source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What does 'You are hopelessly quick.' mean? I sent to my client a quick update about a project and in response he sent me back an email with the following sentence: " You are hopelessly quick . You need some rest my friend. Will check it tomorrow." So what does this suggest, is it in a negative or positive manner? <Q> I read it as a positive statement, essentially that you are too much of a workaholic for your own good. <S> It sounds like the situation was that you worked needlessly hard or stayed needlessly late to finish a project that he won't be able to look at until tomorrow, anyway. <S> "You need some rest my friend" means you don't need to work as hard as you do; take it easy. <A> Such statements seem to deliver praise and criticism. <S> When people say "She's hopelessly {adjective}", they mean the trait the adjective refers to is so ingrained in her personality that there's no saving her from herself—there is no hope she could ever be turned into the opposite kind of person, and to some extent, that is a good thing about her. <S> She is hopelessly romantic <S> means she can be counted on to make impractical choices <S> but she has a good heart. <S> He is hopelessly dull <S> means he can be counted on never to say or do anything interesting <S> but he has no real vices. <S> Timely progress updates from a business associate are usually things to be appreciated. <S> But if the speaker prefers a more leisurely pace—he may always have many tasks to accomplish and thus a need to pace himself—too much quickness on the part of an associate can be an unwanted trait. <S> He is hopelessly quick <S> may therefore mean that he can be counted on not to slack off and delay things as he always puts in a good effort, though he may not know when to give his colleagues a respite from the relentless tasks confronting them. <A> I tried adding a comment instead but couldn't so I'll just leave it as an answer. <S> What I understand from <S> you are hopelessly quick <S> is that your client didn't expect or prepare for your sending the email as you sent it faster than he expected or too fast for him to be able to get ready for it. <S> I don't think this is a negative form because he stresses his inability to look into the email at the time you sent it and not the fact that you weren't supposed to send it that fast. <S> Hopelessly here means too fast to have a hope of coping with your pace in a good way as in :- <S> You are hopelessly fast, I will never have a chance to outrun you. <S> So the speaker here means that the listener is very fast and the speaker tries to use that praise as evidence to justify his inability to beat the listener. <S> However, that is only my point of view and you can ask your client about it to fully know and understand the situation better <S> and I am sure that further e-mails between you will clarify any hidden meaning.
| "Hopelessly" quick means that your nature is to always strive to turn in work as quickly as you can, even when speed isn't needed (an eager beaver). This could also mean that your client is unable to check the email due to some reason and that he is making an excuse for it by stating that he thinks you sent the email faster than he expected.
|
Which is grammatically correct - "define" or "to define"? I am writing a description for a video. I want to know which of the following is more correct: The next step is to define the cross section of the member. The next step is define the cross section of the member <Q> Number 1 is correct because you want to use it as an infinitive verb. <S> Here is a brief explanation with some examples: <S> There are several possible ways to use infinitive verbs. <S> You can use them: as the subject of a sentence – To err is human; to forgive, divine . <S> like an adjective or adverb phrase that expresses purpose or intent – <S> My instructions are to press this button every hour . <S> following an indirect object – <S> He told me to give this to you . <S> following certain other verbs - source <A> The only way you can make 2 correct is if you were reading a list of instructions such as: Get milk. <S> Get eggs. <S> And then the person reads the list and says: "Step one is 'get milk', step two is 'get eggs'". <A> #1 is correct. <S> #2 could be correct if you change "define" to "defining". <S> "Defining" is a gerund noun, and a noun works fine here.
| Number 1 is correct.
|
Is there a difference between "should not have done something" and "needn't have done something"? What is the difference between shouldn't have done something and needn't have done something ? Everything was okay. You needn't have worried. Can we say you shouldn't have worried instead of needn't ... ? <Q> In general, "should not" and "need not" have significantly different meanings. <S> "Should not" indicates that it is bad to do a particular thing. <S> For example, you should not drive a car too fast, because driving too fast is dangerous. <S> "Need not" indicates that it is not bad not to do a particular thing (in other words, the thing is unnecessary). <S> For example, before you get in a car and drive it, you need not look inside the fuel tank to see if there is fuel there, because the car has a fuel gauge which tells you whether or not there is fuel. <S> However, it is still okay to look inside the fuel tank if you want. <S> A synonym of "need not" is "don't need to". <S> Examples: "you don't need to turn on the headlights", "you didn't need to worry". <S> If you say "you shouldn't have worried", then what you are saying is "worrying was a bad thing to do", and that may be a little bit rude to say. <S> It would probably be better to say "you needn't have worried" (or "you didn't need to worry"). <A> As Phil14 mentions in his comment, "you shouldn't have ..." has a note of reprimand , but this can vary with context: <S> You shouldn't have brought donuts, I'm on a diet. <S> (mild reprimand, equivalent to <S> "I wish you hadn't done that") <S> Hey, you brought donuts! <S> You shouldn't have! <S> (zero reprimand, equivalent to "Thanks!") <S> "You needn't have" can also indicate disapproval, but to a lesser degree. <S> As P. E. Dant mentions in his comment, it can sound archaic or overly polite to some, but that shouldn't stop you from using it. <A> This is fairly confusing in that "should not do" and "need not do" are not equivalent negations of "should" and "need". <S> "Need not do" is as you would expect, the opposite of "need to do" - "not need to do". <S> These things are the opposite of a requirement and are therefore optional. <S> In either case, "should" or "should not", there is an obligation relating to a verb. <S> "You need not walk in the road" - but you can if you like <S> "You should not walk in the road" - so don't All of the above applies equally to the future perfect " should not have " and " need not have ". <A> I think there is a little difference between them. <S> 1) <S> You shouldn't have worried. <S> It means that there were some reasons to worry but those weren't enough. <S> 2) <S> You needn't have worried. <S> It means that it was just unnecessary to worry. <A> shouldn't have done can have meanings along a spectrum or gradient from <S> it was wrong or a bad idea to do it to <S> you were under no obligation to do it and the same is true for <S> needn't have done whose meanings extend from <S> there was no compelling reason to do it to <S> you were under no obligation to do it <S> So you can see that there is overlap between the two words. <S> We brought you some flowers to welcome you back. <S> -- <S> That was very nice of you, but you needn't|shouldn't have done that. <S> Nobody wanted the kittens <S> so I drowned them in a sack. <S> -- <S> You needn't|shouldn't have done that. <S> I'm sure if we had waited a little longer, we would have found homes for them.
| However "should not do" is much closer to a positive requirement ("should") to " not do " something.
|
I have a question about the use of name? Must the first letter of people name capitalized on any occasion? Michael Scofield, is a person name. Why I hear sometimes people call him Michael while sometimes call him Scofield? <Q> When I first read your question, I thought, "Are you sure people call him Scofield? <S> Perhaps they refer to him as Scofield." <S> Here is the distinction: Calling someone a name means you are using that name to address the person directly. <S> Hey, Scofield! <S> Didn't you hear me? <S> I asked you to come over here . <S> Referring to someone by a name means you are referencing the person indirectly. <S> Scofield earned a degree in civil engineering from Loyola University . <S> That said, there are certain places where it's normal for people (even friends) to address each other by their last names. <S> (These tend to be areas with strong authority figures, such as in the military.) <S> Because Michael Scofield is the name of a fictional prisoner , however, I wouldn't be surprised if you've heard him called Scofield. <S> I think it would be very common for prison guards to use last names when calling to or referring to prisoners. <S> In most other contexts, though, such as a business meeting, you would call him either by his first name, or (if the situation demanded more politeness) you would use Mr. Scofield, not Scofield. <A> Yes, we always capitalize the first letter of a name. <S> There are a very few exceptions, like the poet e e cummings , or the rock band "moe." <S> or the rock band "fIREHOSE" , <S> but those are considered specific styles for artistic purposes, not a general rule. <S> Usually, we call people by their first name if we're being informal or we know the person well, and by their last name if we're speaking more formally or we don't personally know them. <S> Exceptions are if the person is publicly known by only one name (like Charo, Adele, or Oprah) or they're royalty (like Queen Elizabeth). <S> And sometimes individuals just prefer to go by a last name, or we use the last name if the first name is ambiguous - at my last job <S> , there were four people in our group named "Mike", so we called them by their last names. <A> The first letter is usually always capitalized in names , and that convention is used to signify that it is the proper noun of something. <S> Using surnames to address someone, without a title , is a time honoured custom in British public schools . <S> The reason is that surnames tend to be more unique than given names in western culture, so ambiguity can be avoided. <S> Use, in this way, is usually defined by the custom and tradition of the group but is absolutely appropriate.
| In most day-to-day conversations, we call people by their first names, although in certain situations, we may refer to people by their last.
|
What does "step on the brakes" mean in this context? Based on this page , I know it means STOP but i can't figure out what they would STOP. Raising that target to 3 or even 4 percent as some economists have suggested would shift the outlook of firms in particular, allowing them to charge more for goods and pay more for labor without the fear that a central bank would step on the brakes ." Source ) <Q> The US Federal Reserve (FED) is mandated to maintain inflation within a targeted band. <S> As economic activity increases, the risk of inflation also increases. <S> By slowing down the economy, the risk of inflation abates. <S> One way the FED slows down the economy is by raising interest rates ( stepping on the brakes ). <S> What the article is saying is, if the FED's policy targets a high enough interest rate which already accommodates economic growth, businesses would not have to worry about the FED raising rates further ( stepping on the brakes ) to slow the economy down. <S> This is important since businesses want certainty <S> so they can plan for the future. <A> You can think of it in that context to mean the bank would slow them down or stop that from occuring Edit: Them being the party or person the bank is slowing down That being the action (s) being performed by the party or person in question that the bank we will be attempting to slow down or stop <A> You provided a link to a dictionary that only mentions stopping – and I've upvoted your question for showing your research. <S> However, it's often good to check more than one dictionary, as sometimes a dictionary won't quite capture all the possible usages of a word. <S> In this case, we can find more at Cambridge, which says: put the brakes on to slow down or stop an activity : <S> The city has put the brakes on further spending . <S> or at Collins, which says: brake ( noun ) <S> You can use brake in a number of expressions to indicate that something has slowed down or stopped : Illness had put a brake on his progress . <S> The expressions hit the breaks and put the brakes on <S> are pretty much interchangeable when it comes to these metaphorical usages. <A> 'Step on the brakes' means to stop as quickly as possible. <S> It comes from the days when Cars and Lorries did not have power operated brakes and to stop quickly you needed to put a lot of pressure on the brake peddle hence you put your full weight on the peddle and raised yourself out of your seat.
| This expression doesn't only mean stop, it can also mean slow down (just like you can use brakes in a car to stop or to slow down).
|
Word for advertising an idea, ideology, concept What is the best word choice for advertising concepts, ideas, ideologies, etc. Suppose that one is trying to propagate the concept, idea, etc. so that more and more people get familiar with the idea, accept it and use it. What is the best word for what he is doing? For example, a religious figure is trying to persuade others to follow the religion he follows. <Q> ... <S> For example, a religious figure is trying to persuade others to follow the religion he follows. <S> The verb proselytize would work in that context as would advance . <S> the idea of an Indy 500 for driverless cars. <S> In the concept of advertising or propaganda, you could say: He was flogging the same old concepts|ideologies <S> He was blandishing <S> the same ideas he always does. <S> He was peddling the same old ideas. <S> He was hawking the same ideas. <S> which are pejorative. <A> "Promote" is fairly common: <S> His mission is to promote the use of alternate, ecologically-friendly energy resources. <S> In a religious context, "proselytize" is often appropriate, but not often used except as a negative. <S> Some of the first Europeans to come to the Hawaiian Islands <S> were Christian missionaries who came to preach their faith to the native population. <S> "Evangelize" is not commonly used as a verb. <S> Instead you can refer to religious groups that do this as "evangelical" or "evangelist" (which actually means "focused on the gospel" and not "promoting religion"). <S> These terms can be used ironically to suggest someone has an almost religious fervor to promote some product or issue -- for example the YouTube channel "Teslavangelist" created by someone really excited about his Tesla automobile. <S> He is also an evangelist for clean water in developing countries. <A> spread: <S> Gradually reach or cause to reach a wider area or more people. <S> Next examples are also from the Oxford dictionary: <S> "It's in their interests, the pharmaceutical industry, to promulgate <S> that sort of idea on the public. <S> " <S> "‘This might be a good venue to spread your propaganda. <S> However, I think, the former sounds formal, as apposed to the latter. <A> As it relates more generally to trying to propagate the concept, idea, etc. <S> so that more and more people get familiar with the idea, accept it a common expression you might hear is raise awareness or <S> spread awareness <S> "Raising awareness" typically is a generic usage that can be said of any effort to bring attention to some issue that people may be not know about. <S> You also might raise awareness for some cause that most people know about, but you just want to bring it back into the front of people's minds. <S> Raising awareness does not in and of itself imply that you want people to actually take any specific action. <S> That's why I left "use it" off the end of your sentence – because raising awareness tends to be more about making people more familiar with the idea, but not necessarily about making them do anything about it. <S> For example, if raising awareness about some disease, you might hope that some people will donate money to research on how to prevent the disease. <S> But your primary motivation might simply be to let more people know that the disease is out there in hopes that they'll respond with empathy if they come across someone who has the disease. <S> You also wouldn't use "raising awareness" in the context of the religious figure trying to persuade others to follow his religion because the phrase does not necessarily imply any active persuasion to believe in something. <S> It's more just about letting people know that the idea is out there, and if they want to learn more about it on their own, they can.
| In addition to the excellent answers, I think you can also use the following verbs: promulgate: Promote or make widely known (an idea or cause) He has been advancing "Preach" is, I think, more common among people who see what they do as having a positive effect.
|
"off colour" and "out of sorts" in British English I am wondering whether "off colour" and "out of sorts" are completely interchangeable idioms in British English, and if not, what the difference is. John {looks/feels} a bit {off colour/out of sorts} today. An Australian co-worker of mine told me it could mean "upset", but I find his explanation contrary to dictionary definition. <Q> In your usage off colour <S> John looks a bit off colour. <S> may have more to do with John's appearance, whereas out of sorts <S> John is out of sorts today. <S> would be more about his physical, mental, or emotional state , and not necessarily his appearance, but his appearance may be effected by his state . <S> " Out of sorts " usually has more of <S> a manic <S> / active feel whereas " off colour " would be more subdued. <S> However, you might hear <S> John looks a bit out of sorts today, he's under a lot of stress. <S> John is a bit manic today, he's under a lot of stress. <S> * John feels a bit off colour today, he has a slight cold. <S> John's not feeling well <S> , he has a slight cold. <S> But both would indicate John is somehow not well. <A> Off colour <S> adjective - ODO <S> 1 (British) <S> Slightly unwell. <S> ‘I'm feeling a bit off colour’ 2 Slightly indecent or obscene. <S> ‘off-colour jokes’ Out of sorts phrase <S> - ODO <S> 1 <S> Slightly unwell. <S> ‘she's been feeling nauseous and generally out of sorts’ 1.1 <S> In low spirits <S> ; irritable. <S> ‘the trying events of the day had put him out of sorts’ <S> The phrases are interchangeable in some contexts, as the first definitions above indicate. <S> There are, however, situations where they aren't - such as situations involving definition 2 of off colour . <S> Also, the irritable sense of out of sorts also doesn't translate well to off colour . <S> For example, if Bob was unwell, he might say that he was (or felt) out of sorts. <S> It would be odd to hear him say that he (himself) was (or felt) off colour. <A> There is no exact definition of off colour <S> it's one of those terms you get to know through enough usage. <S> It merely means one is not feeling well . <S> It could be the flu, it could be hay fever, but whatever it is, it is not fatal. <S> You can also be said to be/feel off colour when you are hung over . <S> You are right to think it is not really related to upset . <S> Off colour is usually more physical than emotional .
| In practice, off colour is used to describe someone else, whereas out of sorts might be used by both the observer and by the one who is unwell.
|
Is it correct English to write "John he is my husband," or, "Mary she went to the store?" Is it correct English to write “John he is my husband,” or, “Mary she went to the store?” I hear this construction frequently from TV and Radio Journalists. Is there a name for this construction? <Q> This construction is common in speech, and in writing which emulates speech. <S> The initial noun phrase acts as a discourse marker to announce a shift of focus to a new or resumed topic; it will usually be emphasized with stress, pitch, and prosody—often a falling pitch similar to 'comma intonation' or rising pitch similar to 'question intonation'. <S> In writing it should be followed by some sort of disjunctive point, such as a comma, dash, question mark or colon. <S> Most of them are my brothers, but John, he's my husband. <S> The construction is perfectly grammatical, but it is rarely used in formal writing, which lacks the accompanying vocal resources. <S> Formal writing has other methods for achieving the same marking: <S> Most of them are my brothers; John, however , is my husband. <A> The first is in poetic usage where the extra pronoun is used either as a matter of form (this construction is common in folk music) or to preserve metre, e.g: <S> Mary she went to the store For to meet with the man she adored <S> And she watched by the hour While he measured out flour And loitered around by the door <S> Fol a diddle de roll, etc. <S> Another common construction is in response to a question. <S> For example: Q: Who is this John you keep mentioning? <S> A: John? <S> He's my husband. <S> So overall it is not how native English speakers would usually construct a sentence in casual conversation or writing <S> but neither is it wrong nor particularly inelegant. <A> Yes, but you are punctuating the sentence improperly. <S> To record this kind of phrase in English, we use the em-dash to set the appositive apart from the rest of the sentence. <S> This gives: John— he's my husband— <S> [rest of sentence]. <S> Mary— she went to the store— [rest of sentence]. <S> We use the em-dash to separate the appositive here, as opposed to the more typical comma, because the appositive phrase is an independent clause. <S> You could reword the sentences as follows to make the comma fit in. <S> John, my husband, [rest of sentence]. <S> Mary, who went to the store, [rest of sentence]. <S> That said, both formats are grammatically correct and indeed common in spoken English. <S> The emdash is often represented in written English in keyboard-recorded media via the digraph '--', rather than the more traditional character '—' <A> The construction is called "left-dislocation topicalization". <S> Here's a paper 1 about the phenomenon, which defines the term in the introduction: <S> In this paper, I will investigate the information-structural properties of two English structures which utilize word-order variation for such purposes. <S> (1a) and (1b) provide examples for the constructions. <S> (1) a. Tom, I like. <S> b. Tom, I like him. <S> The common name in the literature for the configuration in (1a) is "Topicalization" (abbreviated as TOP henceforth), while (1b) is most commonly called "Left-Dislocation" (abbreviated as LD). <S> [1] On English Topicalization and Left-Dislocation from an Information-Structural Perspective, by Péter Szűcs <A> This is common in informal English. <S> You add extra information about the person you have just mentioned. <S> As StoneyB marked in his answer such extra information can be " emphasized with stress, pitch, and prosody ": <S> John, he's my husband, has just gone to the shop. <S> Henry, oh, he's working in the garage. <S> Oh, come on, that George of yours, he isn't a nice person. <S> Depending on what punctuation mark is placed the meaning is different. <S> Mary? <S> She went to the store. <S> John! <S> You naughty kid! <S> Get here immediately!
| As the sentences stand, the pronouns are normally redundant however, there are some circumstances where you would use it with some modifications in punctuation.
|
what does "wouldn't have known any better mean" mean in the following? The car I drove needed some work but I was afraid to take it to the mechanic. Because honestly, the mechanic could have shown me an electric can opener and said, "This is part of your car and it's broken -- pay me to fix it," and I wouldn't have known any better. <Q> In your example, it's is implying that the writer knows so little about cars that the mechanic could cheat them using an electric can opener <S> and they lacked the knowledge to understand it was happening to them. <A> to know any better = <S> an idiomatic expression to not know something or not know about something when a situation arises. <S> Judges enter a courtroom, normally everyone stands up. <S> If everyone does not stand up, those who did not stand up, did not know any better. <S> If they had known better, they would have stood up. <A> The expression reflects that true beliefs are better than false ones. <S> I would have believed the mechanic who told me that the can opener was part of my car. <S> I would have accepted this false belief; I would have not have known better -- that is, I would not have known the truth, although knowing the truth would have been better. <A> To "not know any better" refers to a state of ignorance, the ignorance of better information, ignorance of the truth. <S> There an implicit comparand: ... <S> I would not have known any better [thing than what I had been told or led to believe] which is defined by the context. <S> In the context you have provided: I would have lacked the knowledge to judge for myself whether what I was being told by the mechanic was accurate or truthful. <S> When a person came down with an illness, they would draw blood from him. <S> They did not know any better. <S> They were ignorant. <S> They lacked the knowledge of a better way to treat the illness. <S> They were ignorant about the cause of the illness and how to treat it.
| It means that you do not know enough about a topic or situation to be able to know if what the other person is saying is true.
|
I am looking for a term to describe people who leave their home and stay in another place for some time and go back after some time A rich woman has a very big house in Bordeaux, but she does not always live in Bordeaux. Instead she usally goes to Marseille in January and stays there until October. Then she goes back to Bordeaux in mid October for a few days before she heads for Marseille again. She is not a business woman, so I hope you can help me find some words to describe her. <Q> The general term for people who are continuously moving might be nomadic however, this, in my mind, would be complimentary if the person was younger . <S> In the States, older people, who travel south for the winter and north for the summer (the pattern in your example) can be called snow birds as an allusion to migratory birds . <A> Based on your description, I do not think Peter's answer of "snow bird" is particularly accurate for this situation, for two reasons: <S> The woman stays in Marseille almost all of the year. <S> She is rarely in Bordeaux. <S> Google Maps is showing me that Bordeaux is barely north of Marseille. <S> It's a decent distance away, but mostly in the east-west direction. <S> The typical reason for someone being a snow bird is because they want to stay where the weather is warm all year round, so they travel north or south as the seasons change, like migratory birds. <S> In English, I'm not sure you have a perfect phrase to capture this type of person. <S> The best I can come up with is transient <S> That could be used as an adjective to describe her, or you could actually refer to her as "a transient." <S> From dictionary.com: ( adj ) <S> staying only a short time or ( noun ) a person or thing that is transient, especially a temporary guest, boarder, laborer, or the like <S> David Washington's suggestion of intermittent resident is also good. <S> A similar term you might hear is impermanent resident . <S> Especially in legal terms (e.g., for tax purposes), at least in the states, you would have a "permanent residence," where you theoretically would spend most of your year; the opposite would obviously be an impermanent residence, though the latter is probably not an especially common term. <S> Still, we could extend the idea of an "impermanent residence" to describe this woman as an "impermanent resident." <S> One term that would be more common for the non-permanent residence would be vacation home . <S> There is not really a matching term to describe the person who goes to the vacation home, though. <A> I can't think of a good term that can fulfill what you have mentioned in the question.
| But I would suggest the term, intermittent traveller / resident, which means someone is not continuously living in a particular place.
|
"A patients guide" or "A patient's guide"? I am working on one of my employer's websites, and we have a video guide up for patients of how a particular procedure works. The guide was previously titled "A patients guide to [X]", but I have corrected it to "A patient's guide to [X]" as I initially felt that that was correct, and Grammarly also agreed. However, now I'm not so sure. Which do I go for? <Q> You need an apostrophe to mark a possessive case here. <S> However, the possessive case doesn't refer to ownership in such examples, instead it refers to the meaning " is intended for ": <S> A patient's guide to [X] A student's guide to [X] <S> A teacher's guide to [X] <S> This means that this guide is intended for students, teachers or patients. <S> Example <S> " The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ", " The Student's Guide to Becoming a Nurse ", " The Teacher's Guides To Technology <S> And Learning ". <S> An edit based on FranklinCovey Style Guide: For Business and Technical Communication by Stephen R. Covey : <S> Possessive case vs Descriptive nouns. <S> First of all let's distinguish the difference between the possessive case and the descriptive uses of nouns: <S> The Teacher's Guide (or Teachers' Guide) - Possessive case The Teacher Guide (or Teachers Guide) - Descriptive nouns <S> The traditional use of the possessive (with an apostrophe) is less common today, especially with corporate names. <S> The name for a guide for teachers is open to all sorts of possibilities. <S> In The Teacher Guide , the noun " teacher " functions as an adjective and not a possessive. <S> This form, without the apostrophe, would appear in titles and in news headlines (which often omit apostrophes) . <S> But notice that other options are possible (and correct) . <S> The best advice is to decide for a single document whether you want to use a descriptive or a possessive. <S> Then be consistent throughout that document. <A> If you use the S, it must be "A patient's guide", which implies that the guide is possessed by a specific patient, or "Patients' guide", which implies that the guide is for multiple patients. <S> I think one could justify both. <S> The first could be justified as being specifically for the reader, who is a patient. <S> Alternatively, one could call it "A Patient Guide", although this risks being confused with the adjective "patient", which would describe someone or something that is tolerant and will wait without complaint. <S> With some contexts (e.g. "A doctor guide") this would be fine. <S> Here, I think it's slightly ambiguous and best avoided. <A> I haven't gotten a single example of "A patients guide " over searching on Google, so "A patient 's guide " is appropriate here. <S> It's also same for "A parent's guide " and "A student's guide " . <A> Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writers and Editors says: <S> No apostrophe is generally used today [1998. <S> -p.a.s] <S> with plural nouns that are more descriptive than possessive. <S> Examples they give are "steelworkers union", "managers meeting" and "singles bar". <S> I think patients guide fits in that group nicely: After all, the patients indeed do not actually own it. <A> "A patient's guide" would be a guide FOR a patient. <A> Part of the issue is that you have an "A" at the beginning of your title. <S> Such titles, as pointed out by others, feature singular nouns -- you might have a book about insurance called "A Patient's Guide to Patience." <S> However, there are other publications whose titles start with "The" -- and these can go either way. <S> "The Boy's Guide to Greatness" or "The Boys' Book Of Survival" are two examples. <S> When these "The" titles are singular, there is usually an adjective included: "The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra" or "The Married Man's Guide to Adultery" or combined forms like "The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue." <S> Titles like these sound a bit traditional or even old-timey. <S> No surprise, then, that "Ladies' Home Journal" dropped its "The" a while ago. <A> The key in this case is that Teachers Guide is Plural Possessive . <S> Proper form is "Teachers' Guide". <S> The apostrophe goes at the end. <S> Check out this "Advanced (plural) possession" video from the Khan Academy.
| "A patients guide" would be a guide about patients. I would argue the latter is more grammatical, although the first seems more common.
|
What part of speech is "before" in the phrase "before we meet again"? Identify the part of speech of the word in bold: It will be five years before we meet again. 4 options: Preposition Adverb Conjuction Adjective Now, According to my knowledge, "before" is an adverb. However the correct answer was - conjunction. What am I missing? <Q> Traditionally, it's referred to as a "subordinating conjunction" because it introduces a subordinate clause. <S> But in modern grammar, it's analyzed as a preposition that takes a clause rather than a noun phrase as a complement. <A> The word " before " is a preposition here. <S> Refer to Oxford Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary for grammar. <S> and here's the explanation English Grammar <S> Today : <S> Before as a preposition <S> We use before most commonly with noun phrases to refer to timed events. <S> However, " EnglishPractice " says that it is a conjunction here. <S> As a conjunction before means ‘previously to the time when’. <S> The conjunction before joins two clauses together. <S> Note that before and its clause can come either before or after the other clause. <S> In subordinate clauses introduced by before we use a present tense to refer to the future. <S> I will call you before I go. <S> ( NOT I will call you before I will go.) <A> In that sentence, before is acting as a conjunction because it would be putting two clauses together, but in that phrase there aren't two clauses so its not a complete sentence. <S> if it was a complete sentence however, it would say, we will do "this" before we meet again. <S> Here it is acting as a conjunction by putting the two clauses together
| Before means During the period of time preceding (a particular event or time)
|
school lunch in American English What does "school lunch" mean in American English? Is it ambiguous between a lunch provided by a school and a lunch prepared at home like a bag lunch? <Q> When I hear the term "school lunch," I typically think of the former meaning first. <S> However, as was stated in a comment by @userr2684291, the latter meaning is still valid. <S> (Just because a phrase usually means one thing doesn't mean it <S> never means another.) <S> Here are a couple quotes that use the term in this way: <S> When I was in the second grade, my mom packed my school lunch every day in a brown paper bag . <S> (Aegina Angeliades, My Skin Don't Fit , 2014) <S> If you need fresh ideas for making healthy school lunches, leftovers can save the day . <S> ( VegKitchen website ) <S> As a footnote, you should remember that any two-word term like "school lunch" may have more than one meaning. <S> Moreover, when you say "in American English," you should know that regionalisms may and often do apply . <S> Hotdish and a frappe for lunch, anyone? <A> I'm not American but " school lunch " <S> is a meal, typically in the middle or beginning of the school day, provided to students at school. <S> That's what Wikipedia says. <S> Your second description " lunch prepared at home like a bag lunch " is actually a " packed lunch " (or bag lunch in North America) - a lunch prepared at home and carried to be eaten somewhere else, such as school, a workplace, or at an outing. <S> As says Wikipedia. <A> School lunch is the meal eaten at school. <S> Now here in this sentence it doesn't say anything if the lunch is provided by the school authority or prepared at some other place with the objective of eating it at school. <S> So the school lunch is the typical lunch that is packed at home to be eaten at school, or provided by the school itself to be eaten at lunch break at the school. <S> It's estimated that 30.6 million students in the US get their lunches in the school cafeteria versus bringing it from home. <S> ( Source ). <A> To add on to the other answers: "School lunch" is ambiguous. <S> It could be provided by the school for the midday meal, or one that you bring with you to eat at school. <S> Without context, you don't know for sure which is meant, or even if there is any relevant difference. <S> In addition, "school lunch" (commonly "lunchtime") can also be the time period during which students normally eat the midday meal, and then go play or talk or whatever else they are permitted to do during that break time. <S> Example: <S> Mister Potter. <S> As you have been told, school lunch is for eating or playing with your friends. <S> It is not for drawing magic circles and transforming your fellow students into newts. <S> We are not that kind of school. <S> Again, context is important to understand which is meant.
| A school lunch can either be: a lunch prepared and served in the school cafeteria, or a lunch prepared at home and taken to school to be eaten there.
|
Have forgotten or forgot? I'm walking out of a bar and I'm putting my hand in my pocket, and I can't find my wallet. So it's better to say "I have forgotten my wallet" or "I forgot my wallet" ? <Q> Grammatically, either version is fine for OP's context, but most people would probably go for the shorter Simple Past version most of the time (if only because it is shorter and simpler). <S> The difference is really one of fine nuance. <S> Present Perfect focuses more explicitly on your current state - that of being without your wallet due to (past) forgetfulness. <S> Simple Past actually carries the same meaning in OP's exact context, but it's important to note that this is a contextual implication. <S> Consider a slightly different scenario where the speaker is paying his drinks bill with a credit card, but forgetfulness strikes in the form of a senior moment at the "Enter PIN number" stage. <S> Credible things he might say to the barman to explain the problem include... <S> 1) <S> I have (more commonly, I've ) <S> forgotten my PIN 2) <S> I forgot my PIN 3) <S> I forget my PIN <S> I think in that situation the Present Perfect would probably be most likely. <S> Note that in practice <S> the Simple Present (#3) doesn't actually occur very often with the specific verb to forget . <S> We don't tend to think of forgetting as a "continuous" activity - it's usually the case that at some unspecified point in the (usually, very recent ) past <S> the speaker realised he couldn't recall some relevant information because it had already been forgotten . <S> Thus to some people it might sound a little odd to use Present Tense to say you're currently forgetting something - which almost implies that immediately prior to speaking, you hadn't yet forgotten it. <S> Short Answer: <S> Both are perfectly natural, and it would be stretching a point to say either is "better" in most contexts. <S> But as ever - for simplicity, most learners would do better to avoid Perfect forms unless they're absolutely necessary (the KISS principle ). <A> As @SovereignSun pointed out, they are both perfectly fine. <S> It just depends on what tense you want to use. <S> The Present Perfect Tense (I have forgotten) is formed with a present tense form of "to have" (I have) plus the past participle of the verb, which can be either regular or irregular in form see here which in the case of forgotten the verb is a past participle of the irregular verb "forget" . <S> The Past Tense or Simple Past <S> Tense <S> (I forgot) <S> indicates that an action is in the past relative to the speaker or writer . <A> Both are appropriate. <S> I'd probably use the simple past just because it's a tiny bit shorter and more definite <S> and I'd want to get back in the bar as quickly as possible to retrieve my wallet. <S> To get some insight into the difference, consider a conversation with your roommate the next morning. <S> If you noticed forgetting your wallet when you came out of the bar, you'd say "I forgot my wallet" when talking about it the next morning. <S> That's because the episode is over. <S> Especially if you successfully retrieved your wallet, you would not use the present perfect. <S> Now suppose that you didn't notice forgetting your wallet when you left the bar. <S> You're talking the next morning with your roommate <S> and you notice right then. <S> Now both simple past and present perfect are appropriate, because the story of your forgotten wallet is not yet over. <S> " <S> Oh no! <S> I 've forgotten my wallet! <S> I must have left it at the bar! <S> " You're describing the current situation as part of an ongoing story that began last night. <S> Because the present perfect frames the past event as part of some process that continues unbroken to the present and perhaps into the future, choosing the present perfect also suggests that you have some hope that you could still recover your wallet.
| Both phrases are gramatically correct because they follow the rules of each part of their relevant tenses. You'd say "Last night, I forgot my wallet at the bar, but luckily I noticed right as we were leaving, and I went back in and found it."
|
By the year 1582 vs in 1582 1.In 1582, scientists pointed out that the calendar was 10 days behind the sun 2.By the year 1582, scientists pointed out that the calendar was 10 days behind the sun. I wanted to know the difference between "by the year 1582" and "in 1582". <Q> " In 1582 " means that the event happened in 1582, plain and simple. <S> " By the year 1582 " means the event happened sometime during or before the year 1582. <S> (This would be the more apt wording if we weren't sure exactly when the event took place, but we knew that it happened no later than 1582.) <A> The "core" sense of by is near, beside , but in contexts where movement (through space or time) is relevant, there's a metaphorical extension to this definition. <S> From the full OED... <S> by - Sense 21a: <S> Marking the completion of the time required or assigned for the performance of an action <S> What this means is that in contexts such as You should understand this sentence by now , <S> the implication of including by is that you should have had sufficient time to understand it (with the further implication that the amount of time since the point when you started trying to understand it is relatively large). <S> If by hadn't been included <S> (You should understand this sentence now) , that allusion to "excessive, more than <S> sufficient" time largely disappears (the speaker may simply be alluding to the fact that since he's only just explained things, you should understand it now even if you might not have done half-an-hour ago). <S> This metaphorical use of by can be extended to locational referents provided they're contextually linked to time because there's movement through points in space (in the same way the movement of the hands of a clock reflect movement forwards through time). <S> Thus, for example,... Because the lift wasn't working, I started up the stairs to my tenth floor penthouse apartment. <S> But by the fourth floor <S> I was absolutely exhausted, and needed to sit down and rest. <S> Thus in OP's specific context, by the year 1582 implies that either scientists had already been spending time preparing to say something about "calendar drift", OR (more probably) <S> it's just an oblique reference to the fact that the discrepancy between "calendar time" and real-world time as measured by the changing of seasons was becoming progressively larger every year, and could no longer be ignored. <S> Without <S> by , one might assume the scientists only just noticed and publicised the discrepancy in 1582 (with no implication that any preceding events or actions actually led up to this situation). <A> There is a subtle but real difference between the use of "by the year" and "in the year 1582…" If you say " by the year 1582 ," you are indicating that before that year scientists didn’t point out that knowledge, however, the evidence was mounting and they were coming closer to that point in time to be able to do so (due to having enough evidence, or acceptance or for whatever reason) and, in 1582, there was a sense of completion that enabled them to point out their knowledge. <S> When you say "in the year 1582…" the meaning is that the action was done sometime that year. <S> The sense is that it’s not known exactly when during that year, but sometime that year. <S> In "in the year 1582…" there is a bit of an emphasis that that was the year the scientist pointed it out whereas "by the year" gives the feeling that something was in the process of changing or coming about, and it finally did (change or come about) in that year. <A> " By the year " here means " before the year " or " no later than the year ": <S> By the year 1582 , scientists pointed out that the calendar was 10 days behind the sun. <S> (Before the year 1582 starts) <S> The scientists could have been working any period of time (we don't know for sure) <S> but no later than 1582 they pointed out that the calendar was 10 days behind the sun. <S> You could also say " By the end of the year " to refer to a period before the end of a specific year; no later than the end of a specific year. <S> In 1582 , scientists pointed out that the calendar was 10 days behind the sun. <S> (Only within the year 1582 and not within any other year) <A> As others have said, if the second sentence had been: <S> "By the year 1582, scientists had pointed out that the calendar was 10 days behind the sun." <S> then it would mean that they pointed it out no later than 1582. <S> In your sentence, though, "by the year" is associated with the the calendar drifting, not with the scientists' statement. <S> It could be rephrased to: " Context about how the calendar had been moving out of sync with the sun ... <S> Scientists pointed out that in 1582 the calendar was 10 days behind the sun."
| The scientists either pointed this out in 1582, or were historians who pointed it out years later, depending on the previous context. " In the year " means exactly within the period of the year; during the year (not before and not after) .
|
What is the word for this type of shade mixed with spots of sunlight? What is the word/phrase which describes that type of shade which one can witness on a sunny day under a tree which doesn't have very thick foliage; the one which is a mixture of shadow spots formed by the leaves and light spots from the sunlight coming between them? <Q> What about dappled shade? <S> dappled <S> adjective <S> Marked with spots or rounded patches. <S> ‘Nam's yard sat soft-lit under a few swinging lanterns amid dappled shade from the trees.’ <S> (ODO) <S> The best place to be today was in the woods, in the dappled shade of Barming Woods, away from the 27.C heat! <S> ( Source ) <A> The phrase you might be looking for is light shade broken shade as opposed to dense shade deeply shaded <A> On the other hand, if you want a more poetic expression, Max 's answer is better.
| I really like the answer given by Max , but if you are looking for a less poetic expression with a greater likelihood of comprehension (I feel there might be a few people who might not understand "dappled shade", as good an expression as it is), I would say "patchy shade".
|
Is it natural to write "You must read the book, as must your brother"? You must read the book, as must your brother. I want to use this sentence to express the following meaning: Your brother must read the book; You also must read the book like your brother. Is it natural? <Q> To my (American) <S> ear, it sounds like a nineteenth-century novel. <S> It does not sound natural to me. <S> "As must" is now rarely used. <A> To my English ear <S> as must your brother !" <A> It's correct, but sounds a bit old-fashioned or academic. <S> A more usual way of saying it would be "You have to read the book, and your brother does too."
| This sentence is grammatically correct, and unambiguously expresses your intended meaning. " You must read this book, as must your brother " might easily and naturally be spoken by a parent forcefully emphasising to each sibling individually and without ambiguity that neither of them has a choice... ( Looking at one child ) " You must read this book,... " ( turning to look at the brother ) " ...
|
'run an errand' - what does 'run' mean? a. He did an errand for his mother. b. He ran an errand for his mother. I'm not a native english speaker. This expression 'do an errand' is easy for me to understand. We also have this expression 'do an errand' in our tongue. But in 'run an errand' I don't know what does 'run' mean. I understand what 'run' means in these sentence: Can you run as fast as Mike? I ran to meet her. But when natives use 'run an errand'... What nuance of meaning of the word 'run' is here? So, Does 'run an errand' mean 'He runs to do an errand'? If I'm walking to do an errand, it is not run an errand but do an errand? I'm confused. T.T (Oh! she is running in the picture) <Q> "Run an errand" is an idiom. <S> Its meaning is not built up in a natural way from the meanings of its parts. <S> I can think of no other expression where "run" essentially just means "do", but it does here. <S> I think LawrenceC's answer gives a good explanation of how it makes sense for this particular idiom to have evolved. <A> Run has a lot of meanings. <S> One of those in the form of run to X means to go somewhere with the intent of returning quickly. <S> For example: I'm going to run to the store and get grapes. <S> You intend to go to the store just to buy grapes and come back. <S> You aren't intending to stay at the store and browse for additional things to shop, talk to people, etc. <S> While an errand is usually something you do and not a place, the word errand typically implies you have to travel to places such as stores, etc. <S> So you never say run to some errands but merely run some errands. <A> Simply put, ran an errand means the same as did an errand . <S> Here, run is not literal. <S> Run has many meanings , which include perform, complete, accomplish . <S> Furthermore, you could drive or walk to your destinations and still say that you ran errands . <S> In he runs to do an errand , I would take runs to be literal. <S> In other words, in order to complete his errand, he physically runs. <S> Notice that this is different in meaning from <S> he ran an errand . <S> In my opinion, the image includes a running person to imply that they will do the work quickly, promptly. <S> It is does not imply that they will literally run to do the errands. <S> Chances are they will be driving around town. <S> Also, run an errand <S> is more common than <S> do an errand : Ngram <A> However, run/ran can have many meanings.
| In this case, run means to do , to complete .
|
What does "meet" mean in this passage? I am not english native speaker; I am italian. I couldn't understand meaning "meet" in this context. As noted in CCP Standard 2.2, the Board operates eight Board-level committees to aid in the discharge of its duties. These committees advise the Board on their relevant area and are governed by their respective charters, which are publicly available on the CME Group website. The Audit, Compensation, Governance and Nominating committees are solely composed of directors who meet CME Group's published independence standards. In addition, the Market Regulation Oversight Committee is composed of directors who meet the CFTC's requirements for ‘public’ directors. <Q> Sometimes it is easier to understand a sentence if we reduce it to a manageable size by replacing long phrases with short words, so that just the "framework" remains. <S> In this case, let's take the original: <S> The Audit, Compensation, Governance and Nominating committees are solely composed of directors who meet CME Group's published independence standards. <S> We'll replace Audit, Compensation, Governance and Nominating committees with "teams", and we'll replace CME Group's published independence standards with just "the standards". <S> We'll eliminate the adverb solely , too. <S> This leaves us with: <S> The teams are composed of directors who meet the standards. <S> Now that we have trimmed the sentence, we can concentrate on the verb meet. <S> Wiktionary has, as the 4th definition of meet: <S> "To satisfy; to comply with." <S> Now we can replace meet in the sentence with the definition: <S> The teams are composed of directors who comply with the standards. <S> When native speakers use the verb meet in a context like this one, a bit of the more common meaning of the verb is in the back of our minds. <S> When I meet you for coffee, I approach you and move closer to you, until we are face to face. <S> In the same way, in the sentence we are considering, the "teams" are composed of persons whose performance is "face to face" with the expected standards. <A> In your examples, "meet" is used in the sense of "fulfill." <S> In other words, all of the directors on the committees are at least as good or as qualified as the standards specify, and the M.R.O.C. directors are all 'public' directors (or eligible to be 'public' directors). <A> People who meet certain criteria are on the same level as the criteria. <S> In your example, that level is the minimum criteria . <S> A person who is exactly at that level is said to just meet the criteria. <S> Not to be confused with barely meet or fully meet , the same analogy to meeting person can be extended to those examples also.
| When you meet someone you usually come face-to-face with them, you are on the same level as they are, eye-to-eye let us say.
|
"I hear a noise" vs "I hear noise" I'm not sure about differences in these two sentences. I hear a noise. I hear noise. Is noise something you can count? What is the difference between the two? <Q> Noise can work as a countable or uncountable noun. <S> Noises like the sound of someone banging something, knocking on something, or short sounds with well defined beginnings and endings are countable. <A> It's all about the sense implied. <S> In the first sentence( I hear a noise. ) <S> In this sense, the word refers to a distinct (loud) sound that can distract the mind for a short moment. <S> We say: 'Don't make a noise, please.' <S> [ 'Please keep quiet. ] <S> Here, the word refers to a noisy atmosphere (as in a classroom) created by talking. <S> In the second sentence ( I hear noise ), the word refers to some constant unpleasant sound from the traffic, industrial facilities, crowded places, and so on. <S> It is the unpleasant atmosphere created by the blending of various sound sources. <S> We say- <S> There is so much <S> noise outside .(uncountable) <S> The noise level in the audio is so terrible. <S> (uncountable) <S> I heard a strange noise outside. <S> (countable) <S> I heard noises coming from that house. <S> (countable) <S> The difference in the given pair of sentences will be clear from the extensions: <S> I hear a noise ( coming from a particular source ). <S> I hear <S> so much noise (in this place/ created by various sources.) <A> "The isle is full of noises": separately identifiable, if not countable. <S> As brillig says, 'what a lot of noise' is very different from 'what a lot of noises'.
| noise is synonymous with a sound. Continuous noise would be uncountable, such as static from an old CRT TV tuned to a channel with nothing transmitting on it, or the sound of an engine from a car.
|
What are the differences between "receptacle" and "container"? Generally, both "receptacle" and "container" refer to an object that contains some other object(s). What are the differences between these two words? Do they differ in meaning, usage, or origin? I searched "difference between receptacle and container" in Google but the only two relevant results ( [1] , [2] ) can both be summarized as "They are basically the same thing". <Q> Receptacle <-- receives something Container <-- contains something Sender <-- sends something A receiver uses his receptacle to receive something. <S> Then he puts it into his container (memory) to keep it contained and safe. <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/receptacle <S> 1375-1425 <S> ; Middle English (< Old French) < Latin receptāculum reservoir, equivalent to receptā(re) to take again, receive back (frequentative of recipere to receive ) <S> + <S> -culum <S> -cle2 <A> An instructive synonym for receptacle in an electrical sense is socket (discussed in depth here under difference between “socket” and “outlet” ). <S> Socket can't usually be a synonym for container . <S> You can call a litter bin a trash container or a trash receptacle . <S> In the former case you're emphasising storage, in the latter, you're emphasising acceptance. <S> You may have been a little unlucky with your choice of dictionary. <S> Merriam-Webster has "one that receives and contains something", Cambridge has "a container used for storing or putting objects in" (emphasis mine in both cases). <A> A trash bin may be called a trash receptacle or a trash container, but a power receptacle would not be called a power container. <S> The "receiving" done by a power receptacle, in my connotation is that it receives the plug from the device to be powered. <S> There is some overlap but, as others have mentioned, the root of "receptacle" is "receive" and the root of "container" is "contain". <S> Google Search <A> Consider where trash is sorted by different materials; glass goes into the glass receptacle, paper in the paper receptacle, etc. <A> The difference is in what the object is used for. <S> When I see "container" <S> I think of something people put stuff into that the want to store for some indefinite period of time, then remove and use. <S> When I see "receptacle" I think of something that people put stuff into for a specific reason, that someone else is going to remove to use for whatever purpose. <S> Examples: <S> I put my leftover dinner in a plastic container so I can take it to work tomorrow. <S> I dropped the empty can in the aluminum receptacle. <S> "Receptacle" can also refer to where you plug electrical cords, but, in AE at least, it is more often called an "outlet".
| You could look to the common phrase, "place the item in the proper receptacle", and derive that receptacle is a more specified type of container; a container designated to receive a particular item. A major part of the difference in use is to do with the purpose.
|
What is the correct word for "turn off lamp" for a non-electric lamp? We often say turn off the lights. Is it correct to say turn off the lamp when referring to a non-electric lamp (lit by fire)?That doesn't sound proper. Which is the better phrase to use there? <Q> This is like how you "put out" a barbeque or a camping fire. <S> Note that, at least where I am, "lamp" and "light" are now synonymous and it took me a while to figure out what difference you were implying between the electric lightbulb and your "lamp". <A> you can use douse the lamp or extinguish the lamp for a fire-lit lamp. <A> A single word for ending fires of all kinds: extinguish : <S> (transitive) to put out, as in fire; to end burning; to quench <S> This works for all kinds of flame lamps equally well <S> (as does the original, put out ): <S> candles: snuff , snuff out , put out , extinguish gas lights: turn off , put out , <S> extinguish oil lamps: <S> turn off , put out , <S> extinguish burning torches: douse , put out , extinguish "Extinguish" and "put out" also appropriate for electric lights, for which I'd not use any of the other terms above. <A> "Turn out the lamp" was also used more than 'off' in the times when lamps were oil or gas - see this ngram search . <A> Snuff or Snuff out applies specifically to lights based on fire: lamps, candles, torches. <S> It's perhaps a little bit old fashioned (though so are fire-based lights!) <A> Your two choices in your scenario are <S> Turn off the lamp. <S> which is most idiomatic. <S> Another possibility might be Shut off the lamp. <S> but less often used. <A> Blow out is an other precise phrase which can be used in this context. <S> It means: Be extinguished by an air current. <S> Example usage: <S> She blew out the candles , posed graciously for countless photographs and accepted cheek kisses galore. <S> Seattle TimesNov 29, 2016
| If the lamp is lit by actual fire, I'd probably say: Put out the lamp.
|
Does "next to" mean "to the right" or "to the left"? According to Oxford Learner's Dictionary, next to in or into a position right beside somebody/something following in order or importance after somebody/something If: A is next to B it should mean that A is immediately beside B (as per the cited definition). I would normally assume that A comes after B or is to to B's right. Context I'm trying to the solve the "Einstein's Riddle" and two of the givens are: The Norwegian lives in the first house. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house. If the Norwegian is the first house in a row of five houses, it can't possibly come after the blue house. In this case, knowing the correct position is most important. What should I assume? I'm arranging the houses horizontally from left to right. So, will the N house be leftmost? If so, will the blue house be to its right? Question Now the question is: Is A to the right of B? Or to the left? Definition #2 seems to suggest that A comes after B — that is, to the right (assuming things are ordered from left to right, as is generally). However, if A and B are next to each other, A is to the right of B, and B is to the left of A. Either ways are possible then. Which one is a correct interpretation of ' next to '? <Q> Physically close, and if there is a set of objects, there is no object between them. <S> In using the word "next" in reference to something that comes after the current thing, there needs to be a direct ordering. <S> For example, in a queue Bob is after Joe in the queue. <S> Joe is currently being served, and Bob is next . <S> You could use "next to " in an example like this, but I have never heard it used to imply ordering, and would only assume in this next example that Bob and Joe were adjacent, and would need more information to know who is first. <S> in fact, were someone to say something like this to me, I would initially assume that Bob and Joe were sharing the same place in the queue- one is not in front of the other. <S> Bob and Joe are in the queue. <S> Bob is next to Joe. <S> In your riddle example The Norwegian lives in the first house. <S> The Norwegian lives next to the blue house. <S> I would definitely assume that the Norwegian's house and the blue house are adjacent, but would make no assumption of ordering just based on these two statements. <S> Going into further detail to explain the second definition of "next to" that you mentioned. <S> Merriam-Webster only has two definitions for "next to": 1: immediately following or adjacent to 2: in comparison to -- "next to you <S> I'm wealthy" <S> If I were to use the first usage in an ordered sense, it would be something like Starting from the left of the photo, we have Bob. <S> Standing next to him is Joe. <S> But again, "next to" doesn't give the ordering- <S> the implied ordering (Joe is obviously on the right of Bob) comes from the other things I have said ("starting from the left"), not from the term "next to". <S> The second definition is idomatic. " <S> next to you I'm wealthy <S> " implies something like "were we to stand next to each other and compare our wealth, I would appear wealthy." <S> An idiomatic usage that is very similar to M-W's second use is noted in the Dictionary.com entry: 9 c aside from: Next to cake, ice cream is my favorite dessert. <S> Again, this implies an imaginary ranking of favorite desserts. <S> Cake would be at the top, followed by ice cream. <A> I feel here in Oxford <S> the word 'right' shows closeness. <S> So the meaning of 'next to' is nearby... <S> either it is in right or left. <A> The meaning of 'next to' has already been well answered here, but I would like to add in context: <S> This question introduced me to Einstein's "five houses" riddle which I worked on for an hour and solved 2 days back. <S> Since houses are assumed to be arranged horizontally in the riddle, the Norwegian lives in the first house from left or right and the house 'next to' it is EITHER the house second from left or the (4th) house second from right. <S> Selecting either end apparently does not affect the final question of the puzzle though the exact solution may differ a little. <S> Note: As pointed out in an earlier answer here, the key with the regular usage of 'first' and 'next to' is not to <S> assume that something is the 'first thing' from the left or that 'next to' means to the right (or left) of something else unless it is specifically mentioned. <S> Otherwise we should proceed with an open mind. <S> Note 2 <S> : a very perceptive answer at ELL did point out the houses could even be arranged in a circle except that the clue 'first' house suggests a linear arrangement.
| The word "next", in talking about physical location, is the same as adjacent .
|
What does the author mean by "What did he there?" I'm reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein written in 19th century. I'm not sure whether the sentence I just encountered (bold text below) is a misprint or an example of archaic English and I'm trying to figure it out. Volume 1, Chapter 7: A flash of lightning illuminated the object, and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy daemon to whom I had given life. What did he there? Could he be (I shuddered at the conception) the murderer of my brother? <Q> Today we would say "What was he doing there?" <S> In older English, any verb might invert with its subject to form a question: <S> How goes the night, boy? — <S> Macbeth , ca. <S> 1603 <S> How goes our battle? <S> — <S> Nelson at Trafalgar, 1805 <S> The restriction of inversion to auxiliaries, with do support where needed, developed only gradually, and the older practice lingered until the early 19th century. <A> What did he there? <S> This is a simple way of saying " What did he do there?" . <S> Using the simple past this way is an older way of forming a question. <S> In speech, there would be an emphasis on "did" and "he", which would probably make the meaning clearer to a modern user. <S> This formula is not completely gone from current English <S> How goes it? <S> although the use is limited. <A> " What did he there? " is short from " What did he do there? " <S> In modern English inversions must involve the subject and an auxiliary verb. <S> What ate he there? <S> (Middle English) <S> He was eating fish there. <S> What was he eating there? <S> (Modern English) <S> He ate fish there. <S> What did he eat there? <S> (Modern English) <A> I remember a nursery rhyme from when I was a child that had a similar sentence: Pussy cat, pussy cat, where have you been? <S> I've been up to London to visit the Queen. <S> Pussy cat, pussy cat, what did you there? <S> I frightened a little mouse under her chair! <S> Having now read the same nursery rhyme to my own children, I find that today's books add the word 'do' into the third line. <S> That certainly wasn't the case when I was young. <S> The additional word means that I find it hard to make the verse scan properly when reading it aloud. <S> So although it sounds odd to our ears today, the structure didn't disappear that long ago and would certainly have been in reasonably common use in Mary Shelley's time.
| No, it isn't a misprint; you are correct that this is a language structure that is no longer in common use. He ate (was eating) fish there.
|
How to show properties of "Plural Noun"? If I'll say hostel of boys then may it'd be wrong because we use 'of' for lifeless things like buildings 'Floor of hall.' So I found difficulty showing properties of plural live noun. I'm unable to show their properties as Boy's book, Girl's sack, Antonia's car. So 10 boys and their books. Just like that. So how can I do it? <Q> You are right, "hostel of boys" is incorrect, but not for the reason you give. <S> The preposition "of" can be used for living things: "What is the name of your child?" <S> or "He is a king of the house of David. <S> " <S> No, "hostel of boys" is wrong for a different reason. <S> When "of" is used with common nouns and without an article it often means "made of". <S> For example: "a table of fine oak", "the board of directors". <S> The table is made of oak. <S> The board is made up of directors. <S> So, a "hostel of boys" would mean a hostel made up of boys. <S> (Compare "a group of boys".) <S> If the boys who were members of the hostel left, it would cease to exist. <S> But that is not how hostels work. <S> The preposition "for" means that the hostel is provided for boys to use, whether they choose to visit it or not. <S> Or you can say "a boy's hostel" as others have suggested. <A> I attended a girls' academy. <S> The boys went to a boys' preparatory school. <S> In the case of a hostel for boys, I would call it a boys' hostel. <S> I wouldn't call it a hostel of boys. <S> @Swapnil: Does this answer your question? <S> Source: <S> What is the single word for a school where only boys study? <A> Unfortunately, your question stems from confusion over "of". <S> While it can be used with inanimates, it is not restricted to them. <S> " <S> Of" can be, and is quite frequently used with animates and people. <S> Take these examples from Merriam-Webster : <S> I threw out that old shirt of yours. <S> She's a friend of my mother's. <S> He had the support of his family to help him. <S> the plays of William Shakespeare <S> We admired the courage of the young woman.
| You ought to say "a hostel for boys".
|
Meaning of the word "smart" What does the word smart mean in this context? Is she smart meaning she is intelligent She is clean, neat, well dressed I've looked up in dictionaries and I'm still confused what does smart mean in that context. Personally I think it means she is clever, because it is preceded by pretty but I am not sure. Akiko is 20 years old, a second-year student at a language school in Tokyo. Her dad is a businessman, and her mom is a housewife. She has a brother in high school. She is pretty, gentle, and smart , but that doesn’t make her life any different. She wants to have an outstanding and colorful life. She also wants to speak English fluently and to be able to find a good job in a big corporation. To achieve her goal, she has studied English for years, but she is still too shy to speak. Every time her high school friends come back from the U.S., they speak better English to foreigners than she does. They enjoy speaking a lot while she feels frustrated about her poor English. <Q> When we're using "smart" in the sense of "stylish", we don't normally say that a person "is smart". <S> We say that she "looks smart" or "dresses smartly". " <S> Sally is smart" means she is intelligent. " <S> Sally looks smart" means she is neat or stylish. <S> So most likely the writer here means "intelligent". <S> (As is often the case, this is not an absolute rule, you have to look at context. <S> For example, if someone said, "The way she was able to give the right answer so quickly made Sally look smart", they surely mean "intelligent".) <A> To AmE speakers, the word smart generally means intelligent. <S> (The OP's context) <S> To BrE speakers, the word smart generally means well-dressed. <S> That said, there are times when AmE speakers use smart to mean well dressed (a "sophisticated speaker" and there are times when BrE speakers use it to mean intelligent. <S> Only the context will tell you really. <S> In this sentence: /She is pretty, gentle, and smart/, it means intelligent. <S> There would be no reason, given the context, to be referring to her clothes. <A> - intelligent, or able to think quickly or intelligently in difficult situations . <S> In most cases " smart " refers to intelligence. <S> In this context there are words <S> pretty and gentle that refer to her attractiveness and character <S> so smart definitely refers to her intelligence. <A> In my understanding I can say that smart can stand for be intelligent ( easy to understand things and, been able to give solution to issue ) then in the case of smarty looking is both dressing and nature
| " Smart " has two primary definitions (STYLISH) - having a clean, tidy, and stylish appearance and (INTELLIGENT)
|
Does "he is eating apples" make sense? This site says You use a plural count noun with no article if you mean all or any of that thing . I don't like dogs. Do they have children? I don't need questions. Give me answers! I don't understand what " all or any of that thing " means? The above guideline makes sense in general sentences such as " he likes apples " ("he likes all apples in the world") or " he doesn't eat apples " ("he doesn't eat all apples in the world"). But, what about specific sentences? Let say, there is a man. He has 3 apples with him. He is holding an apple & eating that apple. These other 2 apples are on the table. Which would I say? " He is eating some apples " sounds ok. " He is eating 3 apples " could be wrong to me because he may eat up 3 apples but he may eat only 1 & then stop eating. " He is eating apples " could mean "He is eating all apples in the world" The above rule is ok for sentences refer to general things such as " He likes apples " or " He doesn't eat apples " But is that rule ok for sentences refer to specific things such as " He is eating apples " or " I ate apples yesterday "? So does the above rule only apply to some certain sentences? <Q> The rule says to use the plural to mean either "all" or "any" of that thing. <S> You have to figure out which of these from the context. <S> Someone ate the donuts (they ate all <S> the donuts that were in a particular place ) <S> I bought us donuts <S> (I bought some quantity of donuts) <S> She hates <S> donuts (She does not like (to eat) donuts of any kind ) <S> Basic logic applies here. <S> If a man has three apples and you say "The man is eating apples" it would be silly to assume he's eating all the apples in the world. <S> The more reasonable assumption is that he will eat at most those three apples. <S> Of course he could eat one, or two, or all three of the apples. <S> The exact number is unspecified, and unimportant. <S> The point is that he is eating apples , and not something else. <S> Outside the window, I see birds flying. <S> (It doesn't matter how many birds, just that there are birds) <S> My mother bought me <S> shoes for my birthday <S> (It could be one pair, or multiple pairs of shoes. <S> Which is not important, the point is that I was given shoes) <S> This room is where they store computers before they sent to the customer (The number of computers is not important, only that this room is used for their storage). <A> The rule isn't saying that we ONLY use a plural count noun with no article to mean any or all of that thing. <S> When talking about "any or all" of something, it's true we use a plural noun with no article, but we also use plural nouns with no article when we are referring to an unspecified number (but more than one). <S> For example, it's perfectly acceptable to say I have kids. <S> This doesn't mean you have all the kids in the world. <S> It just means you have more than one. <S> It's not the only meaning. <A> First, “all of that thing” doesn’t mean “all the apples in the world," as in “every single apple in the world.” <S> The actual meaning is closer to "all kinds of apples." <S> So, if I say, “He likes apples,” that means he likes all kinds of apples: sweet red apples and tart green apples; it means he likes Fujis and Galas and Empires, he likes Macintoshes, Golden Delicious and Arkansas Blacks. <S> More importantly, though “all kinds of apples” is a generality , not a strict mathematical truth. <S> I may say, “He likes apples,” but that doesn’t mean he likes rotten apples. <S> So this conversion is perfectly normal: <S> Ned: Do you like apples? <S> Ted: <S> I sure do! <S> Ned: <S> Really? <S> Take one of these. <S> Ted: <S> No, thanks, I don’t like Granny Smiths. <S> Red: <S> Oh, I thought you said you liked apples. <S> Ted: <S> Well, I do. <S> But Granny Smiths are too tart for me. <S> Ted wasn’t lying; he likes pretty much most kinds of apples. <S> Ned just happened to have one of the few apples that Ted doesn’t care for. <S> But it’s still not “wrong” for Ted to say, “I like apples.” <S> If there are 30 kinds of apples in the world, and you like 28 of them, it would be more inaccurate to say, “I don’t like apples.” <S> “He is eating apples,” just means he’s eating more than one apple, without saying much more about the apples. <S> But it doesn’t mean he’s eating every apple in the room or at the orchard. <A> Zero article with plural count nouns may have generic or indefinite reference according to the predication ( Source ) <S> Frogs have long hind legs. <S> ( generic = all frogs) <S> He catches frogs. <S> ( indefinite = an indefinite number of frogs) <A> That rule still applies to a sentence like He is eating apples . <S> Since the plural apples is used, it sounds like he is eating two or more apples.
| The rule isn't wrong, the rule is just telling you one possible meaning of a plural noun. Here, it means any of that thing , in that he is eating any amount of apples.
|
"The Night of": common phrase ? Or just "the night of "? I have been watching the television drama "The Night Of", and I am not sure how the title should be understood: I can't find another example of a phrase where the preposition "of" is used without a noun or pronoun after it. is "the night of" a common phrase, or an idiom ? What does it mean ? Or is just an abbreviated form for "the night of something" (no spoilers intended, but it would be here eg "the night of the murder") ? <Q> I wouldn't call it a frequently used idiom, but I do hear it used occasionally. <S> I estimate I go months at a time without hearing it, however. <S> (This is in the northeastern U.S.) <S> For example: "When did you buy your tux for the wedding?" <S> "I waited until the night of." <S> There's an absent, implied "the wedding" or even " <S> the wedding itself" -- the formulation tends to further emphasize a bit that something happened (maybe even contrary to expectation) on the very night or day of a significant event. <S> If spoken, it helps make the idiomatic usage clearer if a very slight pause follows, to emphasize that something has been bitten off, and likewise in written text, it's generally situated before a comma or period. <S> For example: <S> "On the day of, we took a good last look at the house, knowing we would never see it again." <S> I think I've usually just heard it used with a time span like night, day, evening, or morning, but not time units like month, year, etc. <S> Like I said, it emphasizes that something happened nearly contemporaneously, so longer time units don't fit. <S> It also wouldn't be used with hour, minute, second, or moment. <S> As it's something that also appears as a substring of more common constructions, searching for examples can be probably be best done by appending words that wouldn't otherwise follow. <S> For example, search for "on the day of we went" <S> However, perhaps the most frequent use is not alone but together with <S> " <S> the day before" <S> and/or <S> "the day after" . <A> " The Night of " is a TV-series in which every next episode tells a story that is related to the previous ones. <S> Here " of " is used in the possessive case. <S> The sentence is incomplete and grammatically incorrect standalone but as a title it makes sense since each episode can be " The night of whatever-is-going-to-happen-in-the-episode ": <S> The night of the murder. <S> The night of the return of the murderer. <S> The night of the uprising in the city. <S> Edit: <S> The IMDB says that the plot is " After a night of partying with a female stranger , a man wakes up to find her stabbed to death and is charged with her murder ." <A> It would be your second thought. <S> This is an abbreviation of "the night of the murder." <S> So yes, "The Night Of" first and foremost is short for that. <S> However, "the murder" is intentionally omitted from the title. <S> This gives the title an ambiguity that allows for the scope of show to explore many of the facets of what happened that night, and not just the murder itself. <S> Given that legal proceedings also play heavily into the plot of the show, there is even more to unwrap with the choice of the title. <S> Even if we expanded it to, "The Night of the Murder," it would still be an abbrieviation for a line of questioning used by lawyers to establish (or disprove) <S> an alibi or statement of the events taking place over the timeline of a crime. <S> A common opening question as a lawyer examines a witness would be either: <S> Where were you (on) the night of <S> [the murder/the accident/Monday June 23rd]? <S> or What were you doing (on) the night of the murder? <S> Take a look at some of the quotes that show up in that book search. <S> Some are from fiction, which might be more in line with the script for a TV drama, but some are from actual court transcripts, which indicate that this phrasing has its roots in the actual practice of law. <S> In fact, one of the examples comes straight from a book intended to help lawyers in learning how to form good questions.
| I think I usually hear it describing something happening on the same say or night of an event, but in advance of the event itself.
|
Meaning of 'born' in this sentence I appreciate your help to explain the meaning of the word 'born' in this sentence: Kites were invented in China, where materials suitable for kite building were readily available. The silk fabric was found to be best for making the sail of a kite. It is born a lightweight material and an asthetically pleasing one. Thanks. <Q> In your sentence <S> It is born a lightweight material and an asthetically pleasing one. <S> which is incorrect, you may mean <S> It is borne of a lightweight material and an asthetically pleasing one. <S> which is an archaic expression, or It is born from a lightweight material and an asthetically pleasing one. <S> both meaning " to be composed of " or " produced from ", since it is referring to " silk fabric " in the previous sentence. <A> I would consider "It is born a lightweight material" as not grammatically correct. <S> " <S> It was brought into existence from a lightweight material. <S> Still an odd word choice in my experience (fluent American English). <A> The use of born is not the correct word to use in this context. <S> Born is the past tense form of bear which relates to childbirth. <S> Ex. <S> The child was born on 2017. <S> (Passive verb) <S> I think the writer is trying to say the following:It is made of a lightweight material. <S> Blockquote <S> I hope that helps.
| It is born of a lightweight material" would mean it was made with a lightweight material. Born meaning "brought into existence".
|
didn't use to vs are not used to? Can I use this both forms interchangeably: People who didn't use to (such abbreviations)... People who are not used to (such abbreviations)... I don't really feel /see the difference between these forms. For me the first sentence would be more natural, but in the text I was reading, the second form was used and it drew my attention. What would be the difference between them? Thanks. <Q> The idiom is: to be used to something . <S> Present: People who aren't used [or are not used to] to wearing green [etc.] <S> Simple Past: People who were weren't [or were not used] to wearing green [etc.] <S> PP: People who haven't been used to [or have not been used to] wearing green [etc.] <S> Often, English language learners confuse to be used to something with the verb to use something and the defective imperfect form: I used to [do something]. <S> The verb use works like this in the SP: He didn't use the paper I left on top of the printer. <S> The form of I used to [do something]. <S> I used to play tennis =defective imperfect tense. <S> Negative <S> * : I didn't use to play tennis, the negative is not so common. <S> For repeat actions in the past. <A> The expression is " be used to* ". <S> If you are used to something , you are accustomed to it – you don’t find it unusual. <S> If you get used to something <S> or you are getting used to something <S> you are becoming accustomed to it – it was strange, now it’s not so strange. <S> ( LearnEnglish - British Council ) <S> Both ‘ be used to ’ and ‘ get used to ’ are followed by a noun (or pronoun) or the gerund – the ‘ ing ’ form of a verb <S> This concerns your second example, which is correct and appropriate : <S> People who are not used to such abbreviations. <S> ( Correct ) <S> The first sentence is incorrect grammatically since "didn't use to" is applied incorrectly in the sentence. <S> We use ‘ used to ’ to talk about things that happened in the past – actions or states – that no longer happen now. <S> The negative is ‘ didn’t use to ’ and questions are formed with ‘ Did you use to …? ’ <S> People who didn't use to such abbreviations. <S> ( Incorrect ) <S> People who didn't use to understand such abbreviations. <S> ( Correct ) <A> Just to sum up: <S> I mixed not 2 but actually 3 different forms up: <S> FIRST: <S> regular verb use 1.1. <S> He used the paper I left on top of the printer. <S> 1.2. <S> NEG: <S> He didn't use the paper I left on top of the printer. <S> SECOND: idiomatic expression <S> be/ get used to 2.1. <S> People who are used to such abbreviations 2.2. <S> NEG: <S> People who are not used to such abbreviations. <S> and THIRD the most confusing: <S> defective verb used to 3.1. <S> I used to smoke, but now I've stopped. <S> NEG: <S> 3.2. <S> I used to not like opera, but now I do. <S> 3.3. <S> I didn't use to like opera, but <S> now I do./ <S> I didn't use to drive a big car. <S> 3.4. <S> I use(d)n't to like opera, but now I do. <S> My example was: 4.1. <S> People who didn't use to such abbreviations not 4.2. <S> People who didn't use such abbreviations. <S> (AS: <S> He didn't use the paper I left on top of the printer.) <S> and I wanted to use the sentence 4.1 with the meaning 3.3 <S> but as I was pointed out it was incorrect. <S> Now I understand why :)
| The form didn't use is the simple past tense of the verb use and is not related to the idiom given at the beginning of this answer.
|
Newly promoted to 8th grade. Graduated 7th grade. Describing my education, am I a "7-grader" or "8-grader"? I just completed grade 7 successfully. Newly promoted to grade 8. I'm literally an 8th grader now. But if I were to describe my level of education, wouldn't I be a "7th grade graduate"? Because I've no knowledge of grade 8 until classes start. I've "graduated" grade 7 which therefore is the limit of my knowledge. When I post questions on MSE (the Maths site), I'm often in a fix. At times, I've had to add notes like: Please answer bearing in mind that I'm a X grader (with the knowledge of grade X). So my knowledge on topic Y is extremely limited. "7th grader" seems more reasonable to say in this case (for reasons already mentioned above). "8th grader" seems fit for instances like: We're 8th graders now — the oldest kids in middle school. Maria, isn't it wonderful! (Note: I'm NOT from the US.) I'm confused. What should I actually say if I've to describe my level of knowledge (as in the MSE example)? <Q> You would say "I am in the 8th grade." <S> However it's an odd thing to be especially proud of, since going from 7th to 8th grade is fairly routine. <S> In the US at least, the 8th grade is often the upper class of a three-year junior high school, and it isn't until you graduate high school , five years later, that the level of education really matters. <S> Of course individual families might give their children praise for moving from one grade to another, and there's nothing really wrong with this. <S> But it wouldn't ordinarily be considered a noteworthy achievement. <S> Additionally, the challenge with saying what level of math you know is that, in the US, the actual classes you take vary from school to school and student to student, so it's difficult to judge exactly what a 8th grade student should be learning. <S> It's better to state <S> what kinds of math you know <S> well , rather than just relying on your age and grade in school. <A> To give a Canadian perspective, here we don't say that one "is an Nth-grader" but that one "is in grade N". <S> This syntax makes it simple to express your relationship to your grade at any time. <S> I finished grade 7 last week. <S> Now I'm going into grade 8. <S> ( or I'm going into grade 8 in the fall.) <S> Late next year I'll be in grade 9. <S> Even if other countries do use terms like "7th-grader", that doesn't exclude paraphrases like the above. <S> I think anyone would find them both easy to understand and fairly natural-sounding. <A> The commonly used term I've been hearing recently for a student who is between years of schooling is "rising ______th grader". <S> You could also avoid this by saying Please note that I have just completed seventh grade, so answers should be comprehensible to someone at that level. <S> If you're celebrating completing seventh grade, you can certainly call yourself an eighth grader.
| So you would describe yourself as a "rising eighth grader".
|
A derogatory synonym for a politician I'm looking for a word/phrase that would describe a dishonest politician. Example: "He is a ___ ." Maybe something idiomatic or colloquial. <Q> You can say "a crooked politician" or "a dishonest politician", but the phrase "a corrupt politician" is more common. <A> While this is actually slang for any criminal, it is often applied to politicians because of former president Richard Nixon's infamous claim, "I am not a crook!" <S> Which turned out to be a boldfaced lie, but that's a long story. <S> (Edit) <S> More recently, during his election campaign, current President Donald Trump frequently referred to his opponent as " Crooked Hillary", to foster the impression that she used her political position for personal gain. <S> Which is not meant to imply it is or is not a valid claim, only that the term "crook" is still in use. <A> Usually we use an adjective. <S> Khan's answer has good examples ("crooked" and "corrupt"). <S> There are derogatory words for some kinds of politicians: <S> Carpetbagger: A political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections. <S> (Meaning they move to a place so they can run for office there.) <S> Demagogue: <S> A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. <S> (This is usually derogatory, but not always. <S> See also Oxford's definition .) <S> Apparatchik: <S> A blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (such as a corporation or political party). <S> (This doesn't have to be a politician, but can be.) <S> Chickenhawk: <S> A person who speaks out in support of war yet has avoided active military service. <S> (This doesn't have to be a politician, but can be.) <S> For your purpose, you can also use more general words like " hack (2 n. 3a) ", " shill (2 n. 1b) ", or simply "liar". <A> Try political hack . <S> That has negative connotations, and unfortunately seems to describe most modern-day politicians. <A> If you want a single-word synonym, politico might serve. <S> From Oxford Dictionaries: <S> informal, derogatory <S> A politician or person with strong political views. <S> On the other hand, if you want a more colorful phrase, snake oil salesman is frequently used. <S> This specifically means someone who is selling or promoting something (originally medicinal) that they know is useless, but it seems to come up very often today in the realm of politics. <S> There is a good discussion of the history of "snake oil" in NPR's Code Switch , which notes: <S> Because the words "snake oil" are so evocative, it has been a favorite go-to phrase for politicians and lobbying groups on both sides of the aisle. <S> Earlier this month, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell called his opponent in the Republican primary, Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin, a snake oil salesman in a campaign mailer. <S> While campaigning for a second term last year, President Obama referred to the Romney-Ryan tax plan as "trickle-down snake oil " at a rally. <S> In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund took out full-page ads in The Washington Post to denounce then-President George W. Bush's plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, calling it "100 percent snake oil ." <S> Note that politico literally means politician with negative overtones, but snake oil salesman means specifically a dishonest politician. <S> This is a subtle but important distinction; one suggests that essentially anyone engaged in politics is somehow tainted, while the other leaves room for the possibility that some politicians are honest. <S> In fact, the former view is widespread enough in the US that politician itself is now vaguely insulting. <S> For example: 'You're a politician ?' <S> She's surprised by the distaste she hears in her own voice. <S> She's never met a politician before. <S> Hadn't ever thought she would want to. <S> — Alex Marwood, The Killer Next Door <S> You gross lout, <S> you mindless slave <S> You caterpillar of the commonwealth, you politician <S> You worshiper of idiots <S> —Excerpted from a list of insults, Alex Barton, Style for Actors <A> snollygoster noun. <S> Slang. <S> One, especially a politician, who is guided by personal advantage rather than by consistent, respectable principles. <S> ( source )
| I don't know of a single word for dishonest politicians. In the US at least, a common term is "crook".
|
"Agree to do something" or "agree doing something"? User can postpone receiving notifications. The doer of notifying is the application not the user. I wonder if this sentence is correct. Do you agree to postpone receiving this notification for 2 days? or Do you agree postponing this notification for 2 days? <Q> Gerunds are typically used to talk about an instance of an activity (as a noun) that is actually happening now, has happened, or that the speaker/writer has a high confidence will happen. <S> Infinitives are used to talk about a possible-but-might-not-happen or desired instance of an activity. <S> , <S> Here's how that would evaluate with your examples: <S> Do you agree postponing this notification for 2 days? <S> You are in the process of receiving a notification. <S> Notifications are typically short and instant so this sounds weird. <S> "Do you agree postponing this 10GByte download for 2 days" makes more sense, for example. <S> Do you agree to postpone this notification for 2 days? <S> You haven't seen the notification yet. <S> You don't know what the notification is. <S> Unless your notification is large where receiving it is a long process - which is unlikely as then it would not be a mere notification - the second example is the one that most likely makes sense. <A> From a different user-experience perspective you might consider dropping 'agree' entirely and using something like Do you want to postpone notifications for 2 days? <S> Yes / <S> No <S> Do you agree to take part in a survey / receive marketing material. <S> Whereas 'want' would be used where the user benefits <S> but you need to warn them about an significant change. <S> Do you want to use the new password / silence notifications? <A> "Do you agree postponing" is not correct. <S> From a grammatical point of view, you want "Do you agree with postponing this notification. <S> " I think that is clear enough. <S> So that appears to have the wrong meaning for what you want. <A> I would go with agree to . <S> Reasoning <S> This is a fixed collocation of the verb "to agree". <S> That is, "to agree to" has the precise meaning of giving consent. <S> However Note, that there are other verbs with different semantics with regard to this collocation! - <S> "They stopped smoking" = <S> They quit smoking -"They stopped to smoke" = <S> They came to a halt in order to smoke As Mark pointed out, using "postpone" might be wrong. <S> I am not sure about this though. <S> What language is the original?
| "Do you agree to postpone this notification" implies that the reader is the one who is expected to perform the notification, and they are being asked to postpone it. Typically 'agree' would be used where you want the user to consent to doing something for you.
|
Substitute for "high school" I was in School of Economics which is substitute for high school, but in my school we have practical training and we are there 4 years not 3. But I don't know how to write it in my essay about my "high school" is it: Technical School of Economics or Technical Secondary School of Economics or maybe another name? <Q> "High School" is used in North American English for a school for students aged about 14 to 18. <S> If you are not in a North American education system then you will need to adapt slightly. <S> If I (a Briton) had to write about my "High School" I would write about my secondary school. <S> It's not an exact equivalence, but close enough. <S> In my essay (written for an American reader) I would include a paragraph explaining the difference between English and American education. <S> If your school doesn't have an official name in English you can choose to translate or transliterate, depending on whether translation will make things clearer for your reader. <A> Call it by its official name, whatever the school calls itself. <S> If there's something ambiguous or confusing about the name, you might take a couple of sentences to explain. <S> But I absolutely would not make up my own name for an organization instead of using the name it calls itself, except as some kind of parody or satire. <A> If you're just providing a description, then it wouldn't be a proper name and therefore not capitalized. <S> Generally, secondary school has a variety of classes, even if it has a particular focus, in which case it would be a technical secondary school specializing in Economics. <S> If you truly studied nothing but Economics, then it would be an Economics technical secondary school. <S> The only way I see that you would have discretion despite it being a proper noun is if you're translating the name into English. <S> In that case, you may engage in some rearranging of word order to comport with English grammar, although you should give some deference to the original. <S> It's better to give a word-for-word translation that isn't standard English grammar than to try for a loose translation that ends up making sense in neither language. <S> It is also general practice to give the original, then put the translation in parentheses, e.g. "CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research)". <A> Direct Synonyms for a school include words such as... ... <S> faculty , centre of learning , educational instituion <S> However, in your case, you would want to have your official school name in your essay. <S> Here's a sentence to help <S> start you out; ... <S> "with my departure from the Technical School of Economics , I have joined this school to improve on my passion for said subject." <S> If you're trying to go for a formal essay , try to refrain from just calling it a high school, <S> as technically it's a substitute for it. <S> It would be incorrect to just call it a high school and if you are asked any questions, you'd have to respond with such. <S> Just call it by <S> it's official name , if it's local <S> they should know it anyway. <A> Secondary school would be a substitute for high school , as it is the schooling between elementary and post-secondary education <S> See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secondary%20school
| Initially, I would use the school's full name, thereafter I would I would refer it as "my high school" for simplicity. If the phrase is a proper noun, then it should just be the actual name.
|
What's the difference between "found" and "establish"? Google was established in 1998. Google was founded in 1998. In Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary, both establish (2a) and found (1) share the definition below: to begin or create (something that is meant to last for a long time). They are especially confusing in the case of creating a company or organization, as in the example above indicate. How do you differentiate them? <Q> They are essentially identical in the example you've given. <S> However, "founded" has a bit weightier connotation. <S> It's not just that something was started at the time given, it's that the thing is a well-known institution. <S> It also needs to be an institution to be founded , while you can establish almost anything. <S> You could say Google was founded or established <S> You might say a law was established, but you would not say it was founded <A> In literal terms: We found or establish companies or institutions. <S> We establish temporary guidelines, rules, protocols, and laws. <S> However, figuratively we can say: The law is founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work. <S> This policy relating to billable hours is founded on our firm conviction that work is far more important than family and free-time. <S> We expect our associates to work at least six days a week, and on Sundays whenever the situation requires. <A> First of all, the word "found" has multiple definitions/meanings, including the definition of being the past tense of the word "find". <S> I will ignore that as your question demonstrated your desired focus. <S> To "found" something like an organization or a city basically means to begin it. <S> If I start a city, giving it a name and getting it to be legally recognized by a larger government, then I founded the city. <S> However, the term "establish" could also refer to the point when something became viable, longlasting, or true. <S> For example, there was once a city that was created on the last day of the year 1912. <S> In the 1920s, economic hard times led to closing businesses including lumber mills. <S> In the 1980s, the city had a strategy of providing nice land for cheap, hoping to attract some businesses to move to the city. <S> The strategy worked; in 1982, they attracted a Japanese company enough to place their American headquarters in the city. <S> In 1986, they also attracted a company whose product was a newfangled thing called computer software. <S> Although the city was formally founded in 1912, which was the day that this place became established as a city , it was really the investments in the 1980s by Nintendo and Microsoft that led to Redmond, WA becoming established as a technical hot spot with significant worldwide influence. <S> Maybe the city of Bellingham, WA had rosier prospects to have significant economic impact in 1911 (as Bellingham had already been founded in 1904), <S> now now Redmond's role as an economic powerhouse has been firmly established . <S> while "established" refers to the beginning of something that has remained, and something can be established over a longer period of time. <S> Here's another example, showing events that happened over periods of years: <S> e.g., the United States of America's found ing fathers lived in the late 1700s, but it was during World War 2 that America established itself as a worldwide leader known as a superpower. <A> One way I think we could look at it, perhaps, is correlate 'found' with another related word 'foundation'. <S> Visualise foundation, and its connotation, as being that firm solid base on which further structures are built. <S> Imagine erecting a building without a foundation - That doesn't sound too assuring, does it?? <S> Of course, the foundation, no matter how solid & long-lasting, is kind of meaningless, unless something is built on it. <S> Hence, TOOGAM's example of Redmond seems quite accurate. <S> I also agree with the fact that one difference between found & establish is in terms of 'permanence'. <A> As I have seen some real world examples, founder means who generated an idea of any institute or organisation but the organisation is established by somebody else. <S> For example my father founded an organisation but the establishment of firm is done by me. <S> There might be a difference in the year of founding and the year of establishment.
| Basically, "founded" refers to the start of something rather official,
|
What is the meaning of Annie words? Annie is talking to his fake Dad & telling him about his real Dad character during wedding anniversary before Annie's mother Annie: Dad always does something really special for the anniversary. Fake Dad: Like what? Annie: One year he had a star named after her . Fake Dad: He had a star named after her ? Well, that's nice, but isn't that a little... corny? What do you mean star named after her means? Is Annie saying her real dad calls her wife with star names during their Anniversary? for example: Hi, Miss Beauty Proxima Centauri. <Q> Give her name to the star. <S> I will name a star after you is an other way of saying I will give the star your name. <A> <A> Millions of stars have been catalogued, but only about a thousand are named. <S> There exist companies that will sell you the right to name one of the others. <S> Such registrations are not recognized by the International Astronomical Union, and nobody pays any attention to them, as far as I know; but it is a sentimental gesture. <S> So: Annie's Dad, to honor his wife, paid one of these companies to put her name in their book.
| " To name somebody/something after somebody/something " means "to give someone or something the same name as another person or thing" ( Cambridge dictionary )
|
Any term for "If you already have it, use it, else, get it / create one"? Working with databases, I sometimes have to write requests which create data (alias add/insert...) or update it, if it already exists. ... and I never know how I should name such an action. Isn't there some terms meaning specifically this ? While it could help, I'm not particularly expecting something specific to database manipulation, but rather a more generic term, like "populate", "Ensure", "assert", or... well, I have no idea what term would have such meaning. Is there anything meant for this ? <Q> "Upsert" is sometimes used in this context to mean "Update the row(s) that already exist, and insert the row(s) that do not already exist." <S> You might not find "upsert" in a dictionary. <S> I have seen "upsert" used in computer source code (and have used it myself). <S> I have also seen "upsert" in documentation that teaches how to write computer source code, such as for IBM , Microsoft Azure , Microsoft T-SQL , MongoDB , PostgreSQL , and Salesforce . <S> Wikipedia explicitly suggests that in some dialects of SQL, "merge" is a synonym for "upsert" . <A> Computer languages have to be very specific, so dialects of SQL sometimes have specific key words for this. <S> I think Oracle uses MERGE, MySQL uses REPLACE, etc. <S> (I haven't used either in a while <S> so I may have those mixed around.) <S> I can't think of a word for this in general English because outside of information processing and record keeping, the two ideas are too far apart. <S> You wouldn't normally say, "I will replace the gutters on my house, or if I don't presently have a house I'll build one." <S> Or, "You should change the oil in your car every 7,000 miles, or if you don't have a car you should buy one. <S> " <S> In general, updating a thing is a very different idea from acquiring a new thing. <S> But in record keeping, whether on a computer or on paper, it makes a lot of sense to say, for example, "Add 2 to the inventory count for this item. <S> If there is no inventory record, create a record with a count of 2. <S> " I'm hard pressed to think of examples outside record-keeping. <S> Maybe some one on here can think of an example. <S> I think the conventional thing to say in data processing, outside of contexts where the language has a specific keyword, is "create/update". <A> When writing code, I tend to use the word "write" in this case. <S> When I do that, I try to use the word "read" as the opposite (getting information from the database). <S> I've also been known to use "load" and "save", but the problem with "save" is that there is no "save as", so the concept of File / Open and File / Save doesn't always make things clear. <S> UPDATE: <S> I went searching and the technical term is "persist", as in you "persist" to a "datastore" (either a database or a file or anything else where data is stored). <S> As far as I know, nobody has (yet) used persist to only mean "update" or "insert". <S> It isn't as common as "save" or "write", and the technical meaning isn't one you'll find in most dictionaries, but at least it is a real English word that native speakers will know and understand. <S> "write" was used as "update" in file modes: <S> r = read, <S> w = write, <S> a = append. <S> So I guess I had better go back and change write to persist in the code I wrote yesterday. <A> The word for the property of an action where doing it multiple times has the same outcome as doing it a single time is idempotence . <S> For example, if you have a remote control on your keychain that locks your car, and you want to ensure that your car is locked (but aren't sure if it already is), you could press the lock button one or more times, because you know that it idempotently locks your car. <S> However, a retracting ballpoint pen isn't idempotent, because clicking it multiple times could leave it in either state. <S> It probably wouldn't be understood outside of technical or mathematical contexts though. <S> More info on SO: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1077412/what-is-an-idempotent-operation <A> If talking about a physical object to be used, "have a [THING] on hand", "have a [THING] ready." <S> In a technical context, talk about the desired final state? "The database should be populated with [DATA]", "The database should contain the following [DATA]", "Make sure [PACKAGE] is installed." <A> I am not familiar with SQL <S> but it looks like you treat records like key-value pairs and all keys are present with some default or <S> empty value initially i.e. inserting new key with default/empty value is of no use generally. <S> If I am correct it would be sensible in some situations to use "set" or "assign" if it is appropriate for nouns which you want to use. <A>
| "Upsert" is a better answer for the database-specific operation you're talking about, but "idempotent" applies to actions in general. Any time I have written a procedure that may either insert a new record or update an existing one depending on circumstances, I have named it using the verb save .
|
Area between a docking object and the object of docking We have a space station , which is the object of docking (OOD), and a spaceship , which is the docking object (DO). What's the name of the area between the DO and the OOD once the DO docks with OOD? I thought it was " a bridge " at first but a bridge is " the raised part of a ship on which the captain and other officers stand and from where they control the movement of the ship ". I was thinking of " ramp " but no dictionary has a definition I need. I found " docking port " at NASA but it refers only to the retractable socket that grips the docking ship. I found " docking compartment " and " docking module " but can't understand what they refer to. Edit : The area should be a tunnel of some kind through which an astronaut must pass in order to reach the station. It should be something like this only in space. It should be extendable and lead to a decompression chamber of the space station. It may be rectangular or cylindrical or any other shape. It may be within another extendable object like a wrapped tunnel. Is there some unified name for it? <Q> I would call the means of ingress/egress to/from the station the gangway . <S> P.S. <S> We can call the means of ingress/egress to/from the station the gangway because a gangway is the name for the structure that allows people and cargo to cross from the ship over to the dock (and vice versa). <S> The situation in space is analogous. <S> We even call them "space ships ". <S> P.P.S. Gangway <S> An opening in the bulwark of the ship to allow passengers to board or leave the ship. <S> (Wikipedia Glossary of nautical terms) <A> Within reason, I think the terminology is open to debate and change, as different mechanisms appear and the physical structure changes (and people try to be creative and quirky, because space is cool again). <S> If, for example, you had a tunnel (extendable or permanent) <S> then it would be entirely reasonable and understandable to call it a docking tunnel (used in some NASA documentation) or a docking sleeve if extendable. <S> The probe, drogue, tension tie, and a docking ring are the principal components of the docking subsystem. <S> Each module also contains a docking pressure hatch and a tunnel through which the astronauts will transfer from one vehicle to the other. <S> Your dismissal of bridge might be a bit premature, as it also refers to something people can travel (float?) across, which would work in this context. <S> I'm not sure, as a native speaker, that ramp seems to work here. <S> To me, it implies moving up a slope. <S> A docking module is a more generic term that might mean the docking mechanism, including its mating ring, or it could mean the entire structure including any tunnel. <A> If you merely want to refer to it, it would be called the dock. <S> It's really not important if it's a long tunnel, a zero-length portal, or an extension of both ships connected in the middle, "dock" works well and will be understood. <S> If you for some reason need to illustrate what the dock looks like, then you might use docking tunnel or docking station but for simple reference -- just dock. <A> A Wikipedia article on spacecraft docking and berthing appears to favour docking interface . <S> The bit that joins the two could be called a docking arm or transfer passage <S> (the term used in the Wikipedia article). <S> If it was reasonably small, it could probably be called an airlock . <S> I guess if you are most interested in the connector ( <S> which is I guess another word you could use), it would seem transfer passage <S> is the most appropriate existing term, although I don't think anyone would know what you were talking about out of context.
| My personal choices might well be docking station and docking port as a reasonably generic term for describing a place where something can dock (although probably not the bit that joins the two).
|
"I have to" in past tense I want to figure out how to properly say "I have to (e.g., leave)" in past tense. "I had have to leave", is that correct? <Q> No. <S> This is a special use of the verb "have", but it is still the ordinary verb "have", which forms other tenses in the normal way: <S> I have to leave. <S> I had to leave. <S> I have had to stop. <S> (I couldn't think of a plausible scenario for this form with "leave") <S> I had had to leave. <S> I will have to leave. <S> I will have had to leave. <S> (!) <S> I'm going to have to leave. <S> I would have to leave. <S> Like other uses of "have", it does not normally take continuous forms: there is no <S> "I am having to" except for a few special uses. <A> As far as I know it must be thus. <S> I had to leave. <S> The past tense of have is had. <S> So the correct answer is I had to go. <A> In the present perfect tense, it's I have had to leave. <S> In the future tense, it's I will have to leave. <S> In the past perfect tense, it's I had had to leave. <S> In the conditional tense, it's I would have to leave if we're talking about conditional present; and I would have had to leave if we're talking about conditional perfect. <S> The form have to is used as a replacement for <S> must in all tenses except for the present tense, where you have either <S> I must leave or I have to leave . <S> So the only thing you have to to to use have to in all the tenses in which it can be used <S> is basically to conjugate the verb to have in the appropriate tense. <A> Either I had to leave or I have had to leave . <S> Anyway, at the time when I first studied English (>30 years ago) there was also <S> I ought to leave , with a slight change of meaning. <S> As far as I know it would sound more like expressing an obligation to do (past of must ) rather than a duty or necessity (past of have to ).
| In the past tense, it's I had to leave.
|
Resonate - a word you could use with people I realised I have been using word "resonate" a lot lately but mostly in regards to people. For example: I noticed I resonate with the type of people who _____ the most . For some reason I decided to check The Free Dictionary for the definition that reads: To exhibit or produce resonance or resonant effects. To evoke a feeling of shared emotion or belief: "Bethune projected a strong presence of achievement and pride that resonated among African Americans" (Audrey Thomas McCluskey). To correspond closely or harmoniously: "Symbolism matters, especially if the symbols resonate with the larger message" (William Greider). As you can see there is no mention of people and when I asked my friends (US), they said they would never use it in regards to a person. Is there anything that I can replace it with? I don't want to get into a bad habit if the usage is incorrect. I'm looking for something on the same "sophistication level" unlike to get on well or connect well with . <Q> You can absolutely use resonate to describe a social interaction--tell the naysayers " poppycock! " <S> The physical (original?) definition of resonate, describes vibration of material due to the vibration of another material. <S> Physical resonance is all around us: <S> The body of an acoustic guitar resonates with the strings. <S> A tabletop resonates with a mobile phone ringing on it. <S> A window resonates with loud music played near it. <S> Considering that it's another term for sympathetic vibration , "resonate" is an excellent metaphor for being in agreement with someone. <A> No, two people resonating together sounds weird. <S> When we use resonate in a figurative sense, we say things like, "his ideas resonated with me." <S> Ideas is an abstract thing. <S> We can imagine such an ethereal thing resonating in some sense with one's mind. <S> If you say that two people are resonating with each other, then the image to me is of two people physically vibrating together in harmony, which is just weird. <A> For example the second definition you listed: To evoke a feeling of shared emotion or belief describes exactly a emotional relationship between different people. <S> A well-known idiom : <S> be on the same wavelength which means to be in agreement; to think or behave similarly is very close to the word resonate and can be used quite interchangeably.
| In my opinion you can use the word resonate in relation to other people.
|
I do not really understand the proposal: "Don't hate Monday. Make Monday hate you" Please explain. I like to learn English. I do not really understand the proposal: "Don't hate Monday. Make Monday hate you". Help me to understand this sentence. I am very interested in this phrase. It will be right or I not correctly think? "Do not hate Monday. Hate the person who created the Monday". The phrase was taken from pictures: <Q> I like to learn English. <S> Great! <S> I do not really understand the proposal: "Don't hate Monday. <S> Make Monday hate you". <S> Well, it's not really a 'proposal' or offer. <S> It's a motivational phrase intended to inspire the reader to have a better mood and be more productive. <S> It will be right <S> or I not correctly think? <S> "Do not hate Monday. <S> Hate the person who created the Monday". <S> No, you're not thinking about it correctly. <S> 1st, Monday is a name, so it doesn't have an article ("the") unless you're talking about a very specific Monday. <S> 2nd, the ancient astronomer who established the planetary hours is entirely irrelevant. <S> People don't hate Monday as a day of the moon; people hate Monday as the return to the work week and its early wakeup time after the respite of a weekend. <S> It's not Monday that's hateful; it's work itself <S> but, that said, people don't usually want to be unemployed. <S> "I hate Mondays" is just a bit of self-indulgence (when spoken to yourself) or commiseration (when shared with others) that has become a pat cliché in most of the English-speaking world. <S> So, getting back to the heart of your question: " Don't hate Monday. <S> Make Monday hate you. " <S> is the kind of thing a fairly clever manager would put up in a bathroom after a continuing education course on business psychology. <S> The idea is to take an unhelpful and counterproductive tendency in the staff and, somehow, shunt it into a more productive direction. <S> In this case, the lazy self-indulgence that "I hate Mondays" might condone is being converted into righteous anger against a personification. <S> The idea is the worker, instead of slacking off, will focus on "defeating" her or his "enemy" Monday by working so hard that it's caught off-guard and worn out. <S> That's the idea, anyway. <S> The actual staff will just smirk a bit, finish their slash, and continue on with whatever they were planning on doing already. <A> Don't start your Monday with the thought that Monday is going to conquer you. <S> Start your Monday with the thought that you are going to conquer Monday. <S> You can replace "conquer" with a pithier phrase, for example "own", or "beat the daylights out of" -- something that would make Monday "hate" you. <A> Monday is disliked as the start of the typical work week. <S> Of course, 'Monday' can't feel or express emotion, the point is to make the reader feel good about Monday and what they've done. <A> On a similar note: <S> All right, I've been thinking, when life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade! <S> Make life take the lemons back! <S> GET MAD ! <S> I don't want your damn lemons!! <S> What am I supposed to do with these? <S> Demand to see life's manager! <S> Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! <S> Do you know who I am? <S> I'm the man whose gonna burn your house down … with the lemons! <S> Cave Jonhson Mondays are usually hated, Monday tells you how it is, you don't have a choice, it sucks and that's why most people don't like Mondays. <S> Be the boss (of Monday)! <S> Show it who's in charge. <S> Don't suffer Mondays anymore, take control of them. <S> Reverse the roles! <S> This is all very metaphorical and designed to be inspirational speech. <A> So here's a couple of things: <S> This is Peppy the Inspirational Cat. <S> Drawn by October Jones <S> (who also did "Text from Dog.) <S> He used to leave these on trains and take pictures so original poster's picture is wrong. <S> Anyway: Peppy delivers slightly "over the top" motivational messages. <S> So when people say they hate Mondays, Peppy says "Don't hate Monday" meaning don't just hate a day... " <S> Make Monday hate you!" <S> Means have such a great day that Monday itself will be jealous. <S> It isn't perfect English and is laced with irony, sarcasm and double meanings.
| The motivational suggestion is to instead accomplish so much that you've conceptually made Monday work to where it 'hates' you. The idea here is to say: "f* that!"
|
What's the most common way to say a nurse/doctor is giving you medical attention? In Spanish (or at least in Argentina), when we are receiving medical attention we say the doctor is "treating" us (tratando) . "Estoy recibiendo tratamiento" (I'm receiving medical attention). This doesn't sound very natural in English (saying a doctor is treating me for receiving medical attention). How do you express the same idea in the most natural way in English? <Q> To receive medical attention and to receive treatment are perfectly valid phrases, though they sound a little formal and are the type of phrase you'd see in news reports or on hospital forms. <S> Another informal alternative is that you say what actually happened when you sought treatment, such as the doctor gave me some medicine for [illness] . <A> In addition to Dan's excellent answer, a common expression is "to go to the [doctor / clinic / hospital / emergency room] ..." <S> Examples: <S> I went to the doctor yesterday to have him look at this bump on my neck. <S> I took my mother to the emergency room because she was having trouble breathing. <S> My wife went to the clinic to get a flu shot. <A> If you are referring to treatment that consists of multiple treatments over time it is common to say "I am under the care of Dr. Goodman." or "I am Dr. Goodman's patient." <S> A patient is: "A person under a physician's care for a particular disease or condition." <S> http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39154
| More informally, we often use be treated for [something] or even say where this treatment is happening, such as be in hospital for [procedure/illness] or go to the doctor's for [illness] .
|
Avoid clichés when enumerating points or topics I found the following sentences in many English Writing books for exams like TOEFL: First and foremost, ... Second, ... Third, ... Last but not least, ... However, my grammar software points out that there are clichés: First and foremost -----> First / Primarily Last but not least -----> Finally yet importantly Since the books are written by those who are not native speakers, I am not sure if they are right. Could you please tell me which is better? <Q> 'First and foremost' and 'Last but not least' are phrases that are used in addressing a formal speech or a formal text. <S> They are not wrong. <S> The software that you are using probably check clichés of words with similar meanings, because 'first' and 'foremost' are synonyms, same in other case. <A> "First", "Primarily", and "First and foremost" are similar but are not exactly the same. <S> First - simply ordinal. <S> No measure of importance <S> Primarily - Most important or largest, no measure of order. <S> Used to emphasize importance. <S> What did I do today? <S> First I went to school, then I met some friends at the library. <S> Finally, I went home for supper. <S> What did I do on vacation? <S> Primarily, I just sat in a chair on the beach and read, but I did go swimming a few times too. <S> Why shouldn't you date John? <S> First and foremost, he's abusive and put his last girlfriend in the hospital. <S> He also can't keep a job and has bad breath. <S> As for "last but not least", it's a little cliche but not terrible. <S> "Finally yet importantly" is extremely awkward and I would definitely not consider it an improvement over "last but not least" <A> Neither is 'better', there are times to use each of them. <S> Using a cliche like last but not least is more entertaining for most readers, but writers such as Ernest Hemingway would say that it is too wordy and favour a more simple phrase. <S> Whatever software you're using (I know Microsoft word does) has a feature for marking superfluous language. <S> But this is purely a style consideration, and while I personally usually turn that feature on it definitely isn't for everyone (some writers have an exceptionally 'flowery' writing style, but it works well for them). <S> As mentioned in the comments, finally yet importantly and using primarily to start a list are super weird.
| First and foremost - First in both order and importance.
|
What are words that can distinguish these two business types? I'm looking for words that can distinguish two business types. Take, for example, McDonalds and Takara. McDonalds is a business that, while it is a "restaurant", does not behave like a restaurant, in the sense that customers just order food and directly pay there, much like retail. On the other hand, Takara is also a restaurant, and it behaves like one in the sense that customers order food, wait, and pay once they're done. I was thinking of the terms "Retail" and "Restaurant", but in the case of McDonalds and Takara, both are restaurants but one acts like retail and the other doesn't. What are good words to categorize these two business types in order to differentiate them? <Q> Adjectives you can use to describe the other kinds of restaurants include: eat in dine in fine dining <S> (There are probably others as well, but those three are listed roughly in order of increasing fanciness.) <S> There are many kinds of restaurants. <S> Some kinds get their own noun (such as steak house ), some can be described with slang (such as hole in the wall ), and some are named by their cuisine (like Takara, a Japanese restaurant ) . <A> I would say that McDonalds is a fast-food restaurant, while Takara is a sit-down restaurant. <S> Granted, "sit-down" is not as elegant as "table service" (and may just be local dialect) but it gets the meaning across. <A> You could describe the type of service the restaurant offers instead of describing the restaurant itself. <S> Then they might wait for their food at the counter and carry it to a table, or they will sit down and someone will bring their order to them. <S> "Table service" usually means that the customers sit at a table and a waiter will take their order and deliver their meal after it is prepared. <S> Most of the time the meal is paid for after it is eaten, and a gratuity for the servers is expected. <S> Sometimes though a "fast food" restaurant might offer table service or a counter service restaurant will offer "fine dining" style food . <S> Example of how to use these terms <S> : While a restaurant with table service might be a good choice for a special occasion, restaurants that offer counter service are becoming more popular for a quick meal. <A> I see a couple of others have wanted to describe the business model you described of paying up front as fast food . <S> However, I am aware of restaurants which are not fast food <S> that also have the model of paying up front. <S> Therefore, I don't think that's an adequate description. <S> Probably the best description I can think of is prepay business model . <S> There are many variations - some restaurants are experimenting with buying a ticket in advance for the full value of the meal, just like you buy a ticket if you fly on an airplane or go to a concert. <S> Most cafeterias require customers to pay before they eat, as do many delis and coffee houses (and, of course, most fast food restaurants). <S> Another word that come to mind is takeout business model . <S> Actually almost any restaurant will offer a takeout service even if it is primarily a dine-in/sit down restaurant. <S> Many also have delivery service in at least a limited area. <S> Some of the reasons why are explained here . <S> In general the advantages of these kinds of approaches are greater certainty that customers will not make reservations and fail to show, improved table turnover ( up to 80% improvement when comparing a prepay model with a post-pay model ), and less delays for customers (no waiting for the check after the meal, etc.) <S> On the other hand a traditional, dine-in/sit-down restaurant with a post-pay business model is trying to upsell customers. <S> The longer a customer sits, the more food, desserts and drinks the customer might order. <S> Some restaurants make up to 75% of their income from selling drinks but a more typical number is probably around 20% . <S> A typical restaurant will charge prices such that the actual costs of the restaurant are: 50% of what they charge for meats, 30%-50% of what they charge for wines, 15% of what they charge for pasta and salad, and less than 10% of that they charge for desserts . <S> So if customers will stay longer and order more foods like desserts, that's almost pure profit to the restaurant.
| McDonald's is known as fast food , and this term can be used adjectively (as in fast food restaurant ). "Counter Service" has some variations, but it usually means that a customer will walk up to a counter and place their order and pay for it before they receive it.
|
Word for 'a long cylindrical strip' I am in search of a term that denotes an elongated, cylindrical (with circular cross-section) strip. One that you'd use to describe the body shape of a hose (but not hollow) or a phone charger cord, and around that thickness but not rigid (rod). I need it for a short story I am writing. Here's an example sentence I want to use it in The weirdly coloured toothpaste came out in a ... Here is an image of the kind of object I want to describe. <Q> Per your comment: @Catija, I need it for a short story I am writing. <S> Here's an example sentence I want to use it in: "The weirdly coloured toothpaste came out in a ... <S> " <S> You honestly don't need a word, as it's common knowledge how toothpaste looks and works when it's squeezed out of a tube. <S> You can just say it squeezed out like toothpaste. <S> A good, generic word to describe a significant-but-not-too-long length of toothpaste-like substance that's about hose-like in thickness is coil , but this implies it curves <S> a little - your stereotypical marketing picture of toothpaste is like this though. <S> Rope would work if it's very long. <S> You can use colorful terms like snake , noodle , etc. <S> depending on the mood of your story. <A> The words you could use are strand , string , and rope . <S> None of them precisely fit your need. <S> On the other hand, everyone knows what toothpaste looks like when you squeeze it out of the tube, so maybe just drop the sentence completely. <A> An adjective describing an object with these qualities would be stringy . <S> If you are describing food, I would instead use stringlike because stringy could also mean fibrous when describing food.
| An object which is long, thin, and non-rigid could be a string.
|
Difference between walk-in order and walk up to order I came across ColleenV's comment in this post: What are words that can distinguish these two business types? I clicked the links of "counter service" and "table service" in his comment. I did not understand the two terms at first, so I used Google search for the terms. Then I came across some other terms, walk in order, walk up to order from the Google results. I have heard some people say walk in order, but not walk up to orders. I would like to know their difference or if one of the terms is rare. When I go to a fast food store to order a hotdog or a hamburger in person, is it called a walk-in order? or I am wrong? <Q> In the source, walk-up is not a type of order. <S> The commenter is describing that action taken while placing an order for counter service. <S> They walk up to the counter. <S> You can look for the phrasal verb "walk up" for more information. <S> Walk-in is more generally used in American English to describe a request for service without an appointment. <S> Some hair studios may have a sign that says "Walk-ins welcome." <S> You may find some European sources that talk about walking in to a restaurant with a counter inside, or walking up to an establishment with a food service window. <A> A walk-up is an apartment in a building that lacks an elevator. <S> A walk- <S> in is a person who comes into an establishment without an appointment or without having phoned beforehand. <S> A walk-in order is an order placed by such a person. <S> Many different kinds of establishments refer to "walk-ins" to describe some of their customers: health clinics, car dealerships, restaurants, spas and salons, and so forth. <S> But such an order would be called a counter order (in AmE), not a walk-up order. <S> [But see @Muzer's answer about "walk-up fares|prices", which are terms used in transportation contexts in both BrE and AmE".] <S> P.S. <S> I know that "walk-in" is used in AmE, and it seems to be used in BrE as well , though perhaps the term is just catching on in England, since it is such a cultural backwater :p <S> With this tailor-made EPOS technology, JUST EAT will now be able to offer its takeaway restaurant partners a central system for managing orders, whether online, ‘walk-in’ or over the phone. <S> And "walk-up" is used in England as well . <S> "...which tended to be composed entirely ... of walk-up tenement flats..." ( Cambridge Cultural History of Britain: Volume 9, Modern Britain edited by Boris Ford. 1992). <A> You are right that walk-in order is the more widely used term- <S> in fact this NGram does not find any published occurrences of walk-up order. <S> I guess one might use the term walk-up about a customer at a street vendor's food stand, as the customer does not have to go inside to place an order. <S> But a street vendor will be unlikely to have tables and waiters, so I cannot see why one might want to make the distinction. <A> I believe "walk-up" description for restaurants refers to establishments that do not have a lobby or traditional seating. <S> You walk up to a window in the external wall and order food. <S> There may not even be seating from the restaurant to sit at to eat, or possibly a table or two on the sidewalk. <S> They don't have anything inside the building that the customer has access to. <S> Think of a "permanent" food truck that happens to be in a building. <A> Maybe this should be a comment rather than an answer, but I thought I'd add this similar but not quite related usage. <S> Not related to the food industry, but I've often heard walk-up used in transport contexts, to refer to fares/tickets which you can buy on the day, rather than ones that must be bought in advance. <S> It certainly applies to the UK rail industry, but I don't know how widely it applies. <S> For example: An Off-Peak Return is a walk-up fare, so there's no benefit in buying it before you get to the station.
| You can walk up to the counter and place an order.
|
"How many billion" or "How many billions"? I know that we have to use a plural noun after How many, and I also know that we have to say " five billion dollars", not " five billions dollars" ( OALD ) So why does the writer write like this: Here’s How Many Billions Evan Spiegel Has Lost Since Snap’s IPO ( Fortune ) <Q> How many billion or how many billions? <S> Both are grammatical, but the latter is far more common and idiomatic. <S> You usually use hundred, thousand, million, billion, or trillion with a final 's' after the determiner "many" if there's no noun after these numbers. <S> For examples: How many billions did he lose? <S> But if there's a noun after these numbers, you use them without final 's'. <S> For example: How many billion dollars did he lose? <S> Further, you use these numbers without 's' after a, one,two, three, a few several, etc. <S> For examples: A/one hundred dollars, six thousand people, several billion dollars, etc. <S> Also, ou use these numbers with a final 's' if there's no other number before them <S> but there's the preposition "of" after them. <S> For examples: Hundreds of dollars, millions of people,etc. <A> When billion is an adjective, you can't pluralize it. <S> When it is a noun, it must be. <S> Here's how many billions--billions is a noun5 billion dollars--billion is an adjective of dollars. <S> Dollars is pluralized. <S> It is no different than saying two dollars. <A> Both are correct. <S> A number word can be used as an adjective or a noun. <S> You can also use the phrase "billions of x" to show a large quantity. <S> Use the noun "billions" if you want to talk about it as a unit. <S> "there are many billions in a googolplex." <S> (the billion is a single unit) <S> Use the adjective "billion" if you are using it to describe a countable noun. <S> "I have ten billion dollars." <S> "I have baked a billion cookies." <S> (I am talking about an actual amount) <S> "there are billions of stars in the sky." <S> (so many that they can't be counted.)
| You choose depending on what you are intending to emphasize -- the billion as a unit or the thing you are counting.
|
make up with vs make up to vs make it up to Is there any difference in meaning between "to make up with someone" and " to make up to someone"?I've also heard " I'll make it up to him." in an American TV show. What role does that "it" play in that sentence? Does it mean the same as " I'll make up with(or to) him" ? <Q> To "make up (with) <S> " someone is to reconcile after a disagreement: <S> The couple was fighting all night but they made up before morning. <S> The estranged son made up with his father after his mother's death. <S> To "make it up to (someone) <S> " means to offer redress for a wrong you have committed against them, or a favor they did for you. <S> Tom was late for his date, so he offered to make it up to her by taking her to a really nice restaurant the following week. <S> If you can babysit my son this evening, I promise to make it up to you sometime. <A> "Make up to someone" is incorrect. <S> The other two are similar, but differ slightly. <S> "Make up with someone" is about resolution of a mutual disagreement or conflict. <S> Perhaps both parties in a dispute, argument, or fight continue to harbor emotional negativity toward one another; one or both later decide to resolve the lingering issues, and one approaches the other for resolution. <S> One person alone cannot fix a two-party issue, nor can one person alleviate both parties' negative feelings. <S> As such, the "making up" (resolution) is a group activity, something you do together, hence the use of "with". <S> "Make it up to someone" is about a single person being wronged to some degree, often times to a second person's benefit. <S> For example, Hey man, can you cover my shift at work tomorrow? <S> I have a friend in town <S> and I'd like to meet up with him for a bit. <S> I promise I'll make it up to you! <S> This request would inconvenience the person being asked, because they lose a day off <S> should they agree to take the shift at work. <S> But the requester is promising to "make it up to them" at a point in the future, perhaps by taking one of their shifts or with gifts or other favors. <S> The requester exclusively benefited and the requestee was inconvenienced. <S> Therefore the "making up" is not a group activity and thus we use "to" and not "with". <A> To "make up with someone" generally refers to an act of mutual forgiveness or sorting out of differences, like when a couple has a fight but they talk it through and as a result get back together. <S> To "make it up to someone" refers to an act of kindness or a favor done for someone because you have wronged them in the past. <S> For example, if someone missed a friend's birthday they would "make it up to them" later by buying them lunch. <S> "It" in that context refers to the bad deed that needs to be amended. <A> Actually, " make up to someone " is an informal expression used to describe someone who acts friendly or helpful in order to get some personal benefit. <S> It is used to express disapproval. <S> For example, one might refer to a student who makes up to his or her professor to get better grades, or to an employee who makes it up to the boss to get on a fast line for promotion. <S> (see: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make%20up%20to%20(someone) OR https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/make-up-to ) <S> To " make up with " generally means to reconcile one's differences with someone who one has fought with or had some sort of disagreement with. <S> For example, after fighting for years, she made up with her mother and they now have a much healthier relationship. <S> However, I have also heard it used idiomatically for making plans, as in "I made up with Bill to see a movie tonight." <S> I came late to Kate's party, so I made it up to Kate by staying after the party was over to help her clean up."
| "Make it up to someone" means to do something nice to someone because they're upset (or you've upset them), or sometimes just because you feel that you've done something wrong as in: " These are two different idiomatic expressions.
|
Ask direction of/from someone in street? Do we "ask direction from someone" or "ask direction of someone"? Example: As I didn't know the address, I asked direction from/of a total stranger in the street. <Q> "Directions" is plural because it usually involves a series of actions to follow the instruction on how to arrive to the destination. <A> Correct answer: <S> As I didn't know the address, I asked a total stranger in the street for directions. <S> Generally, you do not ask information from/of a person - you ask a person for information. <S> However, if what you need is not information but an object to use for a short time or a favor, then you may either "ask it of them" or "ask them for/to do it". <S> Person A: I need somebody to wash the dishes while I'm out. <S> Person B: You should ask it of the servant. <S> or I needed to see his passport, so I asked it of him. <A> As I didn't know the address, I asked direction from/of a total stranger in the street. <S> I would say the most idiomatic form of this statement would be: Since I didn't know the address, there was a complete stranger in the street <S> and I (just) asked him/her/them for directions. <S> Or, to rearrange.. <S> I asked a total stranger in the street for directions because I didn't know the address. <S> And then, to use the verbiage you are bringing into question (from vs of) <S> : As I didn't know the address, I asked directions from a total stranger in the street. <S> At first thought, I can't think of any scenarios where of would sound natural within this context.
| It would "ask directions from him", because directions are coming from the person giving directions.
|
Is "thanks for all." correct? I "thanks for all" correct/meaningful/grammatical? It was said by a student thanking their teacher after a course. That was the whole sentence. It used as an alternative for "thanks for everything". <Q> "All" what ? <S> A more natural expression is Thanks for all you've done for us or Thanks for all your help. <S> But it could just be something the kids say nowadays. <S> Slang is not really either correct or incorrect , but it's best if you don't use it until you're very familiar with it. <A> I expect the student was not a native speaker (or maybe you didn't hear the whole thing?). <S> "thanks for all" is an incomplete sentence. <S> As Andrew said, "all" of what? <S> "Thanks for all your help", "Thanks for all your advice", " <S> Thanks for your help today.". <S> These would all be better options and explain exactly what you are thanking the person for doing. <A> Thanks for all is an incomplete sentence because the all has to be followed with a description of the deed that is being acknowledged. <S> Example: <S> Thanks for all that you have done for me <S> Thank you one and all <S> Thank you all <S> Thank you
| If one simply wishes to thank everyone in the audience, some of the correct usages are A big thanks to all of you
|
On a bus or on the bus? Today, I was talking to my friend. She is very good at English. During this conversation, she said, "I am on THE bus". I think, she has misused the definite article. In my opinion, it should have been, "I am on A bus". Because this is the first time she said anything about this bus. On the other hand, I know that she generally travel by bus. <Q> You wouldn't normally say on a bus ; on the bus is a fixed expression. <S> The reason why the is used in that phrase is probably because the bus here is something we all know about, something that by extension refers to the institution that represents the (public) transport bus service that uses buses to drive people around the city. <S> The phrase doesn't refer to any bus in particular per se. <S> In his book, Practical English Usage (69.5), M. Swan says the following: <S> We use <S> the (with a singular countable noun) when we talk about some kinds of thing that are part of everybody's lives, like ‘the bus’ or ‘the hairdresser’. <S> In this case the bus , for example, does not mean ‘one bus that you know about’; we use <S> the to suggest that taking a bus is a common experience that we all share. <S> To address the comment and some additional questions one might have after reading the above: I merely wanted to answer the question of whether on the bus is grammatical in that context, and how that's accomplished – not suggest that on a bus isn't. <S> It would be more usual, given the context the asker provided, for their friend to say I'm on the bus and not <S> I'm on a bus . <S> I'm on the bus <S> might mean "I'm on the bus <S> I tell you I'm on every day – <S> my school bus", i.e., "... <S> the bus you expect me to be on at this time". <S> It could also mean "I'm on the bus we previously discussed". <S> Et cetera. <S> Can you say on a bus ? <S> Yes, you can say, for example, I can't talk to you right now, I'm on a bus. <S> As you said, this introduces a bus; you're talking about it for the first time and identifying the vehicle as a bus. <S> Last week he was on a bus when an argument erupted between... ( independent.co.uk ). <S> He was on a bus – it doesn't matter what bus. <S> The same applies in the example that follows: <S> "It doesn't. <S> Why would it? <S> I'm nobody. <S> " <S> She lowered her chin as her face twisted up. <S> "Just a girl you met on a bus." ( Don't Move by Dennis Etchison) <A> Both are equally acceptable. <S> "On a bus" is used more for one-off type situations. <S> Examples: <S> Why are you so grumpy this morning? <S> Some idiot on the bus kept bothering me. <S> My parents met on a bus to New York City. <S> Again, these are not strict rules. <S> Just how they seemed to be used. <A> I'm on the bus. <S> I'll be there in 20 minutes. <S> Expresses that you are on a specific bus that is meaningful to the conversation. <S> In this case, the assumption is the listener is likely aware of which bus or route <S> you're on <S> so the 20 minute expectation is reasonable. <S> I'm on a bus. <S> The cell service is really bad. <S> Expresses that while you are on a bus, it doesn't matter which bus or route, just that your on a bus and that is why you cell service is poor. <A> If your friend was speaking about how she was travelling at that particular moment in time, then generally in the North of England, 'on the bus' is what one would say. <S> On a bus is not incorrect, because your friend is certainly on a bus, but it is not the usual way to say that one is travelling by bus. <S> If your friend was not sure that she was on the correct bus for her journey then 'on <S> a bus' would be more appropriate. <S> She is on a bus but it might not be definitely the bus that will get her to where she wants to be.
| "On the bus" is usually used in situations where the bus is something the person commonly uses. Both are correct but express subtle differences.
|
A general term describing dirt, dust, food scrapes, wood chips etc Is there a general term in the English language that is all-encompassing when it comes to denoting the stuff you suck up from your carpet using vacuum cleaners? I usually just say dirt, but it feels too restricted. I want a term that will evoke the image of an assortment of mud, sand, dirt, food scraps, glass shards, pieces of plastic and more. <Q> "Debris" or "detritus" are both words for what you are describing: detritus: waste or debris of any kind <S> debris: <S> scattered pieces of rubbish or remains. <S> "Rubbish" or "trash" would mean to most people things composed mostly of litter (things people would throw away on the street), but in some cases can be used to refer to broader materials such as broken glass or pieces of plastic- for example: "There are giant islands of rubbish in the middle of the ocean, created by converging currents". <S> However, "rubbish"/"trash" generally does not include sand/dirt/mud. <A> A few words that may be used for the things you get from cleaning a carpet: <S> Muck <S> Residue Debris <S> Dirt <S> Crud <S> Gunk <S> Filth <S> Waste <S> There are many more words, but the thing to keep in mind is that, all the words, including these words, may mean different things when it comes to the substances you're talking about. <S> For example, if you choose the word ' Muck ', know that the word is used for dirt that has a wet or sticky texture. <S> So you cannot use muck if you want to generalize dirt, with objects such as glass. <S> The word you choose will include many types of substances, but may exclude another array of things. <S> The highest level of generalization would require you to use the word ' dirt ' itself. <S> The word ' filth ' is an unwanted substance that may be considered gross. <S> So you might not relate it to something that you get from dirty carpets. <S> But I've put it here because it is synonymous to dirt. <S> Please refer the meaning of these words before you use them. <A> In Britain we often refer to it as Grot . <S> This describes any collection of unpleasant material such as the stuff in a hoover bag. <S> It also appears as an adjective grotty , which can describe an unpleasant object or situation. <S> The word is said to be derived from grotesque <S> but I've never seen anything reliable to confirm that. <S> As an aside, although the word has been in use for many years, it increased in popularity as a plotline in The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin . <S> The 1970's BBC Comedy. <A> In an informal setting, you could call it crud : <S> Dirt, filth or refuse <S> It fits perfectly. <S> I don't like "detritus" or "debris" very much: <S> they're not wrong , and are words you could use to refer to objects the reader already knows about. <S> But when trying to introduce a new object, both debris and detritus suggest much larger objects. <S> For example, collapsed buildings leave debris in the form of multi-ton slabs of concrete or whatever. <S> Detritus includes the same objects, but also small-to-medium stuff: I might have detritus lying around on my desk in the form of paperwork that needs to be filled out, empty coffee cups, or the like. <S> But crud is smaller stuff like you might scrape off the bottom of your shoe. <A> If your meaning is a varied collection of items distinguished by their small size and uselessness, you are informally talking about crap, junk, or shit. <S> If you are using vacuum in your sentence, the small size is already implied. <S> If someone dumped a vacuum cleaner bag out on your bed and you just noticed it, I think you might say 'what is this crap all over my bed'. <S> In a formal setting, you might look to a more clinical word like detritus, e.g. 'what is this pile of fine detritus was residing upon my bed'
| "Crud" is generic enough to cover all forms of unpleasantness you describe in your question, while also suggesting sorta indoorsy solid clumps or particles. "Muck", as suggested in another answer, is somewhat similar but more outdoorsy and liquid.
|
Can there be a "handwritten paper"? Yesterday, someone slipped this sloppily handwritten scrap of paper under my door. which (without the adverbs and fancy adjectives) essentially conveys this idea: Someone gave me a handwritten paper . But you don't have (see below), do you? [...] a written paper . A safe alternative: Someone gave me a piece of paper on which there was handwriting . which is too long and bland for my purpose. Can there be a "handwritten paper"? If not, how should I rephrase my sentence? <Q> Actually "handwritten paper" is fine, although in this case "paper" does not mean the physical material but rather a school essay or other written assignment. <S> See definition 4 or 7 here . <S> Example: <S> She handed in her paper late, but her teacher still gave her an A. <S> However it's not a phrase you hear much these days. <S> See this Ngram as an example -- note the sharp decline since 2000. <S> Students are more often required to submit electronic or printed documents (though I'm sure there are good reasons why a teacher might require a handwritten paper now and then.) <S> Of course, that's not your question. <S> The reason I mention the other definition is because when you say: Someone put a handwritten paper under my door" <S> The listener will assume you mean a school paper , written by hand . <S> If you want to be clear that you're talking about a note, then that's what you should say: Someone put this handwritten note under my door. <S> The listener will assume the note is written on paper unless otherwise specified: Someone put this note, written in magic marker on the back of a cardboard pizza box , under my door. <S> Although a "note" implies there was a message on the paper intended for someone . <S> If instead there was just some random writing that happened to be on a piece of paper: <S> Someone put this paper under my door, on which they'd handwritten something , but I have no idea what it says or who it's for. <A> This question manufactures a problem where none exists. <S> The only issue one might have with "a handwritten paper" is with a paper , which, in the sense of "a sheet of paper, a document", is something of an archaism nowadays, appearing only in legal contexts, which tend to be linguistically formulaic and conservative: <S> The prosecutor asked the witness if he knew that to be true from something he had been told, or from a written paper <S> he had seen. <S> These days, we say "a piece of paper" or "a note" when our meaning is "sheet or piece of paper" (as distinct from "an essay"). <S> She gave me a handwritten piece of paper. <S> She gave me a handwritten note. <A> In the first sentence, both "handwritten" and "of paper" apply to the word "scrap," not to each other. <S> If you were to say, "someone gave me a scrap of paper," I would have no trouble at all comprehending it. <S> If you were to say, "someone gave me a handwritten scrap," I would think it sounded a touch strange, since scrap is ambiguous. <S> Does scrap here refer to the quality of what was written on (crumpled paper, perhaps), or does it mean you were only given part of a document?
| The adjective handwritten means "having handwriting on it; produced by the act of writing with a handheld implement such as a pen or pencil."
|
What part of speech is "home"? What part of speech is "home" in the sentence: I enjoyed being at home My teacher says: "That is an adverb". It looks like a nonsense but just in case. The question was raised due to the determination whether we use an article or not. <Q> <A> Weird, I was considering that exact question yesterday, apropos of (so far as I can remember) nothing at all. <S> In the sentence I enjoyed being home <S> "Home" is arguably an adjective. <S> Compare it to "I enjoyed being rich" or "I enjoyed being beautiful". <S> In the sentence <S> I enjoyed being at home <S> "Home" is a noun, it's the object of a preposition. <S> Compare it to "I enjoyed being in Cleveland" or "I enjoyed being under water". <A> Your teacher is right. <S> Consider the syntax structure of the sentence:I enjoyed being at <S> home - subject <S> ( I ) <S> verb ( enjoyed ) <S> verb complement ( being ) adverb of place ( at home ) <S> AT HOME is a phrase and no article is used.
| In the sentence I enjoyed being at home "at" is a preposition, and "home" is the object of the preposition.
|
give an explanation within two days (of/from) the receipt of this letter You are required to give an explanation (A) for your conduct (B) within two days of the receipt of this letter. (C) No error (D) This sentence was asked in my exam under the tag of error spotting questions. Is the sentence correct? I am sceptical for part C, I googled for the phrase within two days of the receipt of this letter and found a result in Google Books where the preposition used was from instead of of , so the correct sentence should be with from instead of of . Am I correct or is it fine with of as well? <Q> The usual use of within is "within (measure) of ", and is used for both time and space. <S> Eg <S> Within 200 metres of the building , or within ten minutes of departure . <S> Having said that, in the case of time, there is an ambiguity: <S> does it mean, "in the interval of time starting at the point", or "in the interval of time before and after the point"? <S> * <S> It nearly always means the first, because - as in your example question - it wouldn't make sense for it to include the time before. <S> But sometimes people use "from" to make it completely clear. <S> But I would say "No error" here. <S> * <S> This question became important in 2015 when some statistics were published in the UK about people dying within six weeks of having a benefit withdrawn: it turned out that the publication meant "six weeks before or after", but people interpreted as "six weeks after" - see this blog , for example. <A> To my (American) ear, the best choice is (D) "No error". <S> One could argue that "within two days of the receipt of this letter" should be "within two days of receipt of this letter" (without a determiner before "receipt"), or "within two days of your receipt of this letter" (with a more specific determiner before "receipt"). <S> It is not obvious (to me) that omitting "the" changes the meaning or grammaticality of the sentence. <S> Replacing "the" with "your" does change the meaning of the sentence. <S> I am not a lawyer, but it is conceivable that this change in meaning could undermine the intent of the sentence. <S> Suppose the intended recipient claimed that someone else received the letter, and the intended recipient did not personally receive the letter until several days (or weeks) later. <S> In this scenario, the sender of a letter with "your" would not know when the "two days" were completed. <A> In English, expressions of time are fairly wide. ' <S> Within two days of the receipt of this letter' is perfectly fine- ' <S> within two days from the receipt of this letter' is a bit more clunky to speak, but not (by any way I could find) technically incorrect. <S> Both words refer to the same starting point and ending point of the receipt of the letter and two days hence. <S> 'To' is a bit more difficult. <S> It depends on where you want 'to' in the sentence. <S> The only place it would make any sense at all would be as follows- ' <S> Within two days to the receipt of this letter'. <S> This, however, changes the entire meaning of the sentence. <S> It has a different starting and ending point. ' <S> To' reflects the end point, so this particular sentence refers to two days before the receipt of the letter, as the end point is established as the reception. <S> That automatically makes the start two days prior. <S> It is entirely changed.
| The sentence is fine as is and with 'from', but not with a 'to'.
|
Sentence improvement : The second pigeon flew just as the first pigeon had flown SOURCE (Indian civil service exam; one of dozens) The second pigeon flew just as the first pigeon had flown. A) No improvementB) one had doneC) one had flown awayD) had done Which part, among the parts given above, is appropriate for the bold part in the above given sentence ? I tried to find answer on google but got contradictory answers, somewhere its B as answer somewhere C. To my ears options B sounds best among all options. Perhaps it would have been better with one had flown but that's not in any of the given alternative. <Q> The second pigeon flew … <S> This is the simple past. <S> We also learn a previous pigeon had performed the same action earlier. <S> …just as the first pigeon had flown . <S> This is the past perfect tense. <S> The original sentence could remain as it is, but a good writer will probably sense that writing the term pigeon , or repeating the same verb fly twice is redundant. <S> In order to overcome this, a pronoun is needed to substitute “pigeon”. <S> … <S> just as the first one had flown. <S> Now, I quite like this version <S> but it is not included in the multiple choice. <S> The closest equivalent is C) …one had flown away . <S> The adverb away , in this context, means “further from a place, thing or person”, and “fly away” is a very common collocation. <S> So, the OP could choose C). <S> C) … <S> just as the first one had flown away <S> If the writer wanted to use a pronoun, and avoid repeating the same verb, the auxiliary verb, do , is used. <S> B) <S> The second pigeon flew just as the first one had done Here <S> , the adverb away is not mentioned at all, if had been added to the first clause, then the second clause would fit perfectly,e.g. <S> “The second pigeon flew away just as the first one had done.” <S> There is the construction <S> do <S> + <S> so , where different forms of do so substitutes the verb, and its complement. <S> e.g. a) <S> The second pigeon returned to its coop just as the first one had done so . <S> b) <S> They asked me to revise the essay and <S> I did so <S> (= <S> I revised the essay.) <S> c) Dangerous currents. <S> Anyone who swims here does so at their own peril. <S> In the OP's example there is no complement in <S> The first pigeon flew and therefore "so" is not required. <S> For more information about <S> Do as a substitute verb , visit the Cambridge Dictionary Grammar website. <S> D) is incorrect because a noun or pronoun is missing: D)…just as the first had done The first what ? <S> It might be a white dove, or a duck for all we know. <S> So all this boils down to personal preference, and style . <A> All are bad. <S> The sentence is a muddled jumble. <S> D is probably best. <S> To express similarity of flight... <S> The second pigeon flew just like the first. <S> The second pigeon flew just like the first pigeon flew. <S> To express concurrency of flight or as it's worded, flying. <S> The second pigeon flew while the first pigeon flew. <S> The second pigeon flew while the first pigeon was flying. <S> To express concurrency of taking to flight (i.e. going from perch to flight) use similar constructs. <S> The use of "also" further reinforces concurrency over similarity. <S> The first pigeon took flight (or more commonly "took off") just as the second was [also] taking flight (taking off). <S> One pigeon took flight just as the other took flight. <S> The words "just as" create some confusion in your sentence since "just as" as you used it is more likely to express concurrency over similarity. <S> Additionally, there is an issue with "flew". <S> I think you mean "took flight". <S> Your sentence as it's worded, however, tends to express similarity while using the concurrent form. <A> I disagree with both answers. <S> All the four option are possible. <S> The D version being rather informal. <S> The rest is only a matter of style and emphasis. <S> However both B and D improve the sentence. <S> Of all the options, clearly " C " isn't the best one (it doesn't improve anything). <S> I would go with " B ", which is a very brief and suitable option.
| There is nothing grammatically incorrect with clauses B) or C), either one, in my opinion, is appropriate.
|
What does 'straphanger' mean in this dialogue? In this dialogue, two female agents (two of the most conscientious officers of the team) are having a phone conversation from two different countries. The one who is baking the cake is inviting the other to come along for a special occasion in a forward operating base in Afghanistan where a suspicious mole is supposed to arrive and provide important information to the investigation. – Don't be so literal, everyone likes cake. It's not too late for you to come, you know, it'll be fun. – No, I don't want to be a straphanger . It's your show. You were the first to see the potential in this. I guess ' straphanger ' seems to be used in a metaphorical way here, but I didn't understand it in a clarified way. I'd like to get further clarification because it appears to be used in an interesting way. (Film: Zero Dark Thirty - United States, 2012) <Q> "Straphanger" seems to have a different, and negative connotation in current US military parlance. <S> Since this is a militarily-oriented movie, it is probably the definition that applies. <S> In an article unrelated to Zero Dark Thirty , I found a reference to strap hangers. <S> "We have a saying in the SEAL Teams about the 90-10 rule. <S> It goes: <S> 90% of the guys that make it through Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) training are solid Operators and go on to do great things. <S> The other 10% are constantly bringing the community and their team down. <S> We are always trying to cull the 10% out of the herd. <S> In the military these guys are commonly referred to as “strap hangers”....grabbing at the straps of the good men that participated in this operation." <S> I found another reference in a book review titled The Poetry of Military Vernacular: <S> Randy Brown’s “Welcome to FOB Haiku” that defines "straphanger" as deadweight. <S> So it means something like a hanger-on person who does not productively contribute to the mission, but who takes credit for it anyway. <S> I have never heard this use of this expression before, nor have I seen Zero Dark Thirty , but this seems to fit, as even the context implies a negative connotation. <A> In this context, it is not metaphorical, just idiomatic within the military context. <S> The quoted dialog is a good example. <S> If the speaker is civilian, a 'straphanger' could be someone who is just along for the ride, coming from a term used for standing subway passengers. <S> Again, this is not a pejorative since there were, and still are, straps to hold. <A> In U.S. Army Airborne exercises, based on 10 years of being a paratrooper, a Straphanger is an active paratrooper who is not on the jump manifest who is on standby to join the jump. <S> After the initial manifest is verified, any open spaces available on the plane are then offered up to the Straphangers waiting in the wing. <S> The Straphangers are usually, but not necessarily, from an outside unit. <S> As paratroopers are required to make a quota of jumps (1 per quarter), this is a pretty common way to ensure everyone meets the requirement. <S> For example, 1st Battalion Headquarters reserves a C130 airplane for a para-drop. <S> The C130 can hold 64 paratroopers. <S> 1st Battalion HQ puts 64 personnel from their unit on the jump manifest (list of jumpers). <S> On the day of the jump everyone is counted and there turns out to be 5 personnel that are sick or otherwise unable to jump. <S> Meanwhile 2nd Battalion HQ had sent over 5 people from their unit that need to fill their individual jump quota. <S> These extra people are called Straphangers. <S> It this case, they would fill the spaces vacated from sick paratroopers to fill out the 64 seats on the C130. <A> You want a good reference for "Straphanger" one word, not two. <S> Go read just about anything on MACVSOG in the Vietnam War, you'll find the term used multiple times by Recon Team members, also know as Spike Teams, they also had what was called Hatchet Teams, Reaction Teams, and others. <S> The term is used often by the SF guys, and it's not use in a derogatory sense: <S> a straphanger is just somebody along for the ride, say on a Bright Light mission for example. <S> Their typically not part of the team, but they are SF qualified and SOG, they may just be long as an observer, or for technical advise. <S> Try telling a 5th Special Forces SOG type that his Straphanger buddy coming along for the ride is a bum, or someone who doesn't pull their weight, I think you'll get an argument for sure. <S> RamBoze
| If the speaker is military, a 'straphanger' is an interloper to an existing team and while a bit deprecating not necessarily a pejorative.
|
What tense is "would" in "...and I would go on living, like that,..."? Is it past or present? SOURCE ( Paris Review, "Breaking It Down" by Lydia Davis ) I was listening to the radio to improve my listening skills ( because usually I listen and read transcript at the same time ) and they talked about the text below. In the sentence "And I would go on living like that. I would be able to go on living ", "Would" is in the past or the present (conditional)? I don't really understand those sentences if she's talking about "go on living like that" and being able to "go on living" in the past when she was with her or right now in the present. And once she lay over against me late in the night and she started talking, her breath in my ear, and she just went on and on, and talked faster and faster, and couldn't stop, and I loved it, I just felt that all that life in her was running into me too, I had so little life in me. Her life, her fire was coming into me in that hot breath in my ear, and I just wanted her to go on talking forever right there next to me, and I would go on living, like that, I would be able to go on living, but without her I don't know. Then you forget some of it all, maybe most of it all, almost all of it, in the end, and you work hard at remembering everything now so you won't ever forget, but you can kill it too by thinking about it too much, though you can't help thinking about it nearly all the time. <Q> Would is the preterite (past) form of the modal verb will . <S> It can be interpreted as future in the past , just as could indicates ability in the past . <S> See English modal verbs | past forms . <S> However, in the referenced sentence, it seems that it is used to express a wish that was not fulfilled. <S> There seems to be an implicit "if" that is omitted from the sentence. <S> (If she were) to go on talking forever right there next to me, I would go on living, like that, I would be able to go on living(...) <S> Would can be used to express wishes, as in "would that it were true". <S> See Use of the past subjunctive . <A> If you read between the lines, you know that the passage talks about how the narrator felt rejuvenated and revitalized by listening to the woman/girl. <S> Now, let's understand the metaphor. <S> It is mentioned that a little life was left in the narrator (may not be in terms of 'years,' but the quality of life. <S> Remember the idiom? <S> Don't see how many years you have in your life, but how much life you have in your years. ) <S> Now, when the lady/girl starts talking, and as she is leaning against the narrator having her mouth pretty close to the ears, the warm breath starts pouring life into the narrator's body. <S> The author beautifully describes the 'warmth' (a sign of life opposite to 'cold' which is a sign of death) filling life into the speaker's body. <S> At least for the narrator, the words spoken were 'lively' i.e. full of zeal and life. <S> Now, the strings in question: As the life was pouring into the narrator's body, the speaker wishes that the girl/woman should go on speaking (which means go on pouring life ) forever. <S> Why? <S> Because a little life was left in the narrator and the narrator wanted that new life to be continued. '... <S> and I would go on living...' <S> refers back to forever speaking. <S> And, if it happens, the narrator would be able to live further. <S> In one sentence, if the life-like talk keeps on pouring into the narrator's body, it is possible to live longer! <A> When the narrator says he would go on living like that , it simply means that the narrator can get through daily life by taking the "life" the woman breathes into his ear. <S> He says his own life was empty, and that he drew sustenance from her talking to him in such an intimate manner. <S> To go on living means to endure life while staying in a certain static situation. <S> In this case, he is saying he found it wonderful that her hot breath and uncontrollable chatter made him feel alive, and he could have continued living his life without changing anything about the situation. <S> At the end of the paragraph, he says that, without her, he is not sure if he could continue living.
| It could have been written as a conditional using the past subjunctive mood:
|
Many a teacher and many a student has/have Many a teacher and many a student has attended the lecture. Many a teacher and many a student have attended the lecture. Which one is correct? And why? <Q> Since in the sentence "Many a teacher has attended the lecture" the verb takes the singular form (please see here , meaning 3) it would be reasonable to assume that your latter sentence is correct because there are homogeneous subjects connected with the conjunction "and". <S> Perhaps, someone will correct me. <A> Many a teacher is singular (syntactically) Many a student is singular <S> Many a teacher and many a student are plural. <S> ( syntactically) Many a student means many students semantically though. <A> First one is correct. <S> Basically it means " Many times " a teacher and many a student has attended the lecture.
| So I think: Many a teacher and many a student have attended the lecture is correct.
|
What does the phrase "to within" mean? While I was reading the book 'Introduction to Algorithms by CLRS' , I came across the sentence: ...is equal to g(n) to within a constant factor. I've seen something about it in Merriam-Webster , but 'to within' is not clear to me, as I am not a native English speaker. Can anyone explain it to me? <Q> Perhaps a non-math illustration will help clarify the meaning of "to within." <S> "The bullet penetrated his abdomen to within 1 cm of his spine. <S> " It describes that the bullet penetrated the abdomen and came to rest 1 cm or less distance from the spine. <S> "The home-made rocket climbed to within 5 miles of the stratosphere. <S> " This means the rocket climbed from the surface of the earth up to an altitude that is 5 miles from the stratosphere, up to but not including the stratosphere. <S> So we don't know exactly how high the rocket went but its somewhere "within" that range. <A> Within refers to a margin of error. <S> It is equal to g(n) plus or minus some constant factor. <S> In math terms, g(n <S> ) = x +/- <S> constant factor. <A> Context: <S> From page 45 of the third edition <S> (Cormen, Thomas H., et al. <S> Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press, 2014--via <S> ProQuest Ebook Central): Figure 3.1(a) gives an intuitive picture of functions f(n) and g(n) , where f(n) <S> = Θ(g(n)) . <S> For all values of n at and to the right of n 0 , the value of f(n) lies at or above c <S> 1 g(n) and at or below c 2 g(n) . <S> In other words, for all n ≥ n 0 , the function f(n) is equal to g(n) to within a constant factor. <S> The key is in the value of f(n) <S> lies at or above c <S> 1 g(n) and at or below c 2 g(n) <S> where c 1 and c 2 are defined by the caption of Figure 3.1 as being positive constants. <S> So we can rephrase as the value of f(n) <S> is greater than or equal to a constant value times g(n) <S> and less than or equal to a constant value times g(n) .
| A is B to within a constant factor means A is between (B times a constant) and (B times a constant) where the first constant and the second constant are not necessarily the same.
|
Difference between "uptown", "downtown" and "midtown" I've noticed a frequent usage of the words uptown and downtown while watching movies made in the USA. Also the word midtown is seldom used. What is the difference between them? Is possible they can refer to different places and areas in order what city I talk about? Is there a simple way to recognize what exact place the speaker speaks about? <Q> This depends on what city or town you're talking about. <S> Since you mention the US in your question, I'm going to answer from that point of view. <S> Manhattan, a part of New York City, famously has all three. <S> According to NYCSubwayGuide , Uptown is the northern part (anything north of 59th Street), Downtown is the southern part (anything south of 14th Street), and Midtown is the part in between (between 59th Street and 14th Street). <S> This is from the tradition in the northern hemisphere of referring to the cardinal direction north as "up" and south as "down". <S> Additionally, While Uptown, Midtown, and Downtown are geographic regions of Manhattan, the words uptown and downtown can also mean your direction of travel. <S> If you head north or towards the Bronx or Queens, you can say you are headed "uptown"; if you head south or towards Brooklyn, you can say you are headed "downtown." <S> However, many towns only have a "downtown", which is basically the business district of the town and generally doesn't have anything to do with the cardinal directions (traditionally, such districts are centrally located). <S> In fact, Cambridge Dictionary's American definition of downtown specifically references the "central part of a city". <S> This is the most common meaning of downtown in the US. <S> On the other hand, the town where I live now only has an "Uptown". <S> The town is built on a hill; our central business district is called "Uptown" instead of "downtown" because it runs along the ridge of the hill, so you must literally go up to get to Uptown from almost any other part of the town. <S> Thus, when you say "I'm headed uptown" here you may be going either north or south, unlike in Manhattan. <S> Another example of this is Charlotte, North Carolina , which also calls its "downtown" "Uptown" for similar historical reasons (and because they think it sounds cooler). <S> Unfortunately, this means that the only way to know for sure what is meant by one of these terms for a particular city or town is to look it up or ask a local. <S> However, in most cases "downtown" will mean the city's main business district, wherever that happens to be. <A> Adding on to 1006a's answer: <S> Most cities have one and only one downtown . <S> Few will have an uptown . <S> The only midtown <S> I know of is in Manhattan. <S> Metaphorically, downtown is the busy part of the city where things are happening. <S> It is the area with the tallest buildings, or the greatest density, and is usually mostly commercial. <S> It may be where the most well-known or wealthiest companies have offices, and it may also have the best entertainment options. <S> You may "go downtown" to work, our out for "a night on the town". <S> For example, this is downtown San Diego. <S> This is pretty much everywhere else in San Diego (not an exaggeration). <S> Uptown , metaphorically, is where the wealthier people live (for example "Uptown Girl" by Billy Joel ). <S> This may be why there are few "uptowns" in many cities, because they have no concentration of wealthy people. <S> This is also why many businesses choose to use "uptown" in their names, because it can sound more sophisticated. <A> The directions of “down” and “up” once referred to elevation of the town structures: <S> Uptown was up, away from the local waterways, and downtown was nearer to them. <S> Eventually people began using the words to describe the socioeconomic condition of respective parts of the town or city (habitation), and not whether they were actually higher or lower on the terrain. <S> See to: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=uptown <S> Early, there wre poorer people eking out a living in the downtown areas because they couldn't afford to live uptown. <S> The wealthier would prefer to live as far uptown as they could. <S> As the place gets bigger, you'd always have a difference in income, but it becomes more gradual with the emergence of the middle class and with expansion of both the downtown and the uptown areas.
| Downtown was where most of the commerce, trade, and popular gathering happened; uptown was where the wealthier folks lived.
|
"I often buy fruits when I go to the supermarket" – illogical? I am an English assistant and I often hear my non-native students say: I often buy fruits when I go to the supermarket . I think it is wrong logically because " go " means " to move or travel from one place to another " ( source ). I am not sure whether it implies " you are already there " Should we change to: I often buy fruits when I am at the supermarket but it does not say that "I go to the supermarket". How do native speakers express that idea? Note : when could mean "after", so, I often buy fruits when I go to the supermarket = I often buy fruits after I go to the supermarket <Q> In the context of running errands, go to (some place) is idiomatic speech, and it means more than the physical act of going to that location. <S> So, when I “go to the store,” I don’t merely park in a parking spot and then go home; rather, I go into the store – presumably to purchase some items. <S> Similarly, when you go to the dentist , you go inside and get your teeth cleaned; when you go to the barbershop , you get your hair cut; and when I go to the bakery , I’m probably not going just to smell the aroma of fresh-baked bread – I’m most likely buying some of that bread and taking it home with me. <A> Your student is not wrong. <S> Natively in American English we use " go " in this way. " <S> Go" also implies an action which is specific from context. <S> When I go to the movies, I often buy popcorn. <S> In this example, I will "go” (exist at) the movie theater with the contextual action of watching movies. <S> While I am there <S> I will potentially buy popcorn. <A> I think your sentence sounds fine. <S> However, the use of the noun fruits would sound strange to a native speaker in the context of how you've used it here. <S> When you are talking about fruit in general then it's best to use fruit <S> which is an uncountable noun. <S> In some cases the noun fruits can be used as in the following example. <S> My three favourite fruits are apples, oranges and pears. <S> Here we use the plural form of fruit ( fruits) is used to describe fruit as separate items. <S> With regard to using the words often, usually or even always <S> I think any are acceptable. <S> Each of these words act as adverbs(adverbials to be more precise) <S> that describe the frequency with which you buy fruit <S> (= <S> how often). <S> I hope that helps. <A> In a literal sense 'when I go to (a place) refers to the period of time that I am engaged in the act of "going" , not the time when I have finished 'going' and am now doing something else at the place. <S> Colloquially and in everyday speech it also covers by implication the time you are at the place, and sometimes when you are returning from it, or related to your visit there. <S> when I go to the shop, <S> I avoid the traffic by walking (refers to the time in which I literally "go" to the shop and my actions in "going" there. <S> when I go to the shop, <S> I always buy an ice cream at the store across the road (refers to something happening during the time I am at the shop, not the time I'm literally "going" there, and includes an action I do while not actually "at" the shops. <S> when I go to the shop, <S> I buy fruit/fruits <S> (something I do at the shop but not when "going" there. <S> when I go to the shop, <S> I buy fuel before I get home <S> (something I do after and while going away from them. <S> when I go to the shop, <S> I'm always tired and sleepy <S> (could refer to my personal state after returning from the shop) <S> All of these would be understood and used in ordinary English. <S> Sorry if that's confusing, it's how it is! <A> The sentence is correct for written English, but no one I know in America talks/speaks that way. <S> It would be more usual to say, "I always buy fruit when I go to the store". <S> Now, you may say that I've changed the meaning of the sentence by using the word "always," but in usage I actually haven't. <S> It can be assumed that no one always buys anything. <S> You could say, "almost always", if you wanted to emphasize that point. <S> I cannot remember when I've heard anyone say "supermarket". <S> British English will no doubt have a different answer. <A> You've run smack into a big problem in public language discourse today. <S> This the difference between semantics and pragmatics . <S> Semantically, from one frame of reference, yes go means 'travel' and you don't purchase the fruit while traveling—but—pragmatically, <S> that is the understanding of meaning in context and used functionally and socially, we clearly understand how people use the word go to mean the whole series of actions involved in the purpose of traveling—a complete trip.
| Go" in most cases implies "to be" which means you don't have to specifically say you are in a place. " Therefore, there is nothing illogical about what your students are saying – although, as other answers have said, most native speakers would use fruit instead of fruits .
|
There will be or would be When talking abouts facts should we use would or will ? There would/will be no life without water. There would/will be no women without men. There would/will be no theft without thieves. <Q> The choice of verb depends on the context. <S> Imagine a situation in which a farmer learns that the river on which his cattle depend has dried up completely. <S> He would then state: <S> There will be no life without water. <S> But if the river was only drying up gradually, threatening the future existence of the farm, the farmer might say: There would be no life without water. <S> That's to say that that the first statement addresses an unconditional situation; it is simply a statement of fact. <S> The second statement addresses a hypothetical situation that might or might not be realised. <S> The result depends on certain conditions being met - no water, no men, no thieves. <A> "Will be" refers to the future. <A> Practically, I can't see any difference between them. <S> There would be no life without water. <S> (no water=no life) <S> There will be no life without water. <S> (no water=no life) <S> The only difference is in that a hypothetical situation " would " can work for past, present, and future, while the conditional situation " will " works only for future.
| "Would be" refers to a hypothetical situation which may be in the pass or present.
|
What does it mean by "a cheery lot"? Chuckling about Malfoy, they waited, Norbert thrashing about in his crate. About ten minutes later, four broomsticks came swooping down out of the darkness. Charlie's friends were a cheery lot. They showed Harry and Hermione the harness they'd rigged up, so they could suspend Norbert between them. - Harry potter and the sorcerer's stone (J.K Rowling) 'Cheery' means happy and cheerful, but what does it mean by 'they were a cheery lot'? Is it saying (A) Charlie's friends were very (= a lot) cheery? (B) Charlie's friends were a lot of people, and they were all cheery? For me neither of these seems right because I think 'a' and 'lot' cannot be written separately since 'a lot' as a whole means 'very or very much'. And also it looks weird to put an adjective 'cheery' between 'a' and 'lot'. <Q> Actually, yes, they can be written "separately". <S> A is the usual indefinite article, whereas lot is a noun that is synonymous with group or bunch . <S> Here's an entry I found from the Oxford Dictionaries Online: <S> lot 1 <S> informal treated as singular or plural A particular group or set of people or things. <S> ‘it's just one lot of rich people stealing from another’ ‘he will need a second lot of tills to handle the second currency’ 1.1 British with adjective A group of a specified kind (used in a derogatory or dismissive way) ‘an inefficient lot, our Council’ <S> I doubt it's being used in a "derogatory" way in the story, as the dictionary suggests. <S> I don't think it suggests that there were many (= a lot) of friends, just enough to constitute a "group". <S> On a side note, I feel like you're more likely to see a different noun, like bunch (cheery bunch), in AmE. <S> It's understandable in any case. <A> In the sentence you cited the word "lot" is a noun. <S> A lot is a group of people (please see here , meaning 2). <S> I'd say that Charlie and his friends were good company, it was very enjoyable for Harry and Hermione to be with them. <A> "Lot" in this sentence has the meaning of "bunch", group", "collection of people". <S> It doesn't have the meaning that they are all in one group in any formal manner <S> (although here the people are all friends of Charlie). <S> It means they can be discussed as a group for the moment - I might see a lot of people waiting for a bus in the rain, who don't know each other, and say they look like a miserable lot, meaning, a miserable bunch of people. <S> Or some dogs outside a butcher shop and comment that they look like a hungry or optimistic lot. <S> It also carries a sense of "offhand" informality, there's no formal "group", <S> it's not a usage you would use in formal writing. <S> The book is using it this way. <S> The author (who is speaking and describing them) is saying that the bunch of people who are arriving are, overall, cheerful (or a set of cheerful looking individuals) in their appearance. <A> This phrase is usually used ironically, i.e. to convey the opposite of what is said. <S> In this case they were clearly not a cheery lot at all, they were a dubious bunch of pranksters.
| It simply means that Charlie's friends were a cheery group .
|
What do you call the plastic tube you put in a glass to drink? (image included) Would you please tell me what does this called in English? <Q> From Wikipedia : A drinking straw is a tube for transferring a beverage from its container to the mouth of the drinker. <S> A thin tube of plastic (such as polypropylene and polystyrene) or other material, straight or with an angle-adjustable bellows segment, it is used by being held with one end in the mouth and another end in the drink. <S> Muscular action (a combination of the muscles of the tongue and cheeks) reduces air pressure in the mouth and above the liquid in the straw, whereupon atmospheric pressure forces the beverage through the straw. <S> [...] <S> A bendable straw or "bendy straw" (known in the industry as an "articulated straw") has a concertina-type hinge near the top for convenience. <S> This variation was invented by Joseph Friedman in 1937. <A> It's called a: <S> flexi-straw <S> (from flexible) <A> May also be called " bendable straws "
| That's a drinking straw (or simply straw ).
|
The unclear expression "cow dissent" Today I've come across an expression in a magazine article which is not quite clear to me: Today, amid confected rows about "fake news", reporters who unearthed a new Watergate would start with roughly half the country ready to disbelieve them. Finally, the Nixon museum shows how the symbolic power of the presidency can cow dissent, even in this skeptical age. Source: Remembering an accomplished but fatally flawed president from The Economist Could you please help me understand the words in bold type? Perhaps, there is a typo in the sentence, and the right expression should be "can sow dissent". <Q> The normal usage of cow as a verb is passive (rather than active as here), but the basic meaning does not change significantly: in this case, the intent is to suggest that the "symbolic power of the presidency" can intimidate people from openly expressing opposition to the government's policies. <A> Having seen the full source, I've changed my mind. <S> The full context isn't consistent with "sowing dissent". <S> Furthermore, the Economist is very well edited source, with journalists able to bend and create new language. <S> Given the full source I've changed my mind <S> My previous answer below <S> I'm reasonably confident that this is a typo. <S> There is a verb "to cow" meaning to frighten and dominate. <S> It's quite rare (though more common in the passive voice: "to be cowed"), and its object is the person or thing being dominated. <S> There is, however, a fairly common two-word phrase "sow dissent", meaning to act to propagate disruptive ideas. <S> While it may be a writer purposefully mixing this meaning with the verb "to cow" (and in doing so, creating a new expression) On the balance of probabilities I think this is a simple typo. <A> Cow is correctly used as a verb here. <S> : to destroy the resolve or courage of; also : to bring to a state or an action by intimidation —used with into https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cow
| I think cow is being used as a verb here, in a figurative way.
|
I work (in) downtown Which one is correct to say? I work in downtown. I work downtown. <Q> I work downtown <S> is the correct way. <S> As an adverb downtown means in or into the downtown area of a city <S> You can use as a noun - <S> I work in the downtown. <S> and as an adjective too - I work in the downtown area . <A> Downtown is actually a noun, an adverb and an adjective , it is not a preposition. <S> Your sentence uses downtown as an adverb, so using in downtown is grammatically incorrect. <S> You could say "I work in the downtown area" because in this case downtown is an adjective describing the area. <A> I work in downtown <S> means the "border" that separates downtown from not-downtown is important. <S> You might say this if you are talking to someone in the city, but outside of downtown, and telling them that all of your is actually in the downtown area. <S> Outside of that specific situation <S> I work <S> downtown is most likely what you want to say.
| I work downtown means you regularly travel to the downtown area of a city to work.
|
What is the difference between "deploying" and "distribution"? For instance, in development environment, I would like to know that when should I say: The app is ready for deploying. and The app is ready for distribution. If they are the same from development viewpoint, what about the real life? <Q> Items can be distributed to their users or locations to be stored until they are deployed for use. <S> These words have similar meaning and I am sure there are overlaps. <S> Distribution is about passing things out, or delivering them. <S> Deploying is about making use of things. <A> In software, they mean similar but meaningfully different things. <S> Distribution means sending the package (however it is packaged) to a destination location. <S> What happens at the destination is not specifically described. <S> Deploy means to send the software to a specific target or targets and put it in a running state . <A> A distributed app would be an installer that you let others download. <S> The end user must install it and configure it. <S> A deployed app is one that you distribute and setup and configure. <S> A web app can be said to be deployed because once it goes live anyone can use it immediately, whereas a program installer would be distributed since the end user must click on and run the installer. <A> In software, if you distribute an application, you send it out to all the end users. <S> Mobile and PC applications, that each user has to install individually, can be distributed . <S> Our app is in iTunes and approved for distribution . <S> If you deploy an application, you get it running on the device or server where the end users will access it. <S> For example, web applications, that run from a centralized location and are remotely accessed, can be deployed . <S> We're ready to deploy <S> the latest built to QA. <S> Once it passes the tests, we can deploy to Prod. <S> Especially with mobile applications, many use deploy to indicate the application is both sent out to end users, and set up on their devices. <S> This is probably why you are confused.
| Distribution sends the app out to the users; deployment makes sure each has a running version.
|
What does this sentence in Harry Potter mean? “Well, Voldemort’s going to try other ways of coming back, isn’t he? I mean, he hasn’t gone, has he?” “No, Harry, he has not. He is still out there somewhere, perhaps looking for another body to share… not being truly alive, he cannot be killed. He left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies. Nevertheless, Harry, while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time — and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power.” (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) Sorry I wanted to write a more specific title but I'm having difficulty with the whole sentence so.. I read the question alreday asked here , but I still don't get it. And my question is more about what this sentence means, not how it grammarly works. To me, 'take [someone] what seems like a losing battle' seems [someone] is losing the battle. (As in Many homebuyers will probably take what seems like the easy option without thinking through the long-term costs . Here, [homebuyers] take [what seems -]) But considering the context, it doesn't make sense at all. I also don't get it why "merely=only" is used here. It will 'only' take someone else who can make Voldemort lose power..? If someone can fight against Voldemort, it truly is a courageous and big thing, not 'only' a thing. I know I'm totally misunderstanding this sentence but that's just how I understood this.. which is total nonsense. Can anyone help me with this sentence? <Q> As was pointed out on that other question you linked, this is a surprisingly tricky sentence! <S> Let's slowly build it up. <S> It will take someone else. <S> What is "it"? <S> Stopping Voldemort again. <S> Implied but never directly said. <S> As for "take", we could say "need" instead, just to be slightly clearer. <S> [Stopping Voldemort again] will [need] someone else. <S> This isn't "someone else" as in "we need a different person", but as in "we need other people prepared to do what you did, Harry". <S> When will they be needed? " <S> Next time" (that is, the next time that Voldemort tries to return). <S> [Stopping Voldemort again] will [need] someone else who is prepared to [do the same as Harry] next time. <S> Now, Dumbledore is saying that this someone else doesn't have to do much. <S> Hence, it will "merely" (or "only") take someone else. <S> This may sound like it's demeaning Harry's efforts, but it's meant to be reassuring Harry: <S> standing up to Voldemort is not very difficult or unlikely after all, and it doesn't take someone extra-special to do it. <S> [Stopping Voldemort again] will merely [need] someone else who is prepared to [do the same as Harry] next time. <S> What, exactly, did Harry do that <S> Dumbledore says they need other people to do (or be prepared to do)? <S> "Fight a losing battle"--or what seems like a losing battle. <S> (Dumbledore omits the word "like", but I'll leave it in for this one example.) <S> [Stopping Voldemort again] will merely [need] someone else who is prepared to fight a losing battle next time. <S> [Stopping Voldemort again] will merely [need] someone else who is prepared to fight what seems [like] a losing battle next time. <S> And now we just replace the bracketed bits with the different wording Dumbledore uses, and we have the sentence (okay, part of a sentence) that you bolded. <S> It will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time. <A> We start by understanding that a losing battle is a phrase meaning 'a battle one is unlikely to win'. <S> From that, what seems a losing battle can be paraphrased as 'a battle that seems to be difficult to win'. <S> (Note that that part is one big noun phrase.) <S> And so, 'someone who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle' is someone who, despite thinking that they don't have much of a chance, is prepared to fight. <S> The merely is to contrast with the idea of someone immensely powerful defeating Voldemort completely - rather than needing someone like that, it would merely take... <A> ... <S> it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time... <S> It will merely take { } next time. <S> That is, it will only require { } next time. <S> Let's look at { }: { someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle } { } contains a noun phrase modified by a who <S> -clause : someone else <S> who... <S> And the who-clause itself contains a predicate: someone else who is prepared <S> That is, someone else who is ready . <S> And what must someone else be prepared or ready to do? <S> someone else who is prepared to fight <S> And what or who must someone else be prepared to fight? <S> someone else who is prepared to fight { what seems a losing battle } <S> That is, prepared to fight something which may seem to be a battle <S> he or she cannot win. <A> Ex1: <S> I only want to play video games. <S> I merely want to play video games. <S> In this case, "merely" doesn't work quite as well when trying to say that I want to play video games and do nothing else.. "only" does better at conveying exclusion. <S> Ex2: <S> For <S> merely two dollars more, you can upgrade to the next size. <S> For only two dollars more, you can upgrade to the next size. <S> In this case, "merely" does a better job of including a feeling of the bare minimum.. <S> the absolute, least amount required. <S> Beyond that, there is no difference. <S> But again, "merely" is better at describing the least amount needed, whereas "only" is better at illustrating exclusion. <A> “A losing battle” is a figure of speech. <S> It isn’t a battle <S> you’re currently losing <S> , it’s a battle <S> you expect to lose, or at least feel unlikely to win — as Harry must have felt unlikely to win, this time, when he went up against Voldemort. <S> As for “merely”: Dumbledore is trying to reassure Harry. <S> He’s trying to convince Harry that what Harry did was worthwhile, and that even though Voldemort isn’t truly dead, Harry should still have hope for the future. <S> So to some extent he’s deliberately understating the difficulty, in order to raise Harry’s spirits. <S> It’s not that easy, obviously. <S> But it is true that the fact Harry was able to stop Voldemort, even temporarily <S> , should give Harry and everyone else hope that Voldemort can be stopped again in the future. <S> And in fact, the rest of the series is mostly examples of Harry and others fighting on, <S> even as the odds against them get worse and worse, never completely stopping Voldemort but also never letting him get everything he wants—until (spoiler alert) they finally do put an end to him.
| That someone else who, like Harry , is prepared to fight, even if they don’t expect to win, will be able to stop Voldemort next time, and the time after that, and the time after that.
|
Would have done vs. would do Is it possible to use "would do" instead of "would have done" when discussing hypothetical alternatives to past actions? What is more natural to say when there is a discussion on a past situation?: "I would have done something different' vs. "I would do something different" "He would never have done that" vs. "He would never do that" Is it possible to say : "I didn't do that. I would never do it" Do i have to use "I didn't do that. I would never have done it" <Q> "I would never have done that" refers to one specific instance in one situation. <A> Who chopped down this cherry tree? <S> Dan: I didn't do it. <S> I would never chop down a cherry tree. <S> Ann: I didn't do it, either. <S> I would never have chopped down a cherry tree. <S> I think both remarks are grammatical, but I think Dan's version sounds more natural, while Ann's sounds awkward. <S> It took me three days to bike here. <S> 500 kilometers! <S> My legs are sore. <S> Fred: <S> I don't know why you rode your bike that far. <S> I would find another way to get here. <S> Ed: I don't know why you rode your bike that far. <S> I would have found another way to get here. <S> In this case, I think Ed's version sounds better. <S> These examples were two random ones that popped into my head, and they seem to correlate with the advice given in A. Galloway's answer . <S> Dan is saying he would never chop down any cherry tree, while Ed is talking about his friend's one-time bike trip. <A> ||I would never do that|| is something one says (utterance) in one's present time. <S> It refers actually to an imaginary future . <S> Whereas: ||I would never have done that|| points back to a past where someone did in fact do something, which one is commenting on in the present time. <S> I used "one" to avoid you.
| Normally, you use "I would never do that" when you're talking about something that might happen repeatedly, or something that you would never do at any point in time.
|
A question about age comparison John has two daughters, S and X. S = 18 years old X = 9 years old Now, if I want to compare their ages, how do you say it naturally? I have written these three sentences, do they sound good to native speakers? Sentence 1: S's age is twice as old as X's age Sentence 2: S's age is twice X's age Sentence 3: S's age is 2 times older than X's After reading the comments and answers, I still don't understand why sentence 3 is not correct, Could you explain it please? <Q> Of the sentences you've suggested, the only one that makes sense is S's age is twice X's age. <S> A more common way to say it would be: S is twice X's age. <S> However, the sentence that I would use is: <S> S is twice as old as X. <A> S is twice as old as X <S> That's valid. <S> Also valid is: <S> S is twice X's age. <S> Ex: <S> Scott: <S> "Did he ask her out?" <S> Andrew: "Of course not.. <S> he's twice her age!" <A> "S's age is twice as old as X's age" - There is a fatal error. <S> S and X are young or old. <S> S's age and X's age are not. <S> Same as saying "my name is called John". <S> Wrong, my name isn't called anything. <S> My name doesn't have a name. <S> I have a name, but my name hasn't. <S> I have an age, but my age doesn't. <S> And sentence 3 has a very similar problem. <S> Sentence 1 and 3 can be fixed by not comparing how old their ages are, but how old the people are. <S> "S is twice as old as X" is fine, so is "S is two times older than X".
| "S's age is twice X's age" is Ok.
|
"to be made" vs"that are made" I believe that the advantages of buying a property greatly outweigh the short-term savings to be made by renting. In above sentence what is the role of to be in ("to be made")? Can I write "that are made" instead. I guess "to be made" is the short for "that are intended to be made" if this is correct is this structure a general structure and can be use in other similar situations? <Q> As @P.E.Dant suggests, to be is expressing futurity. <S> I believe that the advantages of buying a property greatly outweigh the short-term savings to be made by renting. <S> In this context, to be is used as a modal verb in the first person singular, and is replacing, "that would be", or, "that could be", or "that should be". <S> Note that would, should, and could are also modal verbs. <S> Ex: <S> I believe that the advantages of buying a property greatly outweigh the short-term savings that could be made by renting. <S> Check out this link for more details & examples. <S> Lastly, its worth noting that to be is also conveying a degree of uncertainty, or opportunity. <S> Its not necessarily guaranteed that savings will be made, just that they can be made. <A> I think "to be made" is infinitive modifying "savings", which is equal to "that are to be made". <S> Although you could probably use "that are made" instead, the meaning would be slightly changed because infinitive "to be made" implies things would be done in the future. <S> Sometimes, I would consider this kind of "to be" is short for "that is/are to be". <S> like, this is the decision (that is) to be made. <A> It's simple. <S> On the other hand,'that are made' means-Something that's already made. <S> Examples:'To be made'- <S> There are some decisions to be made. <S> So,this sentence means that there are some decision needed or should be made. <S> 'That are made'- Dishes 'that are made' by my mom <S> are more delicious than hers. <S> So, here it means that the dishes are already made and you are just commenting on her dishes.
| 'To be made' means-something that should or needed to be done or made.
|
Take tea or drink tea? I take tea. I drink tea. What's the difference between these two sentences? <Q> I disagree slightly with previous answers that say these are the same. <S> True, there are certain situations where "take tea" and "drink tea" could be used interchangeably, but there are more situations where they are not . <S> " Drink tea " very specifically describes the act or action of drinking. <S> If someone said "I drink tea" you could take it to mean they have a preference for tea over other hot beverages such as coffee, but equally it could mean they drink it as well as other things. <S> " Take tea " is a particular British English idiom, rarely used nowadays except in extremely formal situations, but it carries two very specific inferences: <S> A preference for tea Example: "I don't take coffee <S> , I take tea, my dear" <S> The act of taking a break for tea, which may include other items as well . <S> Example: "Let's take afternoon* tea" <S> *_"Afternoon tea" or "high tea" are British terms for a "bridge meal" between lunch and dinner which may include sandwiches and cakes along with tea (or, paradoxically, coffee!). <S> These can also be abbreviated to simply "tea" which is why the two are not simply interchangeable. <S> Additionally, some northern regions of England it is common for the main evening meal to be called "tea" (although this is far from formal and is never referred to as "taking tea"). <S> One previous answer compares usage of "drinking tea" and "taking tea" on an Ngram, which I find very misleading as these are not so easily interchangeable: <S> He is drinking tea <S> Describes someone presently having a drink of tea. <S> He is taking tea <S> Could describes somebody having a tea break, possibly afternoon/high tea as previously described, possibly now, but possibly in the future. <S> When you compare the slightly more interchangeable "drink tea" and "take tea" using the same database of Google books the results <S> are different to drinking/taking. <A> The first is idiomatic in British English (although it is heard less regularly nowadays), and the second in North American and Australian English. <S> And, there is having tea . <S> Thanks, @Raj 33. <S> See this graph to compare usage. <A> Take X is equivalent to <S> eat <S> X or drink <S> X <S> if X is also: a medicine; the meal or beverage you consume during a break; (e.g., take lunch ) a shot of a strong alcoholic beverage (break for some, medicine for others) <A> Both have the same meaning. <S> "I take tea" is the British usage.
| "I drink tea" uses drink here, as drink mostly is used for a beverage. There is no difference in meaning between the two sentences – it's pretty much a geographical variation.
|
Why should "are" be used here instead of "is"? The sentence given in our book is as follows, More important than winning is developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills We are supposed to find where the mistake is in the sentence... 4 options are given ( which I have made bold ) and one of them is correct ( meaning the mistake is there ).. As per the key given in our book, the correct answer is B option i.e. "is" and the key says that "are" should be used here... I am confused and can't understand why should "are" be used here? Anyone who can help me here, please? <Q> Option B is the correct answer, as your answer key says. <S> The error is in the use of the singular form of the copula "is" with a plural subject. <S> This is a sentence with a compound subject. <S> That means two subjects, so the plural is used. <S> Same pattern as: <S> Trees and bushes are important in gardens. <S> For clarification, here is the same sentence with the corrected word and with brackets added to contain each subject: <S> [I returned here to edit brace to brackets and c artouche to contain . <S> I cannot believe I would have used the terms braces and cartouche here. <S> More important than winning are { developing the ability to work with others } and { developing leadership skills } <A> Invert the sentence and it should be apparent: <S> Developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills are more important than winning. <S> Keep this trick in mind for the future. <S> It may be useful again. <S> That being said, this kind of ambiguity is a good indication that the sentence might be poorly written. <S> More important than winning the race is striving to always do your best. <S> More enjoyable than eating the food is learning to prepare it for yourself. <S> More important than winning is learning to work together, and also developing leadership skills. <S> Keep in mind that there may be ways to write these sentences with better style . <S> Test questions like these are purposely designed to be difficult , while good writing is supposed to be easy to read. <A> The is version sounds better than it should because of the complexity of the following subjects. <S> You are somewhat led to believe <S> that the first developing wraps up the remainder of the sentence into a single subject. <S> The answer becomes more obvious if you simplify the two subjects, so say: developing the ability to work with others = <S> > <S> cooperating developing leadership skills = <S> > <S> leading <S> More important than winning is cooperating and leading. <S> vs. <S> More important than winning are cooperating and leading. <A> As a native English speaker I would say that the proposed sentence is 100% correct: <S> More important than winning is developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills If you change "is" to "are" you sound pompous. <S> What you initially hear is: <S> More important than winning is developing the ability to work with others ... <S> Therefore "is" is correct. <S> It would be OK if you introduced early into the sentence that you were using a plural form, such as: <S> Useful skills for winning are developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills. <S> The use of the plural "skills" makes you expect the word "are" afterwards. <A> What if the original intent was that the combination of "ability to work with others and developing leadership skills" together were more important, but individually they were not? <S> Then it should be IS - correct? <A> If there is a perceived error in the sentence (that 'is' should be replaced by 'are') <S> then there is also a second error which has been missed. <S> The second error is the failure to indicate there are two things more important than winning. <S> (As already mentioned the current sentence using 'is' would be naturally used by native English (UK) speakers. <S> original sentence <S> More important than winning is developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills <S> 'Corrected sentence' More important than winning are developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills the plural in the sentence refers to the two subjects which are more important than winning; 'the ability to work with others' and 'developing leadership skills'. <S> It's extremely awkward to indicate the plural by the use of 'are' alone. <S> And I can't see another way without completely rewriting the sentence. <S> e.g. <S> The two things more important than winning are developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills. <S> The above is still awkward due to using the word 'developing' twice.
| Most native speakers would naturally say is by default, because the "A is more X than B" structure is frequently used to compare two equal things. The correct form of the copula is "are" because the sentence in the non-inverted form is: Developing the ability to work with others and developing leadership skills are more important than winning.
|
"How was your travel ?" why 'travel' is recognised to be wrong here while 'trip' isn't? I want to figure out the reason as to why we can't say How was your travel? Some say that's because travel as a noun is rarely used and when it's used it should be in plural so does that mean we could ask - How were your travels ? instead? Then here comes another question - How is it possible for uncountable noun to be used in plural form? If the sole "travel"(n) is considered to have a general meaning then would it be right to form the same question by using the compound form - How was your business travel? or where did you go on your business travel? As you've noticed, I'm going over one type of question because I want to dive more in a sense than sort of grammar trivials. My aim is to know the key thing - the connotation travel owns itself as a noun which makes it unable to be used interchangeably with trip in this perspective. In my opinion there has to be a reasonable explanation about why travel doesn't fit in with the above question. Hope I could get it across what I'm trying to say and get decent answers with a logical approach. <Q> Your question makes some wrong assumptions. <S> These would all be idiomatic: <S> How was your|the trip? <S> your journey, the things that happened to you along the way <S> How was the|your travel? <S> the conditions of the transport itself, the roads, the trains, etc Tell me about your travels. <S> places you've been and things you've seen throughout your life or on an extended trip Your travel will be fully reimbursed. <S> the costs of traveling <A> It's the same in your own language. <S> So in the poem by Byron: 'she walks in beauty like the night', there is no reason why 'beauty' sounds better if replaced with pulchritude or prettiness. <S> It's just because speakers prefer certain synonyms over others. <S> Let me also correct some of your other sentences: <S> Then here comes another question ["here's another question", is better]- How is it possible for [an] uncountable noun to be used in plural form? <S> If the sole [singular] "travel"(n) is considered to have a general meaning <S> then would it be right to form the same question by using the compound form - How was your business travel? <S> [trip] or where did you go on your business travel? <S> [trip] As you've noticed, I'm going over one type of question because I want to dive more in a sense than sort of grammar trivials. <S> [I want to go deep into grammar] <S> My aim is to know the key thing - the connotation travel owns [own is wrong here, but I don't know what you mean] itself as a noun which makes it unable to be used interchangeably with trip in this perspective. <S> In my opinion there has to be a reasonable explanation about [as to] why travel doesn't fit in [delete in] with the above question. <S> Hope I could get it [delete it] across what I'm trying to say and get decent answers with a logical approach. <S> [decent and logical answers] <A> I want to figure out the reason as to why we can't say How was your travel? <S> Trip and travel tend to refer to different things. <S> To travel means to move from point A to B in such a manner that A) you are prepared to be away from home for some time and B) <S> it is a significant expense or expenditure of effort or resources. <S> A trip is an event where you travel from point A to B, stay at B a while, possibly travel to additional destinations C, D, E, etc., and then travel back. <S> Trips can be short and don't automatically imply you will be gone for more than a day, and don't automatically imply they will consume significant resources. <S> Travel is more about the process of moving from point A to B (e.g. "I will travel by train"), whereas a trip is more concerned with your destinations and what you are doing at them (e.g. "I am taking a trip to Italy."). <S> That being said you can force things to work the other way with either word: "I took a trip on a train" versus "I traveled on a train" and "I traveled to Italy for vacation" versus " <S> I took a trip to Italy for vacation." <S> A rich person may say "I took a trip on the other side of the world" because it does not represent a significant effort or major use of resources for him/her. <S> A kid may say "I traveled to the other side of town on my bike." <S> But you cannot say something like <S> "I took a travel to Italy" and make sense, or "I tripped to Italy" and make sense.
| As far as: "there has to be a reasonable explanation about why travel doesn't fit in with the above question," the only explanation is that for each word there are many other synonyms and speakers simply just prefer one over the other in certain contexts.
|
What is the sense of using "have had" in this context? Context: When I have had the food, then only I will tell you the story. What is the sense of using "have had" here? I am thinking that the sentence should be :: When I will have the food, then only I will tell you the story. <Q> To "have had" the food means to have finished eating it. <S> He refuses to tell the story until they bring him food and allow him to eat it. <S> The sentence you propose is unusually worded, but grammatically correct. <S> However, it does not mean the same thing as the original sentence. <S> You sentence means that he is willing to start speaking as soon as the food is placed on the table. <A> There is no rigid rule that the future tense must be used for all future actions in English. <S> Quite often another tense is used. <S> In sentences of the form, " <S> When I _____, then I will _____," referring to two actions that will occur in the future, the first blank is typically filled by a verb in the present tense. <S> In some cases it is possible to use present perfect, as in the example in the question, or present progressive. <S> Here is are similar sentences in which the verb eat appears in eachof these three tenses: <S> When I am eating the food, I will tell the story. <S> In this case the telling of the story will not commence until the speaker has started eating, but it (probably) will occur while the speaker is still eating. <S> (Between mouthfuls, one hopes!) <S> When I have eaten the food, then I will tell the story. <S> In this case the telling of the story will commence after the speaker has finished eating. <S> When I eat the food, then I will tell the story. <S> In this case the present tense is a bit awkward. <S> It is unclear whether the telling of the story is likely to occur while the speaker is still eating or only after the speaker has finished eating. <S> Perhaps the speaker expects to be eating the food on several future occasions and intends to tell the story on each of those occasions. <S> As noted in another answer, in the example in the question "had" is used in the sense of "eaten." <S> The future tense will usually seem out of place in such a context to a native speaker of American English (and I think British English as well)and is best avoided. <S> See “When X is” or “When X will be”? <A> When I have had the food, then only I will tell you the story. <S> " to have " here means to eat or drink something (see ' have verb (EAT/DRINK) ') . It is in the past tense " have had " meaning " <S> have something eaten ". <S> The first part means, " When I have finished eating the food ". <S> The second part means that " only after that I will tell you the story ". <S> The sentence can be phrased differently to make it easier to understand: <S> Only when I have finished eating (have had the food) <S> I will tell you the story. <S> P.s. <S> as non-native speaker <S> I find the part " then only I will " quite unidiomatic.
| Here to "have" the food means to have it to eat.
|
From when to when/what time to what time? Is 'from when to when?' or 'from what time to what time?' proper/natural English? Would their usage come up in a conversation between native speakers as a super concise way of asking when something starts and when it will end? For example: A: I will be going away on a holiday to Paris. B: Oh that's nice. From when to when? If it's not idiomatic, how else I can express the same query without being too wordy? What are some alternative phrases, both formal and informal? Many thanks in advance. <Q> Oh that's nice. <S> From when to when? <S> There's nothing really wrong with this, but when doesn't necessarily resolve to a specific date. <S> Valid answers to "when" include "January 3rd," "tomorrow," "sometime next week," "whenever Bobby gets here," etc. <S> If you want a date range, be explicit - and probably the least wordy way to do that is: <S> Oh that's nice. <S> What dates? <A> There's nothing wrong with "from when to when?" Since you are asking two questions, and as this is a conversation, speakers may choose to break it up. <S> "When are you going?" <S> "Next Monday", "So, when will you be back?" <S> and so on. <S> It's longer <S> but that's okay in a conversation. <A> For inquiring casually about someone's holiday you can use: - Oh that's nice. <S> When are you going? <S> (You can follow with another question. <S> "How long are you going for?") <S> For asking about dates in order to set an appointment or specific timing: <S> Yes, I can walk your dog while you're away. <S> Which dates will you be gone? <A> Both " from when to when " and " from what time to what time " are natural to me as a non-native speaker. <S> from when to when - carries the meanings of ' when are you leaving and when will you be back ' and ' when will it start and will it end '. <S> It asks for a start date and an end date. <S> One could answer to this using " to ", " till ", " until " or " through ". <S> from what time to what time - mostly covers time intervals. <S> As an answer one could say, " from 9am to 2pm " or " from 5pm till 7pm ". <S> As a more concise way of saying it I would suggest " What dates? " <S> (speaking about dates) or " When? " <S> (speaking about periods and can also address a precise day, month, year or even season)
| While "when to when" is correct -- it comes across as a little pushy when asking casually about someone's holiday.
|
Phrasal verbs and terminal prepositions This is the house where I grew up. If we accept the (debatable) rule that a sentence should not end in a preposition, are phrasal verbs an exception? After all there is no other place in the above sentence where "up" might fit, for example: This is the house where up I grew Or, must we eschew the phrasal verb in favor of a synonym, This is the house where I was raised This is my childhood home This is the house where I spent my childhood etc. (Note: I am aware of this similar question , but since it is not actually about a phrasal verb, it does not answer my question. I'm also aware of the famously misattributed Churchill quote, but feel free to repeat it.) <Q> Therefore even when ending with what looks like a preposition, it has no prepositional function and you have ended the sentence with a verb. <S> If you say "that boy just threw up," you are not saying that he threw something into the air; you are not saying he threw something at all. <S> You are saying that the boy performed an act of regurgitation. <S> Full stop. <S> Up is not a preposition in this sentence, it just looks like one. <A> If we accept the (debatable) rule that a sentence should not end in a preposition, are phrasal verbs an exception? <S> Yes. <S> The second (and third) words of a phrasal verbs work more like adverbs than prepositions. <A> A phrasal verb is a combination of a verb and an adverb particle. <S> There is no preposition in a phrasal verb. <S> The most common adverb particles used to form phrasal verbs are around, at, away, down, in, off, on, out, over, round, up . <S> This is the house where I grew up. <S> In the above sentence, grew up is a phrasal verb and the word up here is an adverb particle. <S> If you move the particle before the verb, it will no longer be a phrasal verb and it will not convey the same meaning. <S> A phrasal verb can be transitive or intransitive. <S> When the phrasal verb is transitive, the adverb particle may come before or after the object if the object is not a personal pronoun (me, you, him, us, etc.). <S> Prepositional verbs which look similar to phrasal verbs are another type of multi-word verb. <S> Prepositional verbs have two parts: a verb and a preposition which cannot be separated from each other. <S> Example: break into (a house), get over (an illness) <S> etc. <S> Prepositional verbs always have an object, which comes immediately after the preposition. <S> Source: <S> Cambridge English Grammar: <S> Phrasal verbs and multi-word verbs
| I would say that when it comes to phrasal verbs, the preposition is not a true preposition, but rather a particle that is part of the phrasal verb compound.
|
What does "bare up" mean in here? And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. (Genesis, Chapter 7: 17) What does "bare up" mean in here? And why? <Q> <A> This is from the King James version of the Bible, known for many archaic constructions and translations. <S> Another version says: For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. <S> And another: <S> And the waters became powerful, and they increased very much upon the earth, and the ark moved upon the waters . <S> In your version "bare" is an old and unused spelling of "bore", the past tense of the transitive verb, "to bear", meaning "to carry". <S> Example: <S> Although she was elderly and the child was no longer small <S> , she bore his weight easily as she rocked him to sleep. <A> According to Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, "bare" is the archaic past tense of "bear". <S> In turn "to bear" means to carry. <S> Note that in the expression "bare up" the word "up" does not mean "upward". <S> It simply means that the waters did not let the ark sink. <S> Compare: "He is falling, hold him up. <S> " There are two verbs in this sentence. <S> The first (bare up) means that the waters bore the weight of the ark, <S> the second (lift up) means that the ark rose as the waters which were holding it up rose. <S> This corresponds with the Hebrew original as explained by user @LukeSawczak. <S> Today we do not use "bear up" in the literal sense of supporting weight. <S> But, we do use it in the figurative sense of enduring difficult situations without giving up. <S> Such uses are intransitive (do not name a direct object). <S> For example: "He bears up well under stress."
| This is an archaic construction; here, bare is used as the past tense of bear , to carry (or, in this case, to lift). So, the expression "bare up the ark" means that the water supported the weight of the ark.
|
Is my sentence correct? I want to create a quote which is: "You have everything when you had nothing". Is it correct? I am trying to say that once one starts to realize that we have nothing, that is the moment we just have everything. <Q> Yes, it is almost correct.. <S> Just change the "had" with "have" at the end of the sentence. <S> So, it would be like this, You have everything when you have nothing. <S> Or you can change <S> the have at the start of the sentence with had , but that would make it a past tense. <A> You have to decide whether you wish to say something very terse and epigrammatic, or something a little less terse, but a little clearer and less ambiguous. <S> You have everything when you have nothing. <S> You have everything when you expect nothing. <S> Once we understand that we have nothing, we have everything. <A> Your sentence is correct but it ought to be have instead of had . <S> You have everything when you had nothing. <S> In this sentence, you used had instead of have . <S> you are specifying that you had nothing <S> and it still continues. <S> So this isn't a future event. <S> Now, you are specifying that if you have nothing, you will have everything. <S> There is a condition as you can see.
| You have everything when you have nothing.
|
What is the difference between 'pat him on the back' and 'pat his back'? In the TV shows or something, I've come across that kind of sentences. And make me wonder. why won't say just 'I pat his back'. it's shorter than 'pat him on the back'. and what situation would people say with the latter sentence 'pat him on the back' and could you give me more examples related to mine? (I hit him in the eyes.. or I hit his eyes.) <Q> Looking at your examples, I feel that you are talking about some actions to be done on others . <S> and we use idioms as they are. <S> When you are performing some action on someone's organ, it has to be specified. <S> Patting happens on someone's shoulder; hitting happens in someone's eyes considering that eyes were open then . <S> The safest way is to refer some dictionary and check whether it's an idiom/phrase. <S> In other cases, I feel that the preposition is to be mentioned. <S> Another example is kick on his ____ over <S> kick his ____ . <A> It means Praise given to a person for an achievement or a job well done. <S> Pat him on the back <S> is would be better for this. <S> The coach patted each player on the back after the game. <S> The teacher patted all the students on the back for their good work. <S> Let's give them a pat on the back for doing a good job. <A> There's no real "why" in all of this. <S> It's just how English is. <S> And sometimes it can go either way. <S> I can say "I punched him in the arm" or "I punched his arm." <S> Other expressions are less lenient. <S> However, there is a peculiarity in the language around this. <S> If you "pat him on the back," then you patted him . <S> The body part is secondary information. <S> If you "pat his back," then a morbid-minded person might wonder how his back had become detached from the rest of his body. <S> This is especially true with "head" and "eyes. <S> " If you "hit his head," there's a real possibility that he'd been decapitated, and you are just taking out your extra aggression on his now-lifeless head. <S> But ultimately, it's just the language. <S> In English, I would say "I wash my hands." <S> In French, I would say "je me lave les mains," which literally means "I wash myself the hands." <S> So this linguistic thing with people and their body parts isn't unique to English. <S> The linguists among us may even have a name for it.
| Pat him on the back will be used with the preposition 'on' for a solid reason: it is an idiom
|
"The first to know" Vs. "First to know" What difference in meaning or otherwise does the inclusion or omission of the definite article make in this sentence? When that day comes, you will be (the) first to know. I would like to add that in Ngram , the results are pretty comparable. <Q> If you said to me, "When that day comes, you will be first to know. <S> " I would understand it to mean when the day comes I will be the first one you tell. <S> i.e you will know the day has come and the first person you tell will be me. <S> Whereas, if you said, "When the day comes, you will be the first to know. <S> " I would take to mean I will know the day has come before anybody else, including you. <A> <A> The sentence "You'll be the first to know. <S> " has more of a <S> "You'll be the one and only person to know. <S> " connotation, but in most cases, you can use them interchangeably. <A> I think this is why it is always better to use the correct grammatical from. <S> It enables the reader to carry on without stopping to consider alternative meanings, and perhaps picking up a red herring. <S> Normally I would assume that 'the first' means that you will be told first, either by the speaker or someone else. <S> just 'first' may mean that you will know by some other means than being told, and perhaps will know even before the speaker. <A> Both can be used in a casual context. <S> E.g"You'll be (the) first to know" Use " <S> The first to know. <S> " in a formal context. <S> E.g"You will be the first to know."
| 'you will be first to know' sounds more natural as part of speech and is what I would use when talking to someone, but 'you will be the first to know' is probably more grammatically correct.
|
In (the?) Mathematics class, I sit next to John, who is captain of basketball team In the Mathematics class, I sit next to John, who is captain of basketball team. We don't use article with the name of a subject so going by this correct sentence should be In Mathematics class, I sit next to John, who is captain of basketball team. But what if I want to refer to a specific class then how will I say that ? We use article the to refer to a specific thing but since its incorrect to use the here how do I say that without using the with mathematics ? <Q> When referring to classes, the is unnecessary because you only have one of that particular class, and you're not referencing a specific location/thing. <S> There are some examples when the would have to be used: <S> In the Math classroom , John's desk is right beside mine. <S> In the first-floor gym, there are trophies that John's team won last year. <A> The other form is clumsy English. <S> You are correct about "the" being used to indicate specific things. <S> However, they have to be uniquely individual and specific things. <S> A mathematics class is a general thing that can be assigned individuality through context with possessives like "my," "mine," "yours," "his," etc. <A> If you want to refer to a specific period of Mathematics class, you could say something like this: <S> In the first period Mathematics class, MATH 101A, I sit next to John, who is captain of basketball team. <S> Also, don't forget to include "the" before basketball team. <S> We always include an article before this phrase, for whatever reason.
| "In Mathematics class, I sit next to John, who is captain of the basketball team" is correct.
|
Is it grammatically correct to say 'I have ONLY a few friends'? My question is the following: Is it grammatically accurate to say I have only a few friends If I were asked I would say that I only have a few friends is just perfect according to the rule below. My idea of the word order in sentences with 'only/just/almost' is that we should use them before the main verb but after the verbs 'to be' and 'can' e.g.: I only have a few friends. I have just done my homework. I'm almost finished. Could you direct me to some relieble sources where I can find justification? <Q> Yes, your sentence is perfectly correct. <S> Also you can say both <S> I only have a few friends <S> I have only a few friends <S> But I'd prefer 1st one to 2nd approach. <S> EDIT: <S> You can change emphasis of a sentence. <S> I only have a few eggs . <S> I have only a few eggs. <S> NOTICE: <S> Don't forget that it always should be put before the verb. <S> It will be truly more correct. <A> The modifier only --together with <S> just, nearly, and barely --is often thought to have the bad habit of slipping into the wrong place in a sentence. <S> But in your examples its placement, be it immediately after the verb or between the subject and the verb, will be correct. <S> Of course, there may be cases where placing it between the subject and <S> the verb will course a confusion. <S> For example, the sentence <S> "I only threw the stone thirty yards" is confusing, whereas the sentence "I threw the stone only thirty yards" is explicit. <S> As for the two: <S> I only have a few friends <S> and I have only a few friends <S> each of them doesn't course a confusion whatsoever, so they both are grammatically correct. <A> Both forms are valid English but have different meanings depending on whether only modifies the noun <S> I or the object, a few friends : <S> In I only have a few friends , <S> only modifies the subject <S> I and asserts that the speaker has nothing but a few friends. <S> In I have only a few friend s, only modifies the object a few friends and asserts that only a few of the person's acquaintances are friends. <S> See <S> http://www.wikihow.com/Use-the-Word-Only-Correctly <S> for a more complete discussion of this issue.
| So, my opinion of a learner on the issue of the proper placement of “only” in a sentence, no matter how long it's been argued among grammarians, is this: Place it wherever you feel it should be and just see if the sentence reads explicitly.
|
What can "little silver jet" mean in this sentence, as something that interested a baby when it "fell to the ground"? The sentence I'm talking about (in bold), along with relevant context: She was eight years old and small for her age, and the baby brother she carried on her left hip was large and plump [...] He was holding a biscuit in one hand and a bright red plastic spoon in the other; while the top part of his little body was well protected by a vest, shirt, coat and an over-sized bib, the bottom part was bare. Round the ankle of one leg was a little silver anklet with two bells. [...] The little silver jet that arched and fell to the ground delighted the baby, who made an attempt to touch it, and the girl, who had been scolded by her mother on several occasions for not taking care of her baby brother so that he sat in his own puddle and splashed in it, now said sternly "Tee Tee, you dirty boy, leave it alone!". — "Big Sister" in Or Else, the Lightning God The sentence seems unnecessarily long and convulated to me. Too much information crammed into one single sentence. But I more or less understand the gist of it. Still, it would certainly be helpful if someone could break it down or simplify it. What I'm not sure about is what "little silver jet" and "his own puddle" mean in this context and how they relate to each other. My overall understanding of the sentence (that is, what the writer is actually trying to say) is hazy at best. I suspect there's some baby vocabulary involved. Maybe words like only mothers or grown-ups use—which I'm naturally not very familiar with, being only 13. <Q> My guess would be that the "little silver jet" was a stream of urine, given that the author helpfully informed us that his "bottom part was bare" and then refers to "his own puddle". <S> There's no baby terminology that you're missing here. <S> The author is using intentionally opaque language in order to avoid being crude. <A> Carl Reinke's answer covers the specific terms asked about. <S> But you also commented, requesting a break-down of the sentence. <S> While asking additional questions in comments is generally not encouraged, a break-down is still on-topic for your original question, so I shall happily provide one. <S> Here, I break the long sentence into five shorter ones. <S> Parts in italics have been added for clarity. <S> Parts in (parentheses) specifically explain the two terms you asked about. <S> A little silver jet (a jet of liquid that caught the light and flashed silver) arched and fell to the ground. <S> The jet delighted the baby, who made an attempt to touch it. <S> The girl had been scolded by her mother on several occasions for not taking care of her baby brother. <S> On those occasions, as a result of her lack of care, he had sat in his own puddle (the puddle formed by his own urine) and splashed in it. <S> Wanting to do the right thing this time, the girl now said sternly "Tee Tee, you dirty boy, leave it alone!". <A> Breaking down the sentence <S> who made an attempt to touch it, (he reached out and tried to touch the urine stream) and the girl, (meanwhile, his big sister who is taking care of him) who had been scolded by her mother (had been reprimanded in the past) on several occasions (many times) for not taking care of her baby brother (for neglecting the good care of her baby brother) so that he sat in his own puddle and splashed in it, (so that the baby ended up sitting in a puddle of his own urine, even splashing in it) now said sternly (the sister now said) <S> "Tee Tee, you dirty boy, leave it alone!" <S> (The sister tells the baby not to touch the urine, calling him a dirty boy for wanting to play with it.) <S> Explanation <S> The baby, who was unclothed from the waist down, urinated in a arcing stream. <S> He enjoyed the look of the sparking stream of urine and reached out for it. <S> Their mother had scolded the sister many times for neglecting the baby. <S> The sister had even left him sitting in puddles of his own urine, splashing his hands in it. <S> So now she scolded the baby, calling him a "dirty boy" and telling him to leave the urine alone.
| The little silver jet (a stream of urine) that arched and fell to the ground (describing the trajectory of the urine stream) delighted the baby, (the baby enjoyed seeing it)
|
Is it wrong to use present tense with -s in subjunctive? On this page https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/when-to-use-the-subjunctive , there is an example of subjunctive sentence: The report recommends that he face the tribunal. . If face will be changed to faces , will it be wrong? In case it's not wrong, then it's not a subjunctive anymore but still grammatically correct? Thanks! <Q> Yes, it would be wrong to say: The commission recommends that he faces the tribunal. <S> To avoid the subjunctive ("that he face the tribunal"), you could use a modal instead: <S> The commission recommends that he should face the tribunal. <S> P.S. <S> Since the situation is different in Britain, be sure to read the comments below. <A> Use of the subjunctive gives an elevated and formal style to writing. <S> Using the indicative gives a plain and straightforward style. <S> It is often possible to use modal verbs instead of the subjunctive, and these can give a variety of shades of meaning. <S> In a document giving recommendations on UK local government , the indicative was used 5 times out of 7, and a modal (should) was used once (one instance used a plural subject, so the subjunctive and indicative were identical in form). <S> So the following are all correct, with the same meaning: <S> The report recommends that he face the tribunal [Subjunctive] <S> The report recommends that he faces the tribunal [Indicative] <S> The report recommends that he should face the tribunal [modal] <A> It's wrong to use "he faces" after the verb "recommend" in any form of English, but just because it's wrong doesn't mean native speakers, especially the British <S> , don't say it the way you have it written. <S> In American English, "he faces" therein would be abominable to say or write. <S> It should be written, "The report recommends that he face the tribunal." <S> This must be in the subjunctive mood herein. <S> If you were to put it into the indicative mood (i.e. he faces), it would be grammatically incorrect and would sound terrible to an American English speaker. <S> I would say something if I heard you say that <S> and I don't correct people all that often, but the error would be so abominable that I wouldn't let you leave without explaining to you that that is bad grammar.
| If you change "face" to "faces", then you are using the indicative mood, but modern English tends to use the indicative where in the past the subjunctive would have been used.
|
Looking for a term for a (possibly) disregarded attempt (in sports) Trying to translate a sports software I have a hard time finding a word or term for an attempt that does not (necessarily) count - As in: you have 3 attempts, but only the 2 better ones count towards the result/ ranking - the other one is scratched. How do you call that scratched attempt? I tried translating the German word with google and bing - but the translations are sure not what I need... "Streichwert" -> "spreading worth" (google) is nonsense and "Stroke value" (bing) ... does not sound right either. <Q> I don't believe a single word exists. <S> The google and bing suggestions are garbage, and come from splitting the word into components and translating each one. <S> The word is not found in common online German-English dictionaries. <S> You can used "discarded score" or (as you have already suggested) "disregarded score". <S> If the system discards both the top and the bottom scores (as is done in diving competition) you can say "trimmed mean" for the average, ignoring the top and bottom results. <S> In context "discard" is enough (the fact it is a score being clear from context). <S> To emulate the layout at http://www.reinickendorfermgc.de/Ergebnisse/TTL171.pdf <S> name <S> scoreTeam Rockets 11Hans 4Rolf <S> 2 <S> Fritz <S> 7Discard 2 <S> Similarly a rule set could state "The two lowest scores will be discarded", or "The final score is the sum of the top three attempts." <S> thereby avoiding the need for a noun that means "discarded score". <S> Since this word isn't yet in German English dictionaries, I would guess it is a fairly modern coinage. <A> But there's no one simple noun that refers to an uncounted item that has been ignored because only the two best scores are counted. <A> The other two answers have fine suggestions ( discarded/stricken/scratched. ) <S> One other possibility is dropped. <S> Each jumper has three attempts. <S> Rankings are based on the average of the best two attempts. <S> In the case of a perfect tie, the dropped score is used as a tie-breaker. <S> "That guy dominated the whole field today. <S> His dropped <S> score was higher than anyone else's keepers." <S> This terminology is also very common in class syllabi <S> You will be able to drop <S> your two lowest scores (a missed quiz is a zero). <S> Save these dropped quizzes for emergencies. <S> source: <S> WSU Math 106 sylabus <S> If both the top and bottom are discarded, the average of the remaining scores is referred to as the modified mean or Olympic average.
| The lowest score, the one that is streichwuerdig in your case, once it has been disregarded could be called the stricken score or the scratched score .
|
a lush black hair In English class, we were taught that hair is uncountable and that we use the article when we refer to one strand. However, all the American and British natives in my group agree that the sentence below is correct and acceptable: She had beautiful blue eyes and a lush black hair most girls would kill for. Is there a rule in place, or a particular usage, that would explain this? Is it perhaps that when the whole head of hair is referred to or its quality/state described, the indefinite article can be used in a specifying function of sorts? <Q> I don't think they're using hair as synonymous with mane . <S> The normal phrase is "she had lush black hair". <S> But we can use the indefinite article to refer to the hair as a type of hair or particular unusual instance of a color. <S> She had a bright red hair seen only on Broadway in productions of Annie . <S> There, the indefinite article means "a variety of". <A> According to British Council and the Oxford English Dictionary , uncountable nouns do not use indefinite articles. <S> If necessary, you can add a countable noun and a preposition to the sentence: She had beautiful blue eyes and a head of black hair most girls would kill for. <A> "She has a lush black hair" is at very least odd. <S> It is grammatically well formed, in a minimal sense (subject, verb (agreeing with the subject), noun-phrase, the noun phrase composed of singular determiner, two adjectives, singular noun), but the use of countable "hair" makes the meaning very odd. <S> Therefore <S> I disagree with the advice that this sentence is correct and acceptable . <S> It does not sound natural in that context. <S> The countable/uncountable distinction in English is a developing process. <S> It may, in some future version of English come to function as a type of gender, but in current English, using an uncountable noun in a countable context is merely odd. <S> In your particular example "a hair" would normally mean "a strand of hair". <S> But the context doesn't allow for that interpretation. <S> Therefore the interpretation must be that the collection of hair on her head is lush. <S> That meaning would normally go with an uncountable noun. <S> A native speaker may on occasion produce a sentence like this (it is grammatically English). <S> However, An editor should remove the word "a". <S> A native speaker may not even notice the word 'a' <S> when reading, as the mind reforms the words in the brain. <S> So, this sentence is grammatically English, but it is not correct. <S> Similarly "it was a dirty money" is odd and does not sound natural, for the same reason.
| If the sentence refers to someone with one black hair on their head, then the use of an indefinite article is justified, as the singular hair is countable.
|
What is a person that works with make-up called? I have a friend that studies make-up in College and she is already a professional that works with it. What is the name of this professional? For example, a person that works with architecture is an architect. <Q> The usual term is make-up artist or makeup artist . <S> These may be professionals who work with actors in various productions like theater and movies, as well as in the modeling industry. <S> Here is more on this. <S> They may also be professionals who help "ordinary" people with their makeup, typically working in salons along with hair stylists. <A> From MW: <S> cosmetologist noun : a person licensed to provide cosmetic treatments to the hair, skin, and nails : one trained in cosmetology : beautician EDIT TO ADD: From the NY State Division of Licensing Services website, <S> emphasis mine: <S> The practice of "cosmetology" means providing service to the hair, head, face, neck or scalp of a human being, including but not limited to shaving, trimming, and cutting the hair or beard either by hand or mechanical appliances and the application of antiseptics, powders, oils, clays, lotions or applying tonics to the hair, head, or scalp, and in addition includes providing, for a fee or any consideration or exchange, whether direct or indirect, services for the application of dyes, reactive chemicals, or other preparations to alter the color or to straighten, curl, or alter the structure of the hair of a human being. <S> It is the responsibility of licensees to understand the Appearance Enhancement Law. <A> Also from MW we have cosmetician <S> A person who is professionally trained in the use of cosmetics <A> It depends on what kind of makeup she applies, and in what context. <S> Somebody who works with actors and actresses on the set of a movie or TV production, or with models on professional photoshoots, is referred to as a makeup artist. <S> Somebody who works in a beauty salon with individuals who will wear the makeup in their daily life is referred to as a beautician, cosmetologist or aesthetician . <A> A cosmetologist usually provides treatment to the skin, scalp and other parts of the body. <S> Some cosmetologists might do makeup as well <S> , I think they also learn to do makeup when studying, but a cosmetologist usually has very little to do with makeup. <S> Search on Google for Hung Vanngo and Pat McGrath, whom are the two most important makeup artists <S> and I think your friend might be studying to become like them, and see how they're labeled/called. <S> You'll notice they're never called "cosmetologists". <S> Source: I'm a woman who is very much into makeup and skincare and goes to spas often. <A> They are usually called makeup artists. <S> In India it's a common practice to call them a Makeup Man.
| A person who works with makeup and specializes in it is a makeup artist .
|
When a person (child) should cover something in soap In Russian we have a verb " Намыль ", which means take soap (assuming either wet soap or dry soap depending on context) and rub it to have it cover something. What is the equivalent in English? I thought the word " soap " as a verb would help me out but unfortunately it means " wash with soap " while I needn't include washing. I can't find the right word or phrase to use in English. Edit : We mostly use it when we distinguish two actions. When, for example, a person is in a bath tub and asks somebody to cover his body (back or head for instance) in soap he would say this verb. <Q> You are looking for the word "Lather", used as a verb. <S> Often in spoken AmE " <S> up" is included after. <S> Lather up my back. <S> If you are talking specifically about soaping someone's hair you would use, "Shampoo". <S> Would you shampoo my hair, please. <A> Namely, it doesn't require washing. <S> From http://www.dictionary.com/browse/soap?s=t : "to rub, cover, lather, or treat with soap." <S> If you want to specify that it wasn't washed with soap but just covered, you can first say soap and afterwards rinse , indicating that water was applied at a later time. <A> In russian we have a verb "Намыль", which means take soap (assuming either wet soap or dry soap depending on context) and rub it to have it cover something. <S> What is the equivalent in English? <S> There isn't a neat single word that communicates this succinctly in English. <S> Lather X/lather <S> up X means to create, spread, or cover something with foam. <S> It works with the context of soap, but sounds a little "instructive" in a bathing context. <S> A parent wouldn't really tell their child "Lather your face with soap" but it might be something you read on the back of a bottle of soap or similar. <S> Soap and soap up do basically mean lather (up) X with soap <S> but as soap is not too commonly used of a verb it can catch a listener off guard unless they are expecting you to talk about soaping things up. <S> It can also mean to just apply soap to an object versus putting soap on something and then scrubbing it. <S> Phrases like <S> scrub X with soap or wash down X with soap will work. <A> A parent would say to their child "make sure to wash behind your ears" clean or scrub are interchangable with the word wash.
| The way I see it, the verb to soap does cover your requirements.
|
Which one is the correct sentence? (Big/Bigger is not always better) Big is not always better Bigger is not always better Which sentence is correct? <Q> Bigger is not always better <S> is more common (263,000 results on Google, compared to 26,800), but either would be absolutely fine to use. <A> Each sentence needs to end with a period. <S> "Bigger" is parallel to "better", so "Bigger is better. <S> " is correct in most uses of this phrase. <S> "Big is better. <S> " is either an error, or has a more specific meaning such as "Big is better [than small]." <A> Both sentences are grammatical, but they mean slightly different things. <S> A mastiff in a New York City apartment is probably too big. <S> "Big is not always better" means "Big is not always better than small. <S> " Those on a diet would prefer a small portion to large one.
| "Bigger is not always better" means "Bigger is not always better than big." Neither sentence is incorrect (apart from the full-stop).
|
since then, he has...: present perfect Is the following use of "since" natural? Peter met Mary twenty years ago. Since then they have gotten married. Five years ago, however, they divorced. Does "since then they have gotten married" imply they are still married at the time of speech, and thus present a contradiction with "five years ago, however, they divorced"? <Q> since is used about something that happened regularly or continuously over a period of time, either until now or until some event in the past. <S> Note that getting married refers to a one-time event - the wedding day-, <S> whereas being married refers to a state which normally occurs continuously for a long period of time. <S> Consider these two sentences <S> : They have been married since 2005 - they married in 2005 and still are married They got married since 2005 - they married sometime between 2005 and now, and it is not specified whether they are still married. <S> It certainly is unconventional to use since to describe a one-time event, but it is not that unusual and it doesn't cause confusion. <S> The fact that they later got divorced does not affect the fact that the marriage event took place. <S> The use of present perfect have gotten married is uncommon, but does occur, as this NGram shows. <A> Since then they have gotten married <S> Paraphrased <S> : In the time intervening between then and now, they have gotten married. <S> The time phrase and tense do not entail that conclusion. <S> Since then they have been to Paris. <S> Just as you would not assume that they are still in Paris, you cannot assume that they are still married, even though marriage typically lasts longer than a trip to Paris. <A> There are so many ways to say this, depending on what you may wish to emphasize. <S> I favor: <S> Peter met Mary twenty years ago. <S> Since then they have married and, five years ago, divorced.
| When you use since with a one-time event, it means that it occurred during the interval between the specified time and now. To draw an inference that they are still married is not unreasonable but it is not warranted.
|
"if I was rich, I would have bought..." vs. If I was rich I would buy..." Is it correct to answer if it was or were with “would have”? Example: If I was rich, I would have bought a car. Or should it be only would? If I was rich, I would buy a car. If the former, why? <Q> Past counterfactuals To talk about a counterfactual in the past, you usually use the past perfect in the subordinate clause, then the conditional perfect in the main clause: <S> If I had been rich, I would have bought a car. <S> Hypotheticals <S> To talk about an alternative present or a hypothetical future, you use the simple past in the subordinate clause, then the conditional in the main clause: <S> If I was rich, I would buy a car. <S> Some speakers prefer the "were" form here (which can replace "was" when a hypothetical is being discussed): <S> If I were rich, I would buy a car. <S> However, you could also combine the hypothetical wealth with a perfect verb: <S> If I was/were rich, I would have bought a car. <S> Here the sense is that you would have already bought it, possibly some time ago, not simply that would be about to buy it. <A> Best to go back to the "was" and change it to "were" to match the tense of the the first example. <S> The second sentence is probably fine with either "was" or "were." <A> If I were\had been rich five years ago, I would have bought that car. <S> (I'm rich now) <S> If I was rich, I would have bought that car we saw yesterday. <S> (I'm still not rich) <S> If I was rich, I would buy a car. <S> (I'm not rich) <A> "If I was rich I would have bought a car" means that if the speaker was rich, they would have bought a car; that is, it would be in the past . <S> Generally, in the first situation someone, the speaker may be trying to do that thing, while in the second the speaker is merely pondering what he <S> /she would buy if they had sufficient money.
| In "If I was rich I would buy a car", the speaker means that, in a hypothetical situation where they gained a lot of money, they would buy a car.
|
'Have never seen' or 'had never seen' 'past perfect tense' or 'present perfect tense': Which one should I use in the following context? The FIFA World Cup is one of the greatest shows on Earth. Of all the FIFA World Cups I have watched, the 2014 competition is the most memorable for me. The goal that Rodriguez scored is my favourite goal ever. I have/had never seen a goal like that before. Here I want to mean that I hadn't seen a goal like that before and I haven't seen one since then. <Q> "I had never seen a goal like that before" places the entire statement back in 2014 when you saw the goal. <S> Neither form allows you to express both that the goal was remarkable when it happened and that is has not been surpassed since then. <S> Actually, your explanatory sentence "I hadn't seen a goal like that before and <S> I haven't seen one since" is one way a native speaker might express your meaning. <S> Another is "I've never seen another goal like that one", and related forms. <A> I think, you can not say (before) after "I have or had never seen like that" (that) it should be end of this context.. because you already saw it in 2014 :) <S> you can add before, if it your first time to see a gaol like that. <A> You can say I have never seen the goal like that after.....!(means <S> from 2014 to upto now) <S> You can say I had never the goal like that before....!(means <S> from previous past to 2014) <S> You can also say I have never seen the goal like that.... <S> !(means <S> in your whole life) <S> If you are in a football game right now. <S> If goal was happened recently then you can say that I have never seen the goal like that before....!(from <S> your whole life to up to now)
| "I have never seen a goal like that before" places the entire statement in the recent past, and cannot refer to a goal you saw back in 2014.
|
Does "fasten" mean "make something happen fast"? I wonder if it means "make something happen fast" here, like sadden, darken etc.? because if we use this link http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fasten?q=fasten+ it doesn't help. Analysts say high-tensile steel and aluminium will be the more popular alternative for many years to come, considering parts makers would need to overhaul production lines and figure out ways to fasten new materials like cellulose nanofibre onto other car parts. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/japanese-auto-parts-could-soon-be-made-out-of-wood.html <Q> Other synonyms of "fasten" include attach , join , connect , fix , close . <S> For a verb meaning "to make quick", see quicken or hasten . <S> [ ways to [ fasten [ [new materials] <S> [like cellulose nanofibre] ] onto [other car parts] ] <A> It means to attach "parts makers would need to overhaul production lines and figure out ways to fasten new materials like cellulose nanofibre onto other car parts ." <S> This means to attach the new materials to other car parts. <S> It uses the original meaning of "fast" (held in place) instead of the more common meaning (speed). <S> EDIT: <S> There is also a third meaning of "fast" as a verb (To fast): <S> Fasting is a willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time. <S> An absolute fast or dry fasting is normally defined as abstinence from all food and liquid for a defined period, usually a period of 24 hours, or a number of days. <S> Fasting is predominantly a religious action. <A> The definition of the word " fasten " is to (cause something to) become firmly fixed together, or in position, or closed . <S> It's worth noting that the prepositions " on " and " upon " change the meaning of the word fasten to " to give attention to something, because it is of special interest or often because you think it is the cause of a problem ". <S> Examples: <S> Fasten your seatbelts please. <S> Fasten your jacket. <S> Please fasten the processor onto the motherboard. <A> There is the term "hasten", originating from the noun "haste", meaning doing something in a hurry/quickly. <S> However, "fasten" means to connect something, such as "fasten your shirt buttons", "fasten your seat belt", etc. <S> e.g. "he fasted for 40 days to get closer to god." <A> Fasten means "to hold fast." <S> This definition highlights a fascinating aspect of the word fast -- it is its own antonym. <S> As in the contrast between driving fast and holding fast. <S> There are few other examples in the language, though none come to mind at present. <A> The term "fast" has three seemingly different meanings: to do something quick to make something firmly attached to abstain from taking food for the religious purpose <S> Personally, I am more interested in the source of such differences, and for this purpose I am taking to the etymological dictionary. <S> So let's do it: fast As far as I understand, the original meaning was "to make something firmly attached", which was eventually developed into "to do something quick", based on the loose similarity of the term (" to run hard means the same as to run fast or perhaps from the notion of a runner who "sticks" close to whatever he is chasing "). <S> And then also took the religious meaning, through " The original meaning in prehistoric Germanic was "hold firmly," and the sense evolved via "have firm control of oneself," to "hold oneself to observance" "
| Fasten literally means "to make fast", but here fast has its older meaning of "firmly fixed, steadfast". The word "fast", when used as a verb, means to refrain from drinking or eating for a period (a common practice in many religions/cults).
|
The difference between Due to and Thanks to is there a difference between using expressions "due to" and "thanks to"? Сan I use it interchangeably? <Q> To my knowledge " thanks to " has always a positive connotation while " due to " is more neutral and can have a negative connotation. <S> Thanks to my good friend Ellen, I got to the airport on time <S> The game was delayed due to bad weather. <S> My desire to act was due to Laurence Olivier's performance in 'Hamlet'. <A> For example using thanks to in the sentence below wouldn't sound quite right. <S> his death was not due to any lack of care <A> In addition to the other answers provided, I would add that "due to" has a more impersonal tone. <S> One generally would use "thanks to" for referring to people, e.g. "thanks to my boss <S> I can afford food" vs. "due to my boss <S> I can afford food".
| Since both mean as a result of you could use them interchangeably in most cases but due to sounds more serious and describes the cause of something maybe in a more neutral way.
|
What does "affect...with a lag" mean in this context? Does it mean Fed's policy makes the US economy slow down? https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lag In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester said, "I'm not one who would like to see inflation be at 2 percent before we continue on the path" of rate hikes because policy affects the economy with a lag . Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-Fed-minutes-idUSKCN1AW2AW <Q> With a lag here means "not immediately, but after some time". <S> Ms. Mester says that the Fed should continue raising interest rates now rather than waiting for inflation to increase; she expects inflation to rise in the future, and because it takes some time for the Fed's action ('policy') to have any effect on the economy, she believes that the Fed should take action now so that its effect is in step with rising inflation rather than 'chasing' it after the fact. <A> Not to disagree with the other (correct) answers but to address the underlying structure and the cause of your confusion... <S> Consider the following sentences (as this is how you are understanding with a lag <S> ): <S> The bat bite infected him with a virus . <S> Policy affects the economy with a lag . <S> There, the virus is something that happens to him . <S> On that model, you are understanding lag to be something that happens to the economy . <S> But there, "with a lag" modifies affects , not economy . <S> Consider: <S> After twisting his ankle, he ran the race with a limp . <S> "with a limp" modifies (or complements) "ran", not "race". <S> He ran with a limp. <S> Thus: Policy affects the economy with a lag. <S> The effects of policy upon the economy are not immediate. <A> It means "because policy affects the economy slowly". <S> Economic measures takes more time than monetary measures (rate hikes) to affect the economy (have effects on employment, GDP growth etc.) <A> Adding to Tᴚoɯɐuo's answer. <S> I don't have enough reputation for commenting yet. <S> The bat bite infected him with a virus . <S> There, the virus is something that happens to him . <S> The word "virus" here actually modifies the word "infects". <S> The infection is what happens to him . <S> Consider these examples: <S> The bat bite infected him with rabies . <S> The noun is getting modified by the verb, and the verb is getting modified with the "with _______" phrase. <S> If you think about it this way, you can see that all of the examples actually follow the same pattern: Policy affects the economy with a lag. <S> The economy is affected. <S> The effect works with a lag. <S> After twisting his ankle, he ran the race with a limp. <S> The race is ran. <S> The running is with a limp. <S> The bat bite infected him with a virus. <S> He is infected. <S> The infection is with a virus.
| Policy affects with a lag (a delay).
|
Understanding "Conformity is a virtue, creativity suspect, humor forbidden, and voice mute" Legal writing, because of the purposes it serves, is necessarily ruled by linear logic, creating a path without diversions, surprises, or reversals. Conformity is a virtue, creativity suspect, humor forbidden, and voice mute. I am having hard time understanding the intended meaning of the last sentence. I understand that conformity is a virtue , because legal writing should conform with the path of linear logic with out diversion. However, I do not know why the author described conformity as creativity suspect, humor forbidden, and voice mute . Can someone explain it? <Q> Conformity is a virtue, creativity suspect, humor forbidden, and voice mute. <S> This isn't a list describing "conformity", it is a list of things about legal writing. <S> Conformity is a virtue. <S> Creativity is suspect. <S> Humor is forbidden. <S> Voice is mute. <S> I think the 4th part might not be clear. <S> The word "voice" here is referring to the author's "voice" or their unique style of writing that shows their personality. <S> The Grammar Girl website has more information about Voice and Tone in Writing : Voice is the distinct personality, style, or point of view of a piece of writing or any other creative work. <S> Voice is what Simon Cowell is talking about when he tells "American Idol" contestants to make a song their own and not just do a note-for-note karaoke version. <S> That sort of individual personality is not acceptable in legal writing according to your sentence. <S> As user151841 pointed out in a comment: "Ideally, with legal writing, you wouldn't be able to tell who wrote it." <S> One clue that this list of items isn't describing conformity is that the last 3 items don't match the first item in structure. <S> Writers tend to use parallelism when writing lists. <S> Many style manuals state that when writing lists " all items should be syntactically and conceptually parallel ". <S> An example of parallelism where each item in the list is describing the first word is : Flying is fast, comfortable, and safe. <S> ( Source ) <S> You could expand the list like this: Flying is fast. <S> Flying is comfortable. <S> Flying is safe. <S> If we try to do that with the "conformity" sentence, it doesn't make sense: Conformity is a virtue. <S> Conformity is creativity suspect. <S> Conformity is humor forbidden. <S> Conformity is voice mute. <S> Items 2, 3, and 4 don't match the first one in structure, and the word order seems strange. <S> Normally we would expect something like "Conformity is very dull." <S> so "creativity suspect" doesn't make much sense unless we're reading something poetic instead of something literal. <S> So that interpretation seems like it doesn't fit the context <S> and it doesn't have the parallelism we would normally expect of something carefully written and edited. <S> Another way to write the sentence in your question: In legal writing, conformity is admired, creativity suspect, humor forbidden, and voice suppressed. <A> It's an example of ellipsis (specifically, gapping). <S> The author has chosen to remove the repeated word "is" from <S> Conformity is a virtue, creativity is suspect, humor is forbidden, and voice is mute. <S> So, this isn't a description of conformity but, rather, a list of four separate points. <S> "Voice", here, means one's personal style of writing, rather than literally one's speaking voice. <S> Colleen's answer explains that part in more detail, so I won't repeat it. <A> This is a rhetorical form called zeugma , where common elements are dropped . <S> As David pointed out , the repeated "is" is dropped for effect. <S> Zeugma is not exclusive to English. <S> In 66 BC, Cicero said "Vicit pudorem libido timorem audacia rationem amentia." <S> ("Lust conquered shame; audacity, fear; madness, reason") — the word vicit ("conquered") <S> is dropped after its first use.
| Authors should "mute" their own voice and conform to a consistent tone and style.
|
Priority is the ones vs priority are the ones? A - Top priority are the ones you already know. B - Top priority is the ones you already know. C - Top priorities are the ones you already know. Is A correct or B? I'm inclined towards A. I think C is correct. <Q> A and B are both incorrect because they mix tenses. <S> Top priority (singular) are the ones <S> (plural) you already know. <S> Top priority is (singular) the ones (plural) you already know. <S> C is almost correct, but you are missing the word "the": <A> A & B are both incorrect. <S> C is correct. <S> A/B describe a single priority, therefore: <S> Top priority is the one you already know. <A> A is correct if "the ones you already know" means a group of things that are not the priorities. <S> B is incorrect because 'is' should be paired with a singular priority. <S> C is correct but it could mean two things just like A.
| A is incorrect if "the ones you already know" means the priorities, because Priority would need to be plural. The top priorities are the ones you already know.
|
What do we call public schools with entry exam? I was looking for an equivalent for a type of school that we have in our country (they usually have entry exams) and I faced this phrase "public exemplary schools". Do we have such schools by this name generally? Is it common? <Q> They are relatively rare now, only a few regions of the country still have them, but they have been widespread. <S> The name is because, traditionally, only at a grammar school could you learn Latin Grammar. <S> I believe that the term is not used in American English. <S> In American English a "grammar school" is a school for younger pupils aged about 6-12. <S> The terms used in American English are quite different to British English; for example in British English, a "public school" is a school that charges fees and is independent of the government. <S> In America, a public school is state-run and doesn't charge. <S> What this means is, unfortunately, there is no term that is widely understood across all dialects of English for a "public school with an entrance exam" <A> I am not aware of any well-known term in US English for a school that has an entrance exam. " <S> Magnet schools" are public schools that serve more advanced students, but the name does not indicate how they decide who to admit. " <S> Exclusive schools" are difficult to get into, but again, whether they select based on an entrance exam, grades in previous schooling, or whether your parents are willing to pay high tuition isn't implied by the name. <A> There is a term that is used in American English for free, state-run schools that require an entrance exam, but it isn't common or well-known, primarily because this kind of school isn't common in the US. <S> We call them exam schools or occasionally competitive public schools (see, e.g., the definition in The Black Student's Guide to High School Success or this Salon article on the subject ). <S> However, so far as I know the exam is generally peculiar to each individual school—that is, schools have their own tests, and you either get in to that school <S> or you don't; there isn't a tiered system where highest marks send you to one school, and lower (but still high) <S> marks send you to a different school. <S> Even if there were such a scheme in some particular school system, there probably still isn't a widespread name to distinguish the two types of exam schools. <A> In Australia, those types of schools can be called 'Selective schools', as seen in the article below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_school_(New_South_Wales)
| In the UK, free state-run schools that require students to pass an exam to enter are called grammar schools .
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.