anything like that. <S> The situation can vary, but the term doesn't necessarily imply it happened in a certain order <S> , two people both talking at the same time are talking over each other, no matter who was the first to start talking. <S> It could be that one person interrupted the other, or perhaps two people started talking simultaneously, and neither stopped to allow the other to continue. <S> It also doesn't necessarily imply the person "talking over" is being rude. <S> In fact, you would expect a teacher to "talk over" her rowdy students (or perhaps stop the lecture to correct them). <S> In that case it is the students being rude. <S> It doesn't imply anything about loudness, either, although two people trying to talk over each other can definitely escalate in volume. <S> In your context, it simply means that the people in the video are talking to the police officer at the same time that the officer is attempting to give important instructions. <S> The police officer is telling them that they need to shut up and listen.
| "Talking over" someone simply means " continuing to talk even while the other person is talking " (or making some other noise).
|
Why are nice picture/gif/video about foo called "foo-porn"? I was browsing Reddit and I discovered many subreddits named after foo-porn , to name just a few: /r/Earth Porn /r/Food Porn /r/Map_ Porn /r/rural porn /r/shockwave porn /r/Sky Porn /r/unix porn It seems that foo-porn means nice picture/gif/video of foo , which are absolutely suitable for work. As far as I know however, usually "porn" means "pornography". Actually, searching the keyword porn with Bing.com even gives me something like: Your country or region requires a strict Bing SafeSearch setting, which filters out results that might return adult content. To learn more about SafeSearch requirements in your country or region, see How Bing delivers search results. My question is: Why are nice picture/gif/video about foo called "foo-porn", even if foo is completely not related to pornography? <Q> A definition of porn could be gratuitous images/moving images of naked people and sex acts intended to excite and arouse . <S> The use of foo-porn implies the use of this definition, but replacing "naked people and sex acts" with "foo" . <S> From Cambridge Dictionary : <S> porn - pictures, books, television programmes , newspaper articles, etc. <S> that are intended to be exciting for people interested in a particular subject or particular product <A> Its a humorous extension of its original meaning. <S> "Porn" in its original meaning of sex-porn (for want of a better term) means images that people like to look at because they create pleasant sexual sensations and emotions. <S> Hence "food-porn" means images that people like to look at because they create pleasant sensations and emotions associated with food, and so on for the other examples. <S> Edit: <S> this article on CNN has some "ruin porn" along with a discussion of the meaning of the term and how it frames the topic. <A> I (speculate) that it has something to do with it being a Supernormal Stimulus . <S> A picture of people can be made more and more pornographic by makeup and poses and clothing which accentuates the desirable sexual characteristics. <S> Even more by careful use of lighting and camera angles. <S> Again more, by surgical enhancement. <S> More and more by image editing afterwards, and by the presentation, until the picture has gone from interesting to eye-catching and attention arresting and driving the viewer wild. <S> Similarly, photos of the planet are not Earth-porn, not even if they're pretty. <S> But if they're an extreme place (cliffs, desert, mountains), taken at an unusual time (dawn, dusk, solar event), taken with High Dynamic Range image processing, with careful composition, image editing ... then they take the "nice picture" response right the way up to "wow!". <S> e.g. this is not earth-porn: <S> But this is: <S> Even though they are both fields. <S> I think it's that deliberate raising and raising of wow factors all the way to maximum which differentiates between classic foo-enthusiasm and foo-porn. <S> The focus is no longer on the content for itself - where the field is, who uses it, what techniques they use for farming, how they protect crops from birds, who was on holiday when they took the picture - the kind of things an enthusiast of 'foo' might be interested in. <S> The focus is now on the WOW factor of the picture, the content could be substituted for any content without it mattering. <S> The content is less important. <S> Gun enthusiasts care about guns, gun-porn cares about making the viewer think 'wow'. <S> Train enthusiasts care about trains, train-porn cares about making the viewer think 'wow'. <S> And so porn is the first, most common, most popular thing which used that technique, so <S> the name comes from there, and the more extreme more taboo, rude, term wins out over any normal everyday term like 'processed pictures' or 'nice pictures' or whatever. <A> " X -porn" means people are fetishizing X . <S> Here's another example: <S> Back when Cheers was on TV, people used to describe it as "time porn" -- the people on the show had huge gobs of leisure time, which normal people could only sit there and drool over (i.e., be envious of). <S> "Time porn" implied impossible, exciting, even forbidden amounts of free time. <A> -porn has come to mean a perfect, idealized version of the item discussed. <S> The first I ran into this suffix use was food-porn. <S> It was used for the cooking shows and magazines that showed a perfect dish that was filmed or shot by camera multiple times to get it right. <S> In the end, it looks easy, and perfect at the same time. <S> Vacation-porn and retirement-porn soon followed. <S> As if there were some perfect way to do either of these. <A> The comment referred to in the FAQ entry states he coined the term "foodporn" when he discussed how many cooking shows use techniques - lighting, camera angles, et al -- to entice the audience that were pioneered in the porn industry. <S> Since then, usage of the term has spread to other topics. <S> I've mostly seen it used on Reddit, though. <S> I'm not sure if everybody would understand it in other contexts. <A> Okay: <S> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pornografic -- <S> > <S> 2nd meaning: <S> obscene http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obscene "causing uncontrolled sexual desire" <S> The result of uncontrolled desire is amongst others the inability of looking away. <S> Now if you have a group of people that like certain things that usually also means they like looking at those things. <S> Therefore a list of things that you like looking at is obscene/pornografic as it makes it hard for you to look away.
| According to the FAQ of /r/EarthPorn, the term originates with Anthony Bourdain , who has hosted various culinary TV programs.
|
What is a very general term or phrase for a course that is not online? I'm trying to find the most general term or phrase for the opposite of "online course". When a course is not online, but in a classroom, or anywhere else people interact in the same place, not through a computer, how would I call it? I'm translating some words used in messages and labels in a e-learning web application used by companies. So, I'm trying to find the right answer for a course, instead of online, took in a classroom or any corporate environment. I choose "Face-to-Face", but don't know if it's the best. <Q> I think there are a number of ways to say this. <S> I'm not sure which is the most common or conventional though. <S> In-person class/course On-campus class/course Traditional class/course Offline class/course <S> In-class course 4 seems might seem like an obvious opposite, but it sounds a little silly to me. <S> I personally would use 2. <S> If for some reason the place where the classes are held is not called a "campus", then my next choice would be 1. <S> Edit: Face-to-face might work depending on the context. <S> It might not be the best option though because instructions and lessons can be given face-to-face via Skype, for example. <S> Edit: Upon reconsideration, using face-to-face for Skype lessons does seem like a stretch. <S> There were lots of accurate hits on Google for face-to-face classes meaning a class taken in a classroom. <A> Other terms I’ve seen used include: resident, on-campus, classroom, and even traditional . <S> There are used adjectively, in phrases such as: resident sections, on-campus classes, classroom environment, traditional courses , etc. <S> This Google search shows many examples of face-to-face being used to describe classes traditional classroom courses that are not online. <S> Another term used in educational circles nowadays is blended learning . <S> A blended course meets face-to-face but is supplemented with online components. <A> As far as I know, there is no hypernym for "classes which are not online". <S> You could qualify such classes as "on-site" or "physical"; but except in a context where online and non-online have already been clearly distinguished this is going to read/sound rather clunky. <S> What you're asking for is a term to "mark" an "unmarked" category, which is usually going to be awkward. <A> those institutions that present both types (like Manhattan prep, Kaplan, ...) use "In-class" <A>
| Typically, face-to-face classes is the term used for these classes. I have heard "in-seat" to describe a class that is not "on-line".
|
The difference between the meanings of two sentences 1) I will tell you when he comes. and 2) I will tell you when he will come. Is the difference between the two sentences (apart having different tenses) the answer, one the first does not need any answer more a kind of info but second is a question and need a precise answer <Q> Comes in this case almost always means arrives . <S> I will tell you when he will come usually means that, before he actually arrives, I will tell you when he intends to come. <S> Neither sentence calls for an answer, since they are not posed as questions. <A> I will tell you when he comes. <S> Means that you will send a notification upon his (the person you're expecting to arrive) arrival. <S> I will tell you when he will come. <S> Means that you will send the information in relation to the time (schedule, in general) of his (the person you're expecting to arrive) arrival. <S> Note that the word ' when ' here was not used in an interrogative fashion. <S> You may refer here . <A> I think <S> "I will tell you when he comes" is grammatically correct. <S> "when he comes" is an adverb clause of time and in the adverbial clause of time we use present tense <S> but it gives future meaning. <S> It is also correct in cases of other adverb clauses of time. <S> For example: I will go as soon as he comes. <S> If it rains, I will not go. <S> https://www.englishgrammar.org/adverb-clause-time/
| I will tell you when he comes , usually means that I will inform you when he has actually arrived.
|
Don't your father have a mother? Is it grammatically correct to say Don't your father have a mother? I would prefer Doesn't your father not have a mother? <Q> Neither of these are good options, though your version is at least grammatically correct. <S> Doesn't your father not have a mother? <S> This is a phrasing that implies you know the answer already <S> and you're merely asking for confirmation. <S> Another way of phrasing this is: <S> Your father doesn't have a mother, right? <S> If you're using have to imply "is alive", you're telling someone rather forcibly: "your father's mother is dead". <S> This is sort of rude, at the very least. <S> But it is better to some degree because it doesn't have the second negation. <S> Doesn't your father have a mother? <S> This is a slightly better option - it means: <S> Your father has a mother, right? <S> Or, again, if you're intending for have to mean "is alive", it would mean Your father's mother is alive, right? <S> Alternately, the version recommended by Versatile and Affordable is less rude because you're simply asking for information, not assuming you already know the answer: <S> Does your father not have a mother? <S> In this case, depending on how it's spoken, it can actually show concern. <S> All that said, all of these are non-standard. <S> When trying to ascertain if someone's still alive or not, we don't say "have". <S> Everyone has a mother and a father (genetically and literally speaking – I'll not go beyond that). <S> If you want to be reminded if someone's grandparent is still living, please be more exact: <S> Is your father's mother still alive? <S> Is your paternal grandmother still living? <S> Or, if you're reasonably certain <S> she's alive, <S> Your paternal grandmother is still alive, right? <A> You are correct that Doesn't your father not have a mother? <S> is correct since " father " is third person singular. <A> No, it is not correct to say <S> Don't your father have a mother? <S> Because the father is 3rd person singular <S> (=he, she, it) which gets only " does ", saying that we can not refer to him in auxiliary verb of 1st and 2nd persons ( "do" ). <S> The correct sentence is: Does your father not have a mother? <S> It is because the structure of the negative interrogative sentence is as follow: <S> Auxiliary verb <S> > <S> Subject > not > Verb <S> > <S> object <S> In your example: <S> Auxiliary verb <S> (=Does) <S> > <S> Subject <S> (=your father) <S> > <S> not > <S> Verb (=have) <S> > <S> object <S> (=a mother) <S> Take a small tip for such questions: <S> Compare your sentence with: "Does he not have mother" and replace the pronoun (=subject) <S> "he" with "your father" (=subject) <S> and you'll find the answer quickly. <S> Regarding to the second sentence that you wrote: Doesn't your father not have a mother? <S> It does not match the grammar rules of formal English which I studied.
| The original version, with don't , is incorrect grammatically.
|
Singular and plural form in a section title This is a quick short question, but it hinders me every time when I write a section title. For example, if I want to use a single word 'question' as a section title, should I use it in a singular form ('question') or in a plural form ('questions')? I assume the same rule goes for every other case. PS. The supposed 'question(s)' section will contain a number of questions. <Q> For a form, the title of a section containing multiple questions will generally have this format: → <S> Questions → Questions concerning/about [noun phrase] e.g. Questions concerning duration of residence → [noun phrase] questions <S> e.g. Homeownership questions <S> In a book or academic paper, you might use a determiner and/or an adjective: <S> → Some questions concerning/about [noun phrase] e.g. <S> Some questions about the status of pronouns → A few more difficult questions <S> This would be seen as somewhat more conversational and prosaic, rather than official and formulaic. <S> Note that a playful website might also have something along those more conversational lines: → A few quick questions about your background <A> If there is just one question, it is normal to just put a short form of the question in the section title. <S> If there is more than one question, Luke has three good suggestions: Questions <S> <Topic <S> > questions Questions about <topic> <S> Some writing style guides suggest using "Sentence case" in section titles. <A> You can give the title whichever name you want, however, notice that depending on the name you give the reader will think different. <S> You can, for instance, give such a name: <S> Questions <S> The questions <S> A whole lot of questions <S> A number of questions <S> Certain questions <S> Many questions Or some other way. <S> Edit: <S> A saucerful of questions <S> A pocketful of questions.
| Other writing style guides suggest using "Title Case" in section titles.
|
What day is it? vs. what date is it? Google search result for both questions are the same: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 . I wonder if I can use these 2 sentences interchangeably. What day is it? What date is it? <Q> What day is it? <S> Tuesday. <S> What date is it? <S> [Tuesday] the 6th of June, 2017. <S> That being said, it's possible that when you ask What day is it? <S> that the person who responds has realized that you're looking for the date, rather than the name of the current day. <S> For example, when you're filling in a form and it's obvious that you need to write today's date. <S> But that's an inference on their part, and not inherently understandable from just your question (without any surrounding context). <A> For my opinion, sometimes they can be used correctly interchangeably but you cannot always use these two sentences interchangeably because each one of them may have a totally different meaning. <S> Google indeed gives the same answer for both sentences, but as you know google is limited with its artificial intelligence and it can be seen well on Google translate... <S> Well, notice that the meaning of: What day is it? <S> may refer to each one of the following: Day in a week : Sun, Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat. <S> Day in a month <S> : 1st, 2nd, 3rd... - 31th. <S> Characters : <S> Hot, cold, bad, good, etc. <S> Holidays : <S> Father's day, Mother's day, Family day etc. <S> while: What date is it? <S> may refer to: a numbered day in a month a sweet fruit of various types of palm tree <S> see here more meanings for the word "date". <S> Anyway, in the end of the day you can conclude by yourself that it is not always can be used interchangeably:) <A> I agree with the top answer. <S> They are NOT interchangeable ... !!! <S> What day is it? <S> Always refers to the DAY OF THE WEEK. <S> What date is it? <S> Refers to wanting to know what date of the month/year it is. <S> For example in Australia or UK <S> we say and write the following: 12th of January, 2019 or 12-01 <S> -19/2019 <S> [[ Most people use only the 19 for the year, but I use the long version of the year most of the time, Depending on space requirements.]] <S> American numeric order would be - 01-12-19/2019 <S> I'm only guessing here, but they probably say the month first over there as in January 12 2019 if not fully numeric... <S> They call it 9/11 which to me is 11th of September 11-09-01Aussie here though :) <S> Have a good one
| They are not interchangeable, as they ask different things.
|
Why has "strangely" been used instead of "strange" in the sentence "Harry felt strangely"? Isn't "feel" a linking verb here? If so, shouldn't "strange" be used in lieu of "strangely"? A tinkling bell rang somewhere in the depths of the shop as they stepped inside. It was a tiny place, empty except for a single, spindly chair that Hagrid sat on to wait. Harry felt strangely as though he had entered a very strict library; he swallowed a lot of new questions that had just occurred to him and looked instead at the thousands of narrow boxes piled neatly right up to the ceiling. For some reason, the back of his neck prickled. The very dust and silence in here seemed to tingle with some secret magic. <Q> Strangely here is not a predicative complement of the verb feel but an adverb modifying as though he had entered a very strict library . <S> Compare these parallel uses with a different PC (1) and different adverbs (2,3): <S> Harry felt strangely happy . <S> Harry felt just as though he had entered a very strict library. <S> Harry felt almost as though he had entered a very strict library. <A> I think this is a very interesting question! <S> If you would use strange , the sentence would become <S> Harry felt strange, as though he had entered a very strict library. <S> Which would mean that as though he had entered a very strict library <S> explains why Harry feels strange. <S> But that is not what was written... <S> In the actual sentence, Harry felt as though he had entered a very strict library - and he did so in a strange way (that is why we use the adverb). <S> Or rather, the fact that he felt as though he had entered a very strict library was a strange thing. <S> Which makes sense, because I would not expect to feel that way when entering a shop. <S> All in all the two options (strange or strangely) could both be correct, but the meaning of the sentence is a little bit different. <A> There's a simpler way to think about it: If the sentence was "Harry felt strange, ..." then it would mean "Harry felt as though he was somehow strange, ...". <S> In that case, "strange" is an adjective. <S> However, the sentence was "Harry felt strangely, ...", meaning "Harry had a strange feeling, ...". <A> If I try to feel a light switch with a finger, that is a normal approach. <S> If I try to feel the temperature of water by using my ear to feel, that is a strange way to feel. <S> I feel strangely. <S> This isn't describe what I felt (which is the water's temperature), but what is strange is how I felt it. <S> What was strange is just how much Harry felt like he entered a very strict library. <S> That wouldn't be a very strange experience if Harry just entered a very strict library. <S> If he just entered a very strict library, then feeling that way would be pretty normal. <S> However, Harry was feeling that way in different circumstances. <S> The feeling wasn't very strange, but the way he was feeling that was strange.
| In this case, "strangely" is an adverb describing the action "felt".
|
I'd like to know the answer (what is "to know the answer") In the sentence: I would like to know the answer. What is "to know the answer" here?Is it a participle functioning as an object,a verbal modifying like,an infinitive functioning as an objectthe predicate of the sentence? <Q> Because the entirety of "to know the answer" acts as a single unit (the object of the verb "would like"). <A> In some grammars, to know the answer is analyzed as an infinitival clause functioning as the direct object of the verb 'like'. <S> In CGEL (Huddleston and Pullum et al, 2002), however, it's analyzed as an infinitival clause that functions as a catenative complement of the catenative verb 'like'. <S> It's called 'catenative' because of its ability to form chains in a catenative construction. <A> This can get complicated. <S> But the short answer is: it's called the to-infinitive. <S> to infinitive <S> There is an entire list via the blue link. <S> Verbs of thinking and feeling and verbs of saying take a to infinitive. <S> There are more complicated linguistic analyses of this, but for ELL purposes, one just has to learn them by heart (at first).
| It is an infinitive phrase or clause which is : a group of words that begins with an infinitive and functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb.
|
Is the particle 'up' redundant in phrases like 'to pick *up* berries'? Is the particle up redundant in phrases like this one? to pick up berries (flowers, fruit) Or is it acceptable and doesn't change the meaning 'to gather' (update: I mean, to gather in the woods, in the garden)? <Q> It is not redundant but unidiomatic. <S> We ordinarily speak of picking fruit or berries, without up , from the trees or bushes on which they grow; we use pick up only if they have been spilled (that is, we pick them up off the floor or other surface they have been spilled on) or if we are stop briefly at a shop or stand to obtain them. <A> If you're saying that you are going to actually collect flowers or berries, "up" is not only redundant, it's outright wrong. <S> We don't "pick up" things when we gather them, we "pick" them. <S> I spent the afternoon picking flowers in the field around my house. <S> I picked these berries this morning. <S> Now, you can "pick up" stuff... <S> but it means to get them from somewhere and generally does not mean that you actually harvested them: <S> I have to pick up the flowers from the florist at 2 pm. <S> Remind me to pick up some blueberries when we're at the grocery store later, will you? <S> In this case, these items are already harvested, we're just saying that they need to be purchased or taken into possession. <A> the meaning of your sentence. <S> "I am picking berries" means that I am picking berries directly from the plant. <S> Or the whole box of them from the supplier's truck. <A> In addition to the shades of meaning provided by others, when the meaning is to select or choose, it has to be "pick" rather than "pick up": " <S> Please buy some apples, but make sure to pick the green ones".
| "I am picking up berries" means that I am picking them up from the floor. It is neither redundant nor wrong, it just changes
|
Are "in her stead / in her shoes" interchangeable? Can I use "stead" in the same context as What would you do if you were in her shoes? What would you do in her stead? Or what's the best way to ask this question ? Thanks <Q> "In her shoes" is a relatively modern idiom, and can mean imagining yourself in her position, or were her, putting yourself completely in that situation. <S> Sometimes people use it to mean imagining that you yourself would be in the same situation, but still yourself, and sometimes they mean to imagine yourself actually as the person. <S> "In her stead", in the way you have used it, is stilted, feels slightly archaic, and has different emotional overtones, but the expression gets used sometimes in slightly different ways where it seems fancy, but not weird. <S> " <S> She couldn't make it, so I'll be standing in her stead" is equivalent to "she couldn't make it, so I'll be standing in for her". <S> The latter would be more usual, but the first seems gently archaic and poetic. <S> You could not use "in her shoes" in that case. <A> In your example What would you do if you were in her shoes ? <S> means <S> What would you do if you were she ? <S> However, your use of " stead " is not quite right <S> What would you do in her stead ? <S> which you might mean as <S> What would you do (if you were) her instead ? <S> what would you do if you were in her place which is different than <S> If you do well, it will keep you in good stead . <S> if you do well, it will keep you in a favorable light . <A> that she does; it's usually a request to have empathy for somebody whose behavior you might criticize. <S> For example, "Laura can't be here today, so <S> I'm giving this speech in her stead." <S> -- Laura can't do the task, so I'm doing it for her. <S> "Of course she's crying. <S> You would do the same thing in her shoes." <S> -- if you had the same mental and emotional state as she does, you'd act the way she does. <S> You couldn't use "stead" in this case.
| "In her stead" is usually only used today in the sense of doing a job or taking a responsibility that might otherwise belong to somebody else, while "in her shoes" is talking about having the same life experience, emotional state, and senses You couldn't use "shoes" in this context.
|
Is it correct to use 'will' twice in this sentence? I know there is no general rule of using 'will' twice in a sentence so I want to understand where I can use it example: I will appreciate it if you WILL send me my bag question: I can't grasp allowance and forbiddance of using 'will' twice but according to this video I concluded that sometimes it is possible is it right using of 'will' (twice) <Q> Yes, you can – but usually not as you put it. <S> There's a pertinent explanation in Swan's Practical English Usage (260.1): <S> We use <S> will with if to talk about what will happen because of possible future actions – to mean ‘if this will be the later result’. <S> Compare: <S> We'll go home now if you get the car. <S> (condition) <S> We'll go home now if it will make you feel better. <S> (result) <S> So no one would say this: I will appreciate it if you will send me my bag. <S> because you're essentially saying that you'd be happy to show gratitude if that will make them send you your bag, as though there'd previously been an argument between you and the other person who said: I'm not sending you your bag if you don't thank me beforehand! <S> However, your sentence would never be interpreted as such – outside the bizarre context I made up above, and even then it would be rephrased into something like <S> I'll say "thanks" if that'll make you hand it over. <S> which is still weird but less weird than the original – but rather as a non-native English speaker's attempt to say what BillJ said in their comment (a closing quotation mark added): <S> "I would appreciate it if you would send me my bag" would be the usual polite phrasing. <S> "I would" can be reduced to "I'd" in informal contexts. <A> I will appreciate it if you send me my bag. <S> Case one: <S> will + present after if. <S> No will after if. <S> I would appreciate it if you sent me my bag. <S> Case two: <S> conditional in first clause, simple past in second Case two can also be: I would appreciate your sending me my bag. <S> To use two wills you need another type of situation. <S> If you will [ do some action ], I will [ do some other action ]. <A> While there is no general rule limiting the number of times the verb "will" can appear in a sentence, there is a problem with your example. <S> Look at it this way, as written your sentence is two command actions (I will if you will!) <S> It reads oddly to most English speakers because, well, without context "them's are fightin' words". <S> It's considered impolite to compound commands. <S> The most common way to express the original sentence, as already pointed out, is: "I would appreciate it if you would send me my bag." <S> Rather than a double command, this is a conditional-consequence pair (if this then that, or... if send then I would appreciate). <S> This is considered polite as it indicates an obligation would be incurred (to show appreciation) if the action is taken. <S> (Note that it is improper to say, "I would appreciate it if you could send me my bag." <S> Unless there is a reason to question the sender's physical ability to send the bag (could) the request is always one of permission (would). <S> See "can I..." vs. "may I...". <S> If you really want to be sarcastically funny, reverse the would/could pair... <S> Suddenly the sentence is quite rude!) <S> Another way to say the sentence is: <S> "I will appreciate it if you do send me my bag" <S> This is another form of the conditional-consequence pair, but the use of the initial command (will appreciate) implies sarcasm (playful or angry). <S> It suggests the sender can't be trusted to follow through with his or her action whether he or she agrees or not. <S> To bring us full circle, let's give context to the moment, such as the situation of two people daring one another to take a possibly risky action such as jumping into a pool for the first time: <S> "I'll do it if you'll do it!" <S> So, you see, the question isn't "can I use 'will' multiple times?" <S> but "should I use 'will' multiple times?" <S> And that depends on what you're trying to say and why you're trying to say it. <A> Using " will " multiple times is not a problem
| I will say that if you will use "will" more than once, it will not be a problem to understand your sentences, but it will depend on context.
|
"I used to" and "I was used to" - What is the difference? Don't the two sentences: I used to drink coffee every day. I was used to drinking coffee every day. refer to a past habit? If not, what is the difference? <Q> "Used to" is used in two ways. <S> I used to drink coffee every day. <S> This just recounts what you drank and how often you drank it, and implies that this was in the past <S> and you don't do it any more. <S> This usage of "used to" means that something existed or repeatedly happened in the past but does not exist or happen now. <S> I was used to drinking coffee every day. <S> This describes how your body handled drinking coffee every day. <S> The meaning could be "I used to drink coffee every day <S> and I was accustomed to it, so <S> it didn't make me feel agitated. <S> But if I did that now, I would never sleep at night. <S> This usage of "used to" refers to being familiar with something so that it seems normal or usual. <S> See M-W. <A> Your two sentence are slightly different in meaning, one is about drinking coffee, the other about the habit of drinking coffee, the habit <S> aspect is implicit in the your first sentence and <S> explicit in the second <S> I used to drink coffee every day. <S> habitually I drank coffee every day <S> I was used to drinking coffee every day. <S> I had become accustomed to drinking coffee every day. <A> The phrase "used to" functions more or less like a modal, similarly to "did" (though with exceptional behaviour <S> when there is do-support). <S> I used to drink coffee every day. <S> → I formerly drank coffee every day. <S> The phrase "be used to" is an entirely different animal. <S> Here "used" has become an adjective. <S> I am used to drinking coffee every day. <S> → I am accustomed to drinking coffee every day. <S> I was used to drinking coffee every day. <S> → I was accustomed to drinking coffee every day. <S> There's no particular connection between the usage of these words, despite their apparent similarity.
| Yes, they both refer to a past habit, but the meanings are different.
|
What's what with "Collect them all" What is the modern grammarian's part-of-speech for all in Collect them all! <Q> A dictionary shows that all can function as an adverb or a determiner (with a couple of minor uses). <S> It modifies the imperative verb "Collect". <A> I don't know modern grammar, but The Teacher's Grammar of English suggests it's a determiner functioning as a quantifier. <S> And the process of moving it to the final position is called a quantifier-pronoun flip . <S> Collect <S> all of them Collect <S> them all <S> Quantifier-pronoun flip <S> This quantifier-pronoun flip applies to a pronoun that is not a subject of the sentence. <A> Collect [ them all ]. <S> Here them all is a Compound-Pronoun. <S> In general, a compound word is formed by multiple lexemes, and hence individual lexemes can be classified into various known word-classes. <S> But here in them all , it's really hard to determine the word class of all . <S> However, we have no problem identifying the Personal Pronoun - them . <S> If pressed, I would call this all a Determinitive. <S> But I'm not 100 percent sure about this.
| In this sentence, it is an adverb, roughly synonymous with "entirely" or "completely".
|
Talking about the same meaning in the context of their ("recently"/"lately"/"of late" and "so far"/"by now") usage (Present Perfect) Is "of late" used as equally as "recently" or "lately" in the Present Perfect tense? I mean, would it be acceptable to use the 1st sentence as well as the 2nd or 3rd if I wrote the following: I've made a great strides recently. I've made a great strides lately. I've made a great strides of late. I also want to know: do "so far" and "by now" have the same meaning? <Q> First please may I change your sentences above to read correctly before I attempt your question: I've made great strides recently. <S> I've made great strides lately. <S> I've made great strides of late <S> You don't need the indefinite article <S> a because you are referring to a plural countable noun = strides (modified by great ). <S> We usually use <S> a before a singular plural noun. <S> recently is an adverb which means not long ago , or in recent time or <S> a short time ago lately is also an adverb and according to most dictionaries means exactly the same thing as recently . <S> of late is a phrase which is a little more formal and again most dictionaries say it means the same thing as lately and recently . <S> so far is a phrase that has a few meanings according to its context. <S> It can be used to give the idea that an influence is limited up until the present moment. <S> Ex. <S> The government can only go so far to help some refugees. <S> We can also use so far to express a period of time up until now. <S> Ex. <S> I have been working very hard but so far <S> I haven't understood anything.= <S> I haven't understood before now and including now. <S> We can also use so far to express our own limitations. <S> Ex. <S> I can only go so far on this hike <S> and then I have to rest. <S> by now is also a phrase which refers to a past period of time ending now in the present. <S> It is usually associated with expectations. <S> Ex. <S> He should have been here by now . <S> ( By now could be noon or a specific time). <S> In this example we expected him to be here by now. <S> Sources: Practical English Usage, Collins and Cambridge dictionaries and the University of life. <S> I hope that helps. <A> "Recently" can mean one of two things: <S> Simple past: An event happened recently. <S> It happened in the recent past. <S> ✓ <S> I thought about my mother recently. <S> Perfect: Something has been happening recently. <S> It has repeatedly happened. <S> ✓ <S> I've been thinking about my mother recently. <S> "Lately" can only mean the second one. <S> It's not natural to use "lately" for one particular event, generally described in the simple past. <S> ✗ <S> I thought about my mother lately. <S> ✓ <S> I've been thinking about my mother lately. <S> "Of late" is the same as "lately". <S> However, it's archaic. <S> You might encounter it in literature, but I can't imagine a context where it would come up in conversation — except if someone is trying to sound archaic. :) <S> Between so far and by now , there are significant differences. <S> But they aren't easy to articulate, because they both refer to the recent past. <S> So far means "up to the present time", with an emphasis on the future : something could change after this point. <S> There's no news about the get-together so far. <S> But we might hear about it tomorrow. <S> You can replace "so far" with "yet" in the above sentence. <S> In terms of syntax, you can't always fit "yet" in the same place "so far" fits, but the meaning is the same anyway. <S> By now means "before now", with an emphasis on the past : something should have already happened. <S> He left the house at 3? <S> Then he must have gotten home by now. <S> You can replace "by now" with "before this point" in the above sentence. <S> Again, this replacement doesn't always work in terms of the syntax, but the meaning is the same. <S> You can also use "by" with any given time. <S> By Friday, by 4 p.m., by morning, by next year, etc. <S> I want you to hand in your work by Friday at 8 a.m. <S> So anytime before Friday morning is good. <S> Here's a direct comparison of the two terms. <S> You could not switch them around in these sentences: <S> So far , there's no news of your brother. <S> We should have heard about him by now . <S> There may be news of him in the future . <S> But there should have been news of him in the past . <A> Each choice has a connotation of context. <S> 1.I've made great strides recently. <S> - the great strides occurred in the past, but not long ago 2.I've made great strides lately. <S> - the great strides occurred in the past, but not long ago, and the situation contrasts to a time when great strides were not made. <S> 3.I've made great strides of late. <S> - A stronger version of "lately" - so much so that you might expect the sentence to take the form <S> "I've made greater strides of late" if progress was slow before, or it could appear as written if the previous sentence implied that there had been no progress for a lime time before the recent events. <S> 4.I've made great strides so far. <S> - There have been great strides recently, but there is reason to suspect the great strides will not continue. <S> 5.I've made great strides by now. <S> - The great strides have happened, but there is a sense that they were later than expected or required more effort than expected.
| If you check the Collins dictionary they show that the trend of usage is very similar for each word. Between recently , lately , and of late , there are minor differences.
|
'miss call' or 'missed call' when it is 'yet to be missed!' For many it will be surprising but it is true in India! Often, a person calls on his friend's cell phone and cuts before he picks up. Most of the times it is a 'mutually understood act!' The reasons for that range from saving money to simply notifying someone. Example: Say, A tells B that once he reaches the venue, he will give B a miss call so that B should understand that A has reached. There is no need to talk or to text because the purpose is just to notify that A has reached! Simple and witty! Now, on the cellphone of B, it is surely a missed call as it reads '1 missed call from A'. Because it is recent past ...so it is 'missed'. But, I wonder in this case, what do we use? Okay, when I reach the venue, I'll give you a ' miss or missed call?' It is a future tense where the call is 'yet to be missed!' That way, it should be 'a miss call,' but my instinct still says it should be 'missed.' <Q> The common term is missed call Since the type of call <S> is intentionally <S> not to be answered (usually the caller will hang up after a ring of two) and it will show up as " missed " on the recipients phone. <S> The term is widely used in the UK. <S> I will give you a missed call when I am there. <A> It should be 'missed call' because here the verb 'miss' is used as an adjective and we need to use the past participle. <S> Intentionally or not, the proposed call is going to be missed by the person, and therefore, 'missed call' looks more correct. <S> I will give you a missed call. <S> (That you're not supposed to receive and ultimately it will become a 'missed' call!) <S> Here is a thread to support my answer. <A> The correct form is " missed call ". <S> Since missed here refers to a call that one didn’t take, either by will or by circumstance. <S> If the call rang only once or twice, it may mean that the caller intended a missed call, which allows you a short list of possible reasons.
| One common reason is prompting for a call like, “Hello, I need to talk to you but don’t want to use up my credit, so call me back…”.
|
What is the meaning of the quote "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. What does it mean? The entry from Wikipedia about chains shows: A chain is typically made of metal. A chain may consist of two or more links But I didn't understand this quote about chains. <Q> Do you understand the word "chain"? <S> If not, look that up. <S> Suppose you use a chain to, say, tow some heavy object behind your truck. <S> If the object is heavy enough, the chain might break. <S> Where will it break? <S> At the weakest link. <S> The point being this: Suppose you made a chain with 100 links, 99 links of case-hardened steel and one link of tin. <S> Then you try to pull the heavy object with it. <S> What will happen? <S> The tin link will break. <S> It doesn't matter how strong the other 99 links are. <S> If just one link is weak, the chain will break. <S> The overall strength of a chain is not the strength of the strongest link, or even of the average link. <S> The overall strength of a chain is the strength of the weakest link. <S> This is often used as an analogy for other cases where one poorly-designed part can cause an entire machine to fail, or where one incompetent person can cause an entire organization to fail, etc. <S> People may say, "Fred is the weakest link on our team", meaning, Fred's laziness or incompetence or whatever flaw will make the team fail no matter how well everyone else does. <A> It means that if you want to know the level of strength of a chain (i.e. how strong is it) then you have to check which link ( chain made of links - see here ) is weakest and then the level is determined by this one. <S> It means that even though the rest of the links in this chain are strong but anyway because one link is not strong as they are, therefore you can break this chain while you break the weakest link... <S> Think about a chain made of 20 links. <S> 19 links are made of strong metal but one link is made of thin plastic. <S> Then the strength of this chain is determined by this weak plastic link, because when you break this plastic link you actually break the chain and then the rest metal links don't really matter... <A> It's a metaphor that is used to compare a group of something to a chain and the impact of a single member. <S> If you have a chain holding something and one of the links breaks, the chain itself isn't useful anymore hence when it is used, it is comparable to saying: <S> A group is only as strong as its weakest member. <A> Chains are constructed from multiple links of (usually) metal joined together. <S> Because of this, the strength of the chain relies upon the strength of the individual links in the chain. <S> If you were to test the strength of the chain (e.g. by pulling on both ends simultaneously), then when the chain breaks it would generally break at a particular link. <S> It would break at that link because it would be the weakest link in the chain. <S> Therefore the strength of the whole chain is equivalent to the strength of the weakest link in it. <S> This saying has become a metaphor for the strength of any entity that is made up of multiple parts, usually that entity is a group of something, e.g. people. <A> It effectively means that no matter how strong most of the chain is, even if there's one weak part, it could break the entire chain. <S> It means you need to eliminate all weaknesses for there to be no risk that the 'chain' could fail. <A> Imagine you had 7 people running a race as a team, and the team had to finish together, at the same time.no matter how fast your FASTEST person is, he can not finish until EVERYONE else finishes at the same time. <S> Therefore the SLOWEST person on the team affects the speed of the fastest runner. <S> The ENTIRE team is as slow as the slowest person. <S> The slow person is the "weakest link" Just as a chain, with individual links that can hold many tones...if one of the links can only hold 2.2 pounds, or a kilo, or whatever measurement you choose to use, the entire chain, no matter how strong <S> , breaks when the weakest link breaks. <S> Any single link breaking, causes everything to fail. <A> The statement A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link is a metaphor. <S> The analogy here, is of a chain where, the strength needed to break the weakest link , is all that is needed to break the chain . <S> This is a commonly used metaphor, for example: Sam is completely out of shape. <S> I don't want him on our volley ball team; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. <S> In this example, Sam, who is out of shape could cause the team to lose in a volley ball match, being analogous to the weakest link. <A> If you are running a marathon, the success of the team depends on every participant. <S> You have to run the race as if it is your last. <S> If any member of the team is not physically fit, not agile, runs too slow and even drops the baton, the race is lost. <S> It doesn't matter how agile the other participants are. <S> The one that drops the baton is the weakest link
| A chain is only as strong as its weakest link .
|
How to say: "there are some hidden hands involved in a dealing" in AmE? I am writing a business letter and I would like to bring it to a directing manager of another company's attention that as far as I am concerned, unfortunately I do not feel good, and I want to refer to some fishy activities and some immoral, dishonest and fraudulent business dealings of some people who are interfering between the two company's business affairs (mine and his companies) and mention that for some reasons they would like everything not to work properly. No matter how, they are trying to make their own benefits and they are acting up. (Consider them as some people who were trying to achieve this business prior to the contract between the owner of that company and I and at the time being they are green with envy). In such cases we say: I feel there are some concealed hands in the story. I feel there are some people behind the curtain. I hope I could make myself understood. If so, please let me know what shall one say in the identical situation (not only in a very formal business letter, but in everyday conversation; because I am not looking for something too formal.) <Q> We say that someone is working or acting behind the scenes to do something, in your case, to interfere with the relationship, to come between you and your customer. <S> Such "immoral, dishonest, and fraudulent" activities can be called dirty dealing or underhanded dealing (since you ask about hands ). <A> There are a number of ways to express this, depending on which metaphor you want to use. <S> For example if you want to continue the theatrical theme, you can describe the person as a "bad actor" in the deal, or talk about any "unsavory characters" involved. <S> Alternately, if you think there is a problem with the deal, you can say there is "a fly in the ointment" . <A> Either what Tᴚoɯɐuo said, or "under the table"/"under the counter". <S> E.g. " I suspect that the deal involves some under-the-table transactions ". <S> I'm not sure if these terms are primarily used in AmE, BrE or both, however. <S> "under the counter" sounds more AmE to me.
| If you want to talk about a hidden danger (from a bad actor), you can say there is "a snake in the grass".
|
Is there a single word as a substitute for "make .. constant"? This method makes the pressure in a container when the temperature in the container is less than 10℃ constant. This is just an example I created. In this example, the words "make" and "constant" are away from each other. Is it possible to rewrite this in such a manner that "This method makes constant the pressure..."? or is there a single word as a substitute for "make .. constant"? <Q> A possible one-word synonym for "make (sth) constant" is "stabilize". <S> However, "stabilize" suggests that the thing being stabilized (in this case, the pressure) was unstable, which might not always be the case. <S> Your sentence could be improved if you extraposed what does not need to remain in mid position: <S> This method makes/keeps the pressure in a container constant when its temperature / when the temperature inside is less/lower than 10ºC. <S> I think "keep sth constant" makes more sense that "make sth constant". <S> Otherwise, if the condition was not constant and becomes constant by applying a method, "stabilize" could be a more appropriate choice. <A> This method makes constant the pressure in a container when its internal temperature is less than 10 <S> ℃. or <S> to place it after container : <S> This method makes the pressure in a container constant when its internal temperature is less than 10 <S> ℃. <S> Compare: <S> He wished to make known a feature of so-called "small clauses". <S> He wished to make a feature of so-called "small clauses" known. <S> P.S. <S> You can also substitute the verb keep for the verb make as user Gustavson says in his answer. <S> I think keep is better here than make . <A> What about fix ? <S> This method <S> fixes <S> the pressure in a container when the temperature in the container is less than 10℃. <A> What about " stabilizes "? <S> to cause something to become fixed and stop changing, esp. <S> in order to keep it from becoming worse, or to become fixed and stop changing: These medicines stabilize your heart rate and lower blood pressure. <S> So, in your sentence, This method stabilizes the pressure in a container when the internal temperature is less than 10℃. <S> If the implication is that the pressure is otherwise yoyoing up and down, this should work quite well for you. <S> Alternately, you could rearrange your sentence slightly to avoid repeating words and bring "make" and "constant" closer together: <S> This method makes the pressure in a container constant when the internal temperature is less than 10℃. <S> This doesn't require a new term, instead cleaning up the text. <A> Opposing constant forces meet at a point called an equilibrium. <S> The single-word verb form of this is equilibrate .
| This method equilibrates the pressure in a container, when the temperature in the container is less than 10℃. It is grammatical to bring the word constant to the front of the sentence in that situation so that it comes after makes :
|
What is the cover of the head of a pen called in English? What is the cover of the head of a pen called in English? In my native language it is simply called a cover. <Q> It is called a pen cap <S> Do you know where the cap for this pen is? <S> is an often heard question for small children after they've been drawing. <A> I've heard pen cap and pen lid , and while doing some further research on this question top seems to be a word used as well. <S> For the most part they can be used interchangeably, though some people will insist lid is incorrect. <S> Lid is the natural word for me, so your mileage may vary. <A> This may be subject to regional or age difference though (Britain has a very high level of regional difference). <S> Pen top would be least common. <S> It would possibly be used to indicate the top end of a pen distinct from its bottom, but very unlikely to be used to refer to the lid itself. <A> I would call this a cap in American English. <S> In American English <S> a lid is often thought of as a flat item that covers something. <S> It often snaps or holds in place somehow. <S> For instance, the floppy plastic cover on top of a can of peanuts would be a lid. <S> A cap has similar purpose to a lid, but it is slightly different in that a cap will typically completely encompass the object that it is covering, whereas a lid usually rests on top. <S> Webster's defines a cap this way: <S> Something that serves as a cover or protection especially for a tip, knob, or end <S> Source <A> Pen top is also used by native speakers. <S> As in: Where is the top of this pen ? <S> and Have you seen my pen top ? <S> I've used it on two continents and no one has indicated my dialect usage is not natural.
| In England, pen lid tends to be preferred, with pen cap also being used. There are a few different names for it, which vary in preference depending on your locale.
|
Use of word "stuffy" to mean "not easily digested" (or word suggestion) Scenario: I only had a cup of smoothie for lunch so I'd get hungry pretty soon afterwards. This is because smoothie is not very stuffy . It digests easily and fast so that my stomach becomes empty very soon. Question, does the word make sense here? If not, what's the word for a food which does not digest easily and remains longer in your stomach so that you wouldn't feel hungry for a longer period of time? (Note: "Hard" is not precise) <Q> Stuffy doesn't work here. <S> One way I see it is that the smoothie is itself clogged (doesn't really make sense). <S> You could call it dense or thick , but I think you might be looking for filling : filling adjective 4. <S> Food that is filling makes you feel full when you have eaten it. <S> • Although it is tasty, crab is very filling. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <A> No, that's not a good use of stuffy . <S> Though Merriam-Webster only lists it as the third definition , I'd say the most common use of "stuffy" in conversational English is to mean, as MW says: oppressive to the breathing <S> You might say a room that's a bit too hot and very humid is "stuffy". <S> Although dictionary.com lists "filling" under the British Dictionary Definitions heading, as an American English speaker, I'd say it's a pretty common word in the U.S. as well. <S> It'd be common to hear that a certain dish or meal is "filling" because it seems to literally fill your stomach. <S> Even if it doesn't actually literally fill your stomach all the way, something that's "filling" makes you feel full. <A> An alternative to "filling" might be "substantial", which seems to get to the point you were going for with "stuffy". <S> Indeed, Merriam-Webster has , as its second definition: ample to satisfy and nourish : a substantial meal <A> Perhaps "stodgy" would be a word that works for you/is what you're thinking of when you're considering stuffy (of food) heavy, filling, and high in carbohydrates. <S> "he loves stodgy puddings" synonyms: indigestible, starchy, filling, heavy, solid, substantial, lumpy, leaden "rich, stodgy puddings" <S> However, the other answers are guiding you towards using a positive descriptor and that's the approach I'd take. <S> It would be better to say a smoothie is "light and easily digested", rather than "not too stodgy", because it's better to use a "positive" than use a "not negative" even if they usually are interpreted to mean the same thing. <S> Politicians tend to use not-negatives.. <S> they will say "well, you're NOT WRONG", which can be interpreted to be saying "you're RIGHT", but actually still leaves them some room to say "but you're not right either".. <S> It's probably due to elevated levels of carbon dioxide; humans are quite good at detecting elevated levels of CO2 and perceiving the air as being "not very fresh". <S> It may also be accompanied by high humidity and or stale smells <A> I use the word light . <S> If at all you want to eat, eat light food; we are having a full-course meal very soon. <S> light food are light in calorie, light on stomach , and digest quickly. <A> I only had a cup of smoothie for lunch <S> so I'd get hungry pretty soon afterwards. <S> This is because smoothie is not very stuffy. <S> It digests easily and fast so that my stomach becomes empty very soon. <S> As stated above, "filling" is the one-for-one replacement here, but another option is the idiom "sticks to your ribs" . <S> This implies that the food is substantial enough that it stays in your stomach for a long time (sticking to your ribs from the inside), keeping you feeling full for longer. <S> An example: I was considering getting a grilled chicken salad, but I might go for something that sticks to your ribs more, like a steak. <S> Additionally, some of your example sounds a little bit odd to a native speaker. <S> We don't say "a cup of smoothie" and we don't refer to smoothie as an uncountable quantity. <S> Also, some of your tenses are strange. <S> I'm not sure if the speaker is speaking about a past event or relating foreknowledge of a future outcome. <S> Assuming that it's referring to a past event (consuming the smoothie), I would change your example to the following: <S> I only had a smoothie for lunch <S> so I'll be getting hungry pretty soon, considering they aren't very filling. <S> It doesn't stick to your ribs like a burger would. <A> This is because smoothies are not very hearty . <S> hearty <S> [hahr-tee] adjective – dictionary.com substantial; abundant; nourishing: a hearty meal. <A> "Heavy" is like "Filling", but with a more negative connotation, as in "What can I order that's not too heavy?" <S> "Their food is so heavy and rich, I need a diet the next day." <S> "I avoid a heavy breakfast on race day."
| I agree with the others re stuffy; "stuffy" is generally used to describe an atmosphere that seems hard to breathe, like in a party where there are no open windows. As the other answers have noted, "stuffy" is not the word to use here. The word you're looking for is probably filling : (of food or a meal) substantial and satisfying
|
What is the difference between "result" and "outcome" in that context? In the sentences below: The result of a man's jumping from the 10th floor is death. The outcome of a man's jumping from the 10th floor is death. They seem the same in the sentences above, what's the difference between them? edit: The answer that reads: "Result is preferable if you are describing what you get after following an organized or orderly process..." It suggests result applies in a usual causation , but what shall it used when describing something abruptly happen like the one in my sentence mentioned? is it correct to say the death is an result of jumping off? and "Outcome can imply something was happening but no one party was in total control of things." So it implies outcome should be used when things are unpredictable, but in my sentence above, isn't the outcome of death inevitable? and is it prosper to use outcome to refer to the aftermath of jumping off? So my question is, what's the difference between them(the two sentences in comparision above)? Any comment and answer regarding the question are appreciated. Please help to clear this confusion, thanks. <Q> There is not much difference between these words. <S> Result is preferable if you are describing what you get after following an organized or orderly process. <S> People or things can be said to produce results - but "producing outcomes" sounds weird. <S> Outcome can imply something was happening but no one party was in total control of things. <S> E.g. <S> "What was the outcome of the game?" <S> But result <S> works as well in most instances. <A> Here are links to the definitions in Cambridge: <S> Result <S> Outcome <S> A result is mostly something that occurs when we want it, or when we are expecting it or when we are making effort to get something while outcome <S> is mostly something that happens unexpected; <S> unforeseen consequence; something that isn't what we aimed for, or something unusual as a result; an effect or result that occurred because of something happened, because of some action, event or situation. <S> The outcome of the experiment - may refer to either the result that was aimed for or a result that wasn't quite expected, something that was unforeseen (quote " Unforeseen consequences " from Half-Life chapters) ; the way a thing turned out; a consequence. <S> The result of his work - may or may not refer to something that happened because he wanted it or to the outcome that wasn't satisfactory. <S> It may mean "a good or pleasing effect" or "a bad or unpleasant effect" . <S> With the word " outcome " usually " unpleasant things/effects/situations " are associated while with the word " result " usually " pleasant things/effects/situations " are associated. <S> However, in most cases they are relatively close in meaning. <S> Consider such examples: <S> The outcome of a collision with an asteroid will be tragic for our planet. <S> (Places stress on something very unpleasant, something that needs to be resolved; mid-term results, something that cannot be seen immediately after the collision - the change to our planet that will occur afterwards) <S> The result of a collision with an asteroid will be tragic for our planet. <S> (Places stress on the mathematical calculations, information that may have been got from an experiment) <S> " Outcome " is usually used in place of a " result of an action " and is closer to " consequences " and " effects " while " Result " is closer to " conclusions " or " output ". <S> As WikiDiff says: As nouns the difference between outcome and result is that outcome is information, event, object or state of being produced as a result or consequence of a plan, process, accident, effort or other similar action or occurrence <S> while result is that which results; the conclusion or end to which any course or condition of things leads, or which is obtained by any process or operation; consequence or effect . <A> To add another answer, not because the others are wrong, but because I think they miss the main nuance for my differentiation of these terms: Most often, a result <S> is the consequence of one or more causes. <S> It insists on the causality. <S> This is also the heart of the particulate verb "result in", i.e. "to cause", "to bring about" or "to directly lead to". <S> On the other hand, an outcome is the final state of a given situation or setup. <S> There doesn't need to be a direct cause, but various factors and events. <S> In fact, there's a faint hint of denying knowledge of the exact reason it came about. <S> Hence, if we take your example sentence on its own, "result" is preferable. <S> The man jumps, and the direct consequence is that he dies. <S> "Outcome" would produce the unusual suggestion that there are other factors in the man's death than jumping from the the 10th floor, or that the between jumping and dying there's a complicated process in which various things might happen. <S> But context is everything. <S> If a person jumps from a high enough point, survives the fall with serious injuries, and is taken to the hospital where he receives various kinds of medical attention, then it would be very appropriate to say that the "outcome" was death. <S> So it depends on what other facts you know about the case and where you want to put the emphasis. <A> Result is systematic (or analytic), and thus there is a discernible/predictable correlation between cause and effect. <S> Outcome is systemic, which lacks a discernible/predictable correlation between cause and effect.
| An outcome is "how things turned out" or "what ended up happening".
|
"best friends list" or "best friend list"? I want to list the names of all my best friends on a paper, and it needs an title. Which one is correct: "Best Friends List" or "Best Friend List". <Q> You answered your own question :) : <S> list the names of all my best friends <A> In other words, should a "list of X's" be called an "X list" or an "X's list"? <S> I don't think there is a definite correct answer here; either could be acceptable. <S> However, I think the singular construction is more common. <S> If I were making a list of tasks, I would probablty call it a "task list". <S> I notice that Facebook features " friend lists ", not "friends lists". <S> The list of tracks on an album is generally called a "track list". <S> On the other hand, I have a hard time thinking of examples of the other format, where a "list of X's" is called an "X's list". <S> Putting both "priority lists" and "priorities list" into Google, they both have lots of hits, but the singular version has more than 10 times as many as the plural version. <S> Neither sounds horrible, but "priority list" is clearly more common, at least on the Internet. <A> Just an aside, "best" is a superlative. <S> There can only be one. <S> So technically, a list of "best" is extremely short (one entry, which might not be called a list). <S> However, the term is used loosely when referring to friends, so let's ignore that. <S> There are two other answers so far, pointing in opposite directions. <S> Both can be right because there are two possible perspectives. <S> "Best friends" can be used as a descriptive term for a group of people. <S> If you have a list of the group members, you can call it a "best friends list". <S> The list contains the members of the "best friends" group. <S> "Best friend" can also be used to characterize specific individuals, a "label" for a person. <S> In that case, you could call it a "best friend list". <S> The list would be a compilation of individuals who are a "best friend". <S> This would be analogous to G Tony Jacobs's example of a task list. <S> A "task" is a type of activity and a task list would be a collection of such activities. <S> Popularity of one vs. the other doesn't really tell you much about correct vs. incorrect, it only indicates which context is used more often.
| This is a case where either usage can be correct, depending on your context.
|
What is the meaning of *sides* in this conversation? Customer went to restaurant. Bartender : What d'you want, baby? Customer: Give me a basket, please. Bartender: Sides ? Customer: l don't know yet. Still thinking about it. Trying to watch my figure. What is the meaning of sides in this conversation? <Q> Sides are "side dishes"--servings of food which accompany the main dish, typically vegetables and potatoes. <S> In this case the customer has ordered a 'basket', which is probably a complete meal consisting of a main dish such as chicken or a sandwich with a choice of two or three sides . <S> She hasn't yet made up her mind which sides she wants; since she is "watching her figure", the calorie content of different sides is an important factor. <A> Side dishes, in restaurant lingo, are small portions served alongside a main dish. <A> There's a double meaning here <S> - sides can refer to extras that accompany the main part of the entrée, and also to her sides, the first of which can contribute to the second. <S> The conversation leverages the double-meaning in an attempt at some humor. <S> But...it's not side-splitting.
| In many restaurants, if you order a meat entree, it comes with one or two optional "sides", which might include soup, salad, fried potatoes, or something else that traditionally accompanies the main dish.
|
Stronger scientific word than 'increased' I am writing a computer engineering paper and try to express that our system increased a certain value fairly much, emphasizing that the amount of increase is uncommon. Could anyone recommend a word to imply 'increased a value fairly much' in a scientific way? First of all, sorry for making you confused, but actually I was composing a presentation which is about my research project. I just mentioned it as 'writing a paper', which I thought uses similar terms to when composing a research presentation. Anyway.. Our project is making an custom chip accelerating deep-learning, and in this field, people commonly regards that the more the accelerator contains the neuron data, the better the system is. My original intention was making one short phrase which emphasizes the increased number of neuron data, such as ' Increased number of neuron data ', but I thought this phrase is somewhat weak to emphasize the increase itself. <Q> I'm not an expert in science, but for a huge growth in number, I am currently thinking of the word "proliferated." <S> Also, I think there might be more to what you want to express. <S> For example, you are more leaning towards producing more data in a faster manner, how about the word "expedited"? <A> <A> You might consider quantum jump (or quantum leap ). <S> This is defined as: <S> quantum jump <S> ( noun ) a huge, often sudden, increase or change in something <S> Usage warnings: 1) <S> The phrase also has a very specific and more formal meaning in the realm of physics. <S> While this phrase does have a scientific ring to it – which is what the O.P. asked for – I'd be careful using it in a physics paper. <S> 2) <S> If you are going to say that your system made a quantum leap for a certain value, be prepared to show hard data that shows what you mean, and exactly how much it increased. <S> Footnote: <S> In computer science, the terms exponential growth and increased by an order of magnitude are often used, but, again, you'd better be sure the actual performance increase mirrors <S> the phrase you use. <S> (I wouldn't use "order of magnitude" in a computer science paper unless the performance had increased by a factor of ten, for example.) <A> Since you didn't provide a detailed example-sentence with "increase", I would like to mention three things generally. <S> First, as you asked for a verb, I suggest using the verb augment which simply means increase; It sounds formal. <S> The following example is also from the Cambridge dictionary: <S> He would have to find work to augment his income. <S> Second, using the corresponding nouns: Our system brings about a significant increase in a certain value. <S> Third, using verbs with positive connotations like Improve , Enhance , or the corresponding nouns like improvement , enhancement , etc. <S> However, you should modify the sentence in such way that the result or the final impact is projected. <S> For instance, Our system improved the parameter X significantly. <A> I Like engorged cause to swell with blood, water, or another fluid. <S> "the river was engorged by a day-long deluge" "the accelerator was engorged with more neuron data then possible previously, perhaps by a magnitude of 2 or more." <S> It's a little awkward, but that is a great tool, to get attention and draw emphasis. <S> Just the visual image of a water balloon filled to busting with all that awesome neuron data. <S> People should pay attention, even if just a little bit more.
| You can use the verb boost , or the idiomatic breakthrough to describe the improvement.
|
In “a so-called "HPACK Bomb" attack”, if "so-called" is not sarcasm then what is it? I was reading this CVE describing a vulnerability in the implementation of a compression algorithm used in HTTP/2 . The summary says: A HTTP/2 implementation built using any version of the Python HPACK library between v1.0.0 and v2.2.0 could be targeted for a denial of service attack, specifically a so-called "HPACK Bomb" attack. I was extremely disturbed by the word so-called because I know it's used for sarcasm. But it doesn't make sense here so it must have another meaning. I looked here and found this question: Can we use the phrase "so-called" in its positive sense (or neutral) when refereeing to a widely adopted thing? All answers agree it's used negatively to indicate something is misleading. Considering the summary also says the following, it seems to be a pretty accurate name for the exploit: This can lead to a gigantic compression ratio of 4,096 or better, meaning that 16kB of data can decompress to 64MB of data on the target machine. Therefore what does so-called mean here? If it is to signify misleading , what would misleading about the term HPACK Bomb ? or is it effectively used in a sarcastic manner? <Q> so-called does not necessarily imply sarcasm. <S> It often simply means "as people call it". <S> Is that heap of bolts your so-called "sports car"? <S> sarcasm <S> That part of the sound system is a so-called "sub-woofer". <S> simply referring to a term <A> There's no real bombing going on, and it's probably not the official name given to the exploit by cybersecurity firms or whomever. <S> Subtle little descriptions like that inserted into an article with a lot of technical jargon can make the text more approachable to average people who don't have particularly advanced computer knowledge. <A> It's a way of using the term without implying that the author condones the choice of words. <S> In this case, it is likely that the attackers who first exploited this attack called it a "HPACK Bomb." <S> However, that may be a very poor name for describing a type of exploit in the security community. <S> The author doesn't want you reaching for your glossary of hacking terms to look up the meaning of "HPACK Bomb." <S> That being said, it may be convenient to refer to the attack by name, and someone <S> did give it a name. <S> The sarcastic use of "so-called" stems from this usage. <S> Often people will use "so-called" as a way of insulting the person who coined the term. <S> In a "charged" setting where people are reading into your choice of words to see a deeper meaning, use of a phrase like "so-called motion sensors" suggests that you don't think they deserve to be called "motion sensors" at all. <S> However, in a less charged setting, where people aren't looking for a deeper meaning, it's just a way of making it clear that the word choice isn't yours, and you're not interested in making it yours. <A> The purpose of the phrase "so-called" is to suggest that the terminology is surprising because it is unusual or ill-fitting. <S> So, you can use "X is a so-called Y" for sarcasm. <S> The implication is "You may call X a Y, but I find that terminology surprisingly unusual or ill-fitting". <S> Example: This is your so-called brilliant project? <S> Meaning: While you may call it a brilliant project, I find that terminology ill-fitting. <S> You can also use "X is a so-called Y" to instruct. <S> The implication is "You may be familiar with X. <S> I don't expect you to know that X is called Y --- that's a surprise that may be unusual to you based on your background knowledge." <S> Example: This denial-of-service attack is a so-called "HPACK Bomb". <S> Meaning: While experts refer to this denial-of-service attack as an "HPACK Bomb", you the reader may find this terminology surprising (and possibly ill-fitting?) <S> because it is new to you. <A> “So-called” can be used to describe a newly introduced or very specific term. <S> We guide the steam through the so-called “foobazic”, which is a specially shaped glass tube. <S> In this case, the use of “so-called” tells readers that they need not worry if they don't know the word immediately following. <S> It's some special term that may not be widely known yet, but that hopefully will get explained later on. <S> Without “so-called”, people might be confused when they reach the comma, even though that confusion should be gone by the end of the sentence. <S> The glass tube to use has to have a pentagonal shape. <S> Using this so-called “foobazic”, we can guide the steam as intended. <S> Same pattern as before, except this time the explanation comes first, and the name for it follows. <S> So this is telling readers that all the things explained thus far will now get summarized using a single term. <S> Without the “so-called” in there, readers might think that the pentagonal tube is some special kind of foobazic, and start looking up the general meaning of that word they don't know. <S> The example you quoted doesn't match either of these cases exactly. <S> There isn't an explicit and clear definition of the term in your case. <S> But I believe it still kind of resembles the first of these examples. <S> There is a term which is probably only known to a very limited audience. <S> So to the wider audience we make them aware of the fact that this technical term does exist, and that we don't expect readers to already know it up front. <S> Lacking a definition, we either let them ignore it if they don't care, or look it up elsewhere if they do, or derive a rough idea of what it's probably about from similar uses of the term “bomb” combined with the term “HPACK” which is a name explained earlier.
| "So-called" is a construct which can be used when someone else would use a wording that the author or speaker would not. In addition to what Tᴚoɯɐuo said, I would add that the use of "so-called" in this particular context helps indicate that exploit has just been nicknamed an "HPAC bomb attack" by computer folks who have expertise in that area, but that name doesn't literally describe what's happening.
|
Is it common to use "dash into something" as in this sentence? "I'll dash into this book" My intention is to say that I will get involved with this book and read it very fast. Is it correct to use this expression or even common to say so? EDIT: I'm adding other uses that I'm wondering if are they common or not: "I'll dash into my homework" "He dashed into his tasklist" "She is dashing into her schedule" <Q> I would say it's much more common to say "He jumped right into his homework," or "I'll jump right on that," not "He dashed into his homework. <S> " I'm not saying people wouldn't understand you, but just from my experience I have rarely heard "dashed into ..." before. <A> Not quite. <S> Take, for example, the olympic events 100m dash, 200m dash, etc. <S> (Though other meanings also exist for "dash"; e.g., a small amount of something in a recipe.) <S> So you might dash into a store, for example, if you were literally going to run in very quickly from across the parking lot. <S> But even in that case, "dash" would be a bit uncommon. <S> Probably just "run in" would be more typical. <S> But the phrase you're looking for is dive in . <S> From Merriam-Webster : to plunge into some matter or activity <S> Example sentence from MW: <S> she dove into her studies <A> There are a few examples I've seen where it is used to imply reckless actions related to intangibles: "Dash into cash/stocks/bonds" appears as headlines talking about investments. <S> "The government's headlong dash into Brexit", "Australia's dash into war in 1914 was no knee-jerk response", "she thinks if I was really in love I'd dash into marriage like a mad thing" describe changes of state rather than physical places. <S> But as "dash into" is so much more commonly used with real things or locations, that "I dashed into my homework" <S> would only be used literally - "I dashed into my homework, knocking the books to the floor".
| Dash usually implies running in the sense you're using, and specifically running a relatively short distance.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.