source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
The Correct Usage of Have and Had I've been breaking my head for a long time now on whether to use "have" or "had" in certain cases. For example: "I have ordered three books. Yet, only two of those had arrived." The thing is, in the first sentence, it is stated that I ordered the three books in the past, so by that logic it would be fitting to use "had". But on the other hand, it is relevant to this current statement, so "have" seems like another good option. In the second sentence, the two books arrived in the past, so "had" is what I chose to use. But it seems like "have" would have been another good fit, since it implies that the books are currently in my possession. So the question is: are these two words correctly placed and used in the example? And may I hear a more elaborate explanation about their correct usage? <Q> Just for clarity's sake: <S> "I have ordered three books. <S> Yet, only two of those have arrived." <S> [past but we don't know when , and the statement is true at the time of speaking in the present] <S> "I ordered three books. <S> Yet, only two of those arrived." <S> [implied: at some defined point in the past: last week, three days ago, last year, etc. <S> etc. <S> etc. <S> Both things are over and done with.] <S> "I ordered three books [last week]. <S> Yet, only two of those have arrived ." <S> [action in the past with another that continues to be true at the time of speaking in the present] <S> "I ordered three books. <S> Yet, only two of those had arrived in time for your birthday. <S> "[past with a specific moment implied preceded by another moment in time] <S> Summary: the past perfect is used to signal a moment in the past that precedes another past moment where other verb is usually in the simple past. <S> I arrived late after the other guests had left. <S> [a simple example] <S> My arrival was preceded by the other guests leaving. <A> "Have ordered" indicates that in the present, you have the attribute of "has ordered" (present perfect). " <S> You should use have/have or had/ <S> had (as opposed to have/had), depending on the tense of your context. <A> Now: I have ordered three books but as yet only two of them have arrived. <S> In the past: I had ordered three books but by then only two of them arrived.
| Had arrived" indicates that in the past, your books had the attribute of "has arrived" (past perfect).
|
What does "to" mean in "A Complete Guide to..."? I find it hard to understand what "to" means in this case: "A Complete Guide to the Google Search Console" I wonder if it means "about" or "towards". If so, why don't we use "of" to reflect the possession relationship? <Q> The needle on the compass points to the north. <S> The usher guided them to their seats. <S> Other non-spatial abstract and figurative meanings are derived therefrom. <S> In a book title such as A Guide to Woodworking , the noun guide is 'one who guides' or 'that <S> which guides'; 'to guide someone' is to lead them somewhere; the complement, the prepositional phrase to woodworking , identifies the "destination" of that leading, which here is not a literal destination, a place, but a goal , which is understanding of the subject of woodworking. <S> The noun guide is used in this figurative manner so often that its figurative nature is almost entirely forgotten, and it comes to mean (especially to those who don't think much about the meanings of the words they use) "a book introducing a subject to learners". <S> But at a very basic level, the learner is someone who doesn't know the way and needs to be shown the way. <A> After " guide " the most common prepositions are " to " and " for ". <S> " To " refers to subjects. <S> " For " refers to those for whom it is intended. <S> " <S> Of " when it stands after the word " guide " is intended only for possession. " <S> A Complete Guide of the Google Search Console " means that the Google Search Console possesses it; has it. <A> "To" here could be seen as more or less short for "to understanding" or "to using. <S> " There is a kind of deliberate vagueness to it - a "Guide to" something can be a guide on "how to", "to use", "to understand" etc. <S> Prepositions can be a bit arbitrary (and not just in English) when they are not spatial. <S> See the transition in recent decades of doing something "by accident" to "on accident", for example. <S> There is no intrinsic reason for preferring either.
| The core spatial meanings of to are 'in the direction of' and 'moving towards and reaching'.
|
correct tense in a sentence regarding past What tense should be used here? I think she is so straightforward with everyone because she used to live on her own for 5 years. has lived on her own for 5 years. lived on her own for 5 years. was living on her own for 5 years. Given the person is not living alone anymore.(btw, it's just an imaginary situation but it still bugs me) I think a few of the options could be appropriate. Though, 2. sounds the best to me. Meaning that the experience has left an impact in her way of approaching other people. <Q> Options 3 or 4 are possible. <S> The first option: "She used to live on her own" is talking about her current state: <S> She is now a person who lived on her own . <S> So the sentence describes the state of the person now , and so putting a time expression with them is awkward. <S> You will sometimes hear native speakers using expressions like "She has lived on her own for five years". <S> It would mean that she lived on her own in the five years up to now. <S> Which is subtly different from the meaning you want to give. <S> The second two expression are past tense, they are about past actions and states. <S> Since "to live" expresses a state (rather than an action) you can choose simple past, or past continuous, and there is very little difference in meaning. <S> The differences are minor, and would be easily forgiven by listeners. <A> All of them are grammatically correct but not necessarily semantically correct (that is, they don't mean the correct thing). <S> "used to live on her own" is appropriate; "used to" means that this is something she did in the past. "has lived on her own" is not correct, because you said the person does not live on her own now. "has lived" is the present perfect tense , which is used to describe an action that began in the past, but the effects of which continue until the present . <S> You will hear people sometimes speak informally like this, but it's better used to describe an action that was going on at a point in the past when something else happened, like "When Jim arrived, Sarah was living on her own." <A> Actually, all of these are grammatically fine. <S> Which you use can depend on personal preference and what exactly you want to say. <S> There are subtle distinctions between each. <S> "Used to live on her own" and "lived on her own" are more or less the same. <S> "Was living on her own" is used when you want to talk about something that happened at the same time: <S> Ten years ago, she was living on her own when the big earthquake hit the city. <S> The only one that's incorrect for the context is #2. <S> The present perfect can be used to imply either an ongoing situation or a life experience , depending on how it's presented. <S> She visits charity shops because she has been poor for many years. <S> (ongoing) <S> She likes to donate to charities because she has been poor and knows what it's like. <S> (life experience) <S> When you add a time frame (e.g. "for many years") it generally implies the situation is still true. <S> You can use the past perfect (" had lived on her own") <S> but this is more often used establish a temporal relationship with another event: <S> She had lived on her own most of her life, before she got married. <A> Other native speakers have disagreed with me about this, but I find used to {verb} incompatible with phrases like for five years . <S> Why? <S> Because used to implies "does not do so any longer" and that implication is incompatible with past durations. <S> She used to live on her own but doesn't any longer for five years. <S> marginal at best, to my ear <S> For five years, she used to live on her own. <S> marginal at best <S> Five years ago she used to lived on her own. <S> grammatical She lived on her own for five years. <S> grammatical <S> She used to live on her own (but <S> doesn't any longer|but <S> doesn't now). <S> grammatical
| "lived on her own" is appropriate, because it's the simple past, indicating something completely in the past. "was living on her own" is the past continuous tense and is not really correct because it describes an action in the past that was not completed.
|
To prepare for something or to get prepared for something? Which one is correct in American English? 1) To prepare for something? 2) To get prepared for something? Besides this, there are a lot of similar things that I am not sure about (such as to start or to get started). How can I generally realize which form is correct? <Q> The very subtle difference is that "to prepare" implies that the subject is actively to do the preparing while "to get prepared" <S> could mean that the preparation is to be done for them. <A> Prepare is a verb. <S> Prepared is an adjective. <S> It refers to being in a state of having completed preparations. <S> To prepare and to get prepared both refer to the same process, but with a slightly different nuance. <S> To prepare focuses on the process of preparing, with no explicit attention to how long that will take. <S> "We're preparing to send astronauts to Mars" is a true statement even if it is a minimal or sporadic effort occurring over decades. <S> To get prepared focuses on the end result. <S> For preparation of a short duration, either phrase might be used. <S> But it wouldn't be typical to select "to get prepared" when referring to a very long process that involved a lot of "biding time", or preliminary work to facilitate the task, like preparing to send astronauts to Mars. <A> Sometimes that means we need to prepare my/one/yourself and that’s a different question. <A> We should get going = <S> we ought to be leaving We should go = <S> we ought to leave <S> The difference is that with get , the action is understood to be underway, to have commenced. <S> That is, the action to be 'gotten' is one that is already underway. <A> Both sentences are correct . <S> When you say ' to get ', it is implied that you will get started (or do the verb) either straight away or soon . <S> If you decide to just leave it and say ' to ', you declare that it is something that needs to happen, but not straight away . <S> If you were to ask a friend that you need to study for an exam coming up in a week, you would say... "... <S> and I need to get started on studying for English for the test this week ." <S> Compare this to the alternative, this sounds much more realistic . <S> This is how you'd distinct which one to use. <S> To ' get ' something done is implied that you want it done soon. <A> To prepare for the exam, Cuthbert spent many hours in quiet study. <S> To get prepared for the exam, Cathy drank a cup of cocoa and put on her extra strong reading glasses. <S> ‘Prepare’ is more passive. <S> ‘Get prepared’ (or get anything) focuses more on the action involved, and on the process, because ‘get’ describes the process of transitioning from not having - to having something. <S> Here’s another example: <S> He was drunk - describes his state. <S> Nothing is happening - we just passively hear a description of how he now ‘is’. <S> ie ‘drunk’. <S> He is probably asleep on the staircase, key in hand. <S> He got drunk - is a whole other story - in fact it IS a story - it alludes to the process of how he got drunk. <S> We might hear of several bars visited, various cocktails imbibed and bartenders met, in that ‘story’ of how he ‘got drunk’. <S> So neither is wrong - and the one you choose depends on whether you want to ‘describe the current status’ or ‘allude to the process’. <S> With start, or get started, the ‘get’ provides the impetus for the starting to happen - like a spark that ignites - again, it alludes to the process. <S> ‘He started the course’ - passive ‘He needed the teachers encouragement to get started’ - impetus to the process starting is provided by the teacher. <S> ‘The bike started’ ‘ <S> He kicked down the bike to get it started’ ‘At last the bike got started - sputtering into life’.
| To prepare for something is to engage in the action of preparing. Both (1) and (2) are correct and commonly used forms and they mean almost exactly the same thing. Neither is wrong but in most cases To (verb) is preferable to To get (verbed) .
|
Grammatically speaking, why is "I rushed to went back home" wrong? Yesterday I corrected my student when he said: "I rushed to went back home". I corrected it to "I rushed to get back home", but I couldn't provide a proper explanation. I know this is probably basic grammar but I do hope someone can help me out with explaining this properly. Thank you! <Q> A verbal complement of rushed uses the marked infinitive ( to + VERB, e.g. 'to go') <S> whereas went is a tensed (aka finite) form of the verb. <S> They rushed to buy provisions before the blizzard. <S> They rushed to see the pop star buying chewing gum. <S> They rushed over to the other side of the ship to get a glimpse of the whale. <A> The simple answer is because " rush to do something " is the correct structure and not " rush to did something " - wrong! <S> I rushed to pack my clothes. <S> ( Not "I rushed to packed") <S> I rushed to buy the ticket. <S> ( Not "I rushed to bought") <S> " You could also use the verb " rush to " to say " to go /get somewhere quickly ": I rushed back home. <S> (" home " is an adverb here that substitutes for " to ") <S> I rushed to the office immediately. <A> It's the usage of Infinitive "to do". ' <S> to went' should be 'to go'.
| " Rush to do something " means " to be eager to do something as soon as you can " or " to do something very quickly and without delay
|
Is there a word for the "unutterable" feeling when listening to a beautiful song? When I listen to a beautiful piece of music, for instance Quizas by Andrea Bocelli , I am feeling something is under my skin, moving. I don't know if there exists a word to express such a feeling. <Q> Then I saw an article that said: Why Does Great Music Give You the Chills? <S> Have you ever been listening to a great piece of music and felt a chill run up your spine? <S> Or goosebumps tickle your arms and shoulders? <S> The experience is called frisson (pronounced free-sawn ), a French term meaning “aesthetic chills,” and it feels like waves of pleasure running all over your skin. <S> Listening to emotionally moving music is the most common trigger of frisson, but some feel it while looking at beautiful artwork, watching a particularly moving scene in a movie, or having physical contact with another person. <S> I don't think the word is all that well-known, but it might be exactly what you are experiencing. <S> The word chills (used in the article's headline) might be a more well-recognized substitute. <A> euphoric or euphoria <S> dictionary.com: <S> But when I wrote the check, it was the most euphoric feeling. <S> dictionary.com: <S> She was flooded with euphoria as she went to the podium to receive her Student Research Award. <A> I've heard it referred to as an "Aesthetic Moment". <S> I am not a musician. <S> I'd give a better reference if I could find one. <S> The best I can do is say that I heard my daughter's high school chorus teacher use the phrase. <S> Another possible answer would be "bliss". <S> After reading JR's answer, it occured to me that a nice piece of music might give The warm fuzzies <S> In the time since I originally posted this, I've become aware of ASMR <S> which, as far as I can tell, is a more scientific explanation of "Warm Fuzzies" <A> If the music so good it is sublime you might be experiencing " numinous ". <S> This word is for when something is so good that you can't help but detect a hint of divinity or spirituality in it. <S> This is also good for when you have deep seated connection to your fellow humans, perhaps after some great work of good you all share in numinous solidarity. <A> I encountered this article which explained that phenomenon, and find some good expressions from it: <S> music gives you goosebumps <S> have intense reactions to music react to songs in this heightened manner <S> people experience chills people get goosebumps upon listening to music body <S> completely changes when listening to the song listening to supposedly "sad" songs <S> could actually boost someone's mood
| My first thought was the word goosebumps (which often refers to literal goosebumps, but can be used figuratively as well, as in, "That music gives me goosebumps .").
|
when we say "I want to go to the beach", does it refer to a specific beach? This site says: We also use the definite article: • to say something about all the things referred to by a noun: The wolf is not really a dangerous animal (= Wolves are not really dangerous animals) The kangaroo is found only in Australia (= Kangaroos are found only in Australia) The heart pumps blood around the body. (= Hearts pump blood around bodies) Now, when we say " I want to go to the beach / the lake ", does it refer to a specific beach? How does it differ from " I want to go to a beach / a lake " & " I want to go to beaches / lakes " <Q> I'll post a dissenting view. <S> Other answerers are correct in that "the" typically refers to a specific beach whereas "a" typically refers to just some beach somewhere. <S> That's why they're called definite and indefinite articles :) <S> However, in practice <S> Take me. <S> I live in Kansas (in the United States) where there's no ocean for 1000+ miles in any direction. <S> Here in the land of grass and wheat, every day somebody says "I want to go to the beach. <S> " <S> Translation: I want to go on vacation to somewhere by the ocean. <S> Which ocean exactly they're talking about, though, nobody knows (at least not from that one sentence). <S> Heck, most of us would be satisfied with seeing any ocean. <S> There's also a beach on a small portion of a lake near my town, though, and so in the right context "I want to go to the beach" could be referring to that particular beach as well. <S> But in my (geographical) situation, it would be the context that would determine if we are in fact talking about the beach at the lake nearby or just some beach for some ocean out there somewhere in the world. <S> Contrastingly, I imagine that people who live close to an ocean don't have this problem of wanting to look at something besides grass all day, so if you heard one of those people say "I want to go to the beach <S> " you could make a safer assumption that they are talking about the beach for the ocean that is closest to them. <S> Because there is a beach close to them, someone living close to an ocean would be more likely to need to say "I want to go to a beach" in order to convey the idea that they want to take a vacation somewhere. <A> "I want to go to the beach / the lake" <S> In this sentence, the speaker assumes that the listener is aware of the specific beach that she would want to go. <S> "I want to go to a beach / a lake" <S> In this sentence, the speaker tells the listener about her desire to go to a beach. <S> This could be any beach. <S> "I want to go to beaches / lakes" <S> This sentence implies that the speaker desires to go to multiple beaches. <S> However, the sentence doesn't sound quite right to me (feel free to correct me). <S> I find this no different than say, 1.I want to read the book. <S> 2.I want to read a book. <S> 3.I want to read books. <S> Now coming to your question <S> Now, when we say "I want to go to the beach / the lake", does it refer to a specific beach? <S> Yes. <A> When you say: "I want to go to the beach <S> / the lake" <S> You are referring to a specific beach/lake which is already known to the listener or which has been previously mentioned, introduced, or discussed because " the " is the definitive article. <S> Whereas when you say: I want to go to a beach / a lake <S> You are using the indefinite article which you use when talking about something in general which is not a specific thing. <S> Meaning you don't care which one you go to as long as it is a beach/lake. <S> And finally, when you say: "I want to go to beaches/lakes" <S> You are stating that you want to go and visit multiple, non specific beaches/lakes, maybe if you're on a road trip or holiday. <S> I hope this answers your question.
| I think it's entirely plausible that one could say "I want to go to the beach" and not be referring to any particular beach.
|
'Then' - start versus end of a sentence What distinctions can I draw between using 'then' at the start and the end of a sentence in the following context? A: "It doesn't matter either way." B: "THEN why did you do it?" A: "It doesn't matter either way." B: "Why did you do it THEN?" I understand that in some constructions, 'then' at the end of a sentence may be regarded as no more than an end-of-sentence marker, the kind you use to finish off a sentence e.g. See you at lunch then. However, in my case, 'then' conveys consequence or result, following on from the previous sentence, and both positions seem to pop up in conversations. Is it just a matter of preference/emphasis, or is one position a better fit than the other? Finally, perhaps a slip of the tongue, every now and then I find myself speaking sentences bookended by 'then'. Going back to the same example: THEN why did you do it THEN? Is this correct English? Or is it a case of redundancy? Many thanks in advance. <Q> A: "It doesn't matter either way. <S> " <S> B: " <S> THEN why did you do it?" <S> would be the usual way. <S> As you said, then joins the results and the consequences. <S> A: <S> "It doesn't matter either way." <S> B: " <S> Why did you do it THEN?" <S> could be an end-of-sentence marker, but to me it seems to act as a softener. <S> The reply starts out like an accusation (Why did you do it), so adding then tones it down a bit. <S> If you were really mad and hollered " <S> Why did you do it" at someone, it is unlikely you would use then . <A> One meaning is the same as 'then why did you do it', a way to connect to the previous sentence. <S> But a second meaning is to make a reference to a specific point in time, and not at some other time. <S> In speech this would be conveyed by putting emphasis on the 'then' at the end of the sentence. <S> In writing, I would omit the comma before then. <S> I think 'then why did you do it <S> ' cannot have this meaning of a specific point in time.e.g. <S> I had to do laundry at midnight yesterday. <S> Why did you do it then ? <S> I got home too late to start earlier. <S> compare with <S> why did you do it, then? <S> I had no clean clothing left for the morning Going back to your question <S> then, why did you do it then? <S> Is trying to both connect to a previous sentence, and ask about a specific point in time <S> However <S> then, why did you do it, then? <S> is redundant. <A> My personal opinion is there is a difference between the two sentences <S> but it's vague. <S> A: <S> " It doesn't matter either way. <S> " <S> B: " <S> THEN why did you do it?" <S> When " then " stands in the start position in such interrogative sentences it's closer to " So, why did you do it? " <S> where " so " introduces a question following on from what was said previously and implies being interested rather than wanting to know the reason. <S> (It's a conjunction " <S> so " in this case) A: <S> " It doesn't matter either way. " <S> B: " <S> Why did you do it THEN ? " <S> When " then " is in the end position in such interrogative sentences it's closer to <S> " In that case, why did you do it? " <S> where " in that case " implies reason. <S> Both sentences are softened by " then " and become less accusative. <S> THEN <S> why did you do it THEN ? <S> This last sentence is indeed superfluous but if we view it as, "So, in that case, why did you do it? <S> " we get a good question where " so " becomes a discourse marker.
| I think 'why did you do it then' has multiple meanings depending on pronunciation/context.
|
The meeting occurred randomly / was never supposed to occur -- which is the correct meaning of happenstance? I was learning English words on Vocabulary.com and came across the following question: If a person met his/her future spouse through happenstance , which of the following is true? the meeting occurred randomly the meeting was never supposed to occur There were actually four options but the other two were 100% wrong. From those I'm giving, I chose the second one and it turned out to be wrong. Why is the first option correct? To me, they seem to mean the same, to be honest. OALD gives the following meanings: randomly 1. without somebody deciding in advance what is going to happen and without any regular pattern be supposed to do/be something 1. to be expected or required to do/be something according to a rule, a custom, an arrangement, etc. 2. to be generally believed or expected to be/do something Again, I don't see any difference. the meeting occurred randomly — that is, there was nobody deciding in advance that it was going to happen. the meeting was never supposed to occur — that is, it was never expected to occur according to an arrangement (because there was no arrangement). I'd like to know if there's something I'm missing, or if it's a mistake. <Q> The meeting was never supposed to occur <S> does not mean, as you think, “it was not expected that the meeting would occur”. <S> In the first place, the negative here, never , in fact does not govern supposed , although it looks like it should govern supposed . <S> This sentence involves ‘negative raising’, which ‘raises’ a negative out of a subordinate clause into its superordinate clause. <S> So never actually governs only occur ; the meaning might logically (but not idiomatically) be expressed <S> In the second place, suppose in this context does not have the 'epistemic' (probabilistic) meaning “regard as likely” but the 'deontic' (obligational) meaning “regard as desirable or mandatory ”, as in “We’re supposed to hand in our papers in class Monday”. <S> To say that some event was “never supposed to happen” means that the event was not intended to happen, and usually that steps had been taken to insure that it would not happen. <S> So that paraphrase is right out. <S> Randomly isn’t a lot better—in contemporary usage <S> it’s rather too strongly associated with calculations of probability to characterize events whose likelihood no one would ever calculate before the fact—but it’s closer than never supposed to occur . <A> Happenstance is defined as a chance occurrence . <S> The key to the OALD definition is without any regular pattern . <S> There's nothing that states that the meeting was never supposed to happen; that would indicate that the meeting was not thought to be possible and/or a bad thing. <A> the meeting occurred randomly matches the definition "randomly", so this answer is OK. <S> However, "supposed to" (having an expectation) is different from "never supposed to" (no expectation). <S> So that explanation cannot be supported with the definition.
| The meeting was supposed to never occur . Something happenstance occurs without a pattern, or randomly.
|
Why do people use they/them pronoun for a single person? I see a lot of people using they/them pronoun on their twitter handles. And when I googled about it, I have come to know that it is a Gender-neutral pronouns . However, isn't it wrong to use words like 'they' and 'them' for a single person? For example, when talking about such person, one has to say, They are walking down the road. which makes it plural. However, for a male/female pronoun, one can say, He/She is walking down the road. <Q> First, the singular they has been in use since before English became modern English; it was used in Middle English in the 14th century. <S> It only became déclassé around 1900 when some overly stuffy grammarians started acting up. <S> Second, its use as a gender neutral singular is a bit more complex: It can be used either when we don't know the gender of the person: <S> Someone's coming up the street! <S> They are coming to our house! <S> or when the person is nonbinary and prefers "they". <S> Nonbinary people vary in which pronoun they prefer. <S> Some use he or she, some use e, some use they; there are other possibilities to. <S> Many prefer to use their names whenever possible, and eschew pronouns as much as possible. <S> For instance, if the person's name is (say) Basil (as one nonbinary person I know is named): Basil is coming up the street! <S> Basil is coming to our house! <S> Now Basil is knocking on our door! <A> For example, I might be talking about you in a chat room, and say: <S> Did you see the latest question posted by Dawny33? <S> She's been asking some interesting questions. <S> However, if you happen to be male, that might create an awkward moment. <S> So, I might say instead, <S> Did you see the latest question posted by Dawny33? <S> They've been asking some interesting questions. <S> (There are other ways to circumvent this issue, too, but this one is often used.) <A> "Singular they" does have a long history in English, and cannot be considered wrong. <S> It has been more favored in recent decades to avoid "default he", that is, the use of male pronouns for a person of unknown or unspecified gender. <S> That has a much longer history in English than "Singular they" does, but is now considered to show gender bias and is strongly frowned on by many people. <S> It does avoid writing "s <S> /he" or "he/she" or "he or she". <S> On the other hand, it loses the information about singular vs plural. <S> Personally, I strongly dislike singular they and will not write it under any circumstances whatsoever. <S> I will usually use "s/ <S> he" or "he or she", which I do not find at all awkward. <S> I do not know any people who have expressed specific pronoun preferences to me – I am not sure how I would handle the case if I had occasion to write of a person who preferred to use "they". <S> I might add that if personal preferences are allowed in such matters, that I prefer not to be referred to as "they", except as part of a group. <S> At one time I hoped for consensus to form on a new, coined pronoun for a singular person of unspecified case. <S> I favored "zie" with objective case "zir" and possessive "zis". <S> But no wide consensus on this has developed, and I do not now expect one in my lifetime. <A> Singular they has solved many problems especially the gender bias. <S> The history of single <S> they has well been explained in the previous posts. <S> Gender bias : <S> Indefinite pronouns like nobody, somebody used to be treated as masculine gender. <S> so it was considered gender bias. <S> So the use of singular they solved the problem of awkward construction such as he/ she. <S> Now we can say: Everybody should bring their Hall tickets instead of his / or his/ her hall ticket. <S> When the gender of a person is not known Sometimes the gender of a person is not known such as on sites like this. <S> Then singular they come to our rescue. <S> We say: They are a new comer to this site <S> Correctness: <S> When the native speakers start using singular they in all the occassions, it should be considered idiomatic and grammatical. <S> Grammar books can only describe language, they can not prescribe rules. <S> Here is a link which shows the usage of singular they . <S> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
| The "singular they" prevents the awkwardness of using "he/she" or guessing the gender wrong.
|
bad vs. badly in one sentence In America things are going very badly . There is a great deal of unemployment and enough misery to soften the heart of a tiger. Those responsible could not care less. Is the word "badly" used properly? I would use "bad". "Bad" here describes the pronoun "things". Or not? <Q> Compare these two sentences, where the adjective "bad" refers to the noun eggs . <S> The eggs are going bad. <S> (correct) <S> The eggs are going badly. <S> Consider these two sentences, where the adverb "badly" is applicable to the participle going . <S> The event is going bad. <S> The event is going badly. <S> (correct) <S> Edit <S> — thanks for the upvotes. <S> My second example could be ambiguous. <S> This sentence The event is going badly. <S> means the event is a disappointment <S> , the adverb badly means the event is not going well. <S> But The event is going bad. <S> means something drastic is happening, and the adjective bad now refers to the event itself - as in the earlier egg example. <A> "Badly" is correct. <S> It is an adverb and modifies "going". <S> You could say "In America, things are bad", but once you add "going" you need an adverb. <S> That's because, in the first sentence, "bad" is modifying "things" not "are". <S> It's the things that are bad, not their manner of being. <A> Went bad = <S> > <S> Became rotten (e.g. the eggs went bad) <S> Went badly = <S> > <S> Did not go according to plan <S> (e.g. the sale of artwork went badly) <S> There are cases where you could use either, but with different meanings: "the cakes went bad" = <S> > <S> they became mouldy, "the cakes went badly" = <S> > they did not sell well. <A> Since adverbs usually describe verbs in terms of *how, when, where, manner, what extent ...etc <S> *, adjectives describe nouns by adding some descriptions or classifications. <S> If you want to use the adjective bad , you can use it before or after the noun which conveys a different meaning ; *the bad things ,,,, * or <S> *the things are bad * for example.
| Badly is an adverb and describes how things are going .
|
Achievements of deceased people I want to talk about achievements of someone who is already dead. What tense should I use? Past perfect or past simple?E.g. "He had achieved so much in his life, he had sent such a powerful message out there." or something like this. Thank you. <Q> As is very often the case with questions about which tense to use, there is no single answer: it depends on how you are viewing the events or situations, and how you wish your hearers to view them. <S> If you use the pluperfect (past perfect) you are necessarily locating the events as before some particular point in the past - which may be a point that you have already mentioned, or may be established by this very sentence. <S> So if you began a story with "He had achieved so much in his life", you are immediately establishing in the reader's mind that your story is set at a time in the past later than all that achieving. <S> If you use the simple past, this sets up no such expectation. <S> So, in most cases, James K is right that you will want the simple past. <S> But the pluperfect is not wrong, when the effect you want is the effect that it provides. <A> Use past simple. <S> You are not referring to the point of death so this is just "events in the past" for which past tense is correct. <A> Past simple is the way to go: <S> He achieved so much in his life, he sent such a powerful message out there. <S> The above sentence is complete. <S> That is what he did, in general, throughout his whole life. <S> He had achieved so much in his life, he had sent such a powerful message out there (... when he got sick / when he parted / when his time came) <S> The above sentence seems incomplete, like you want to keep talking about what happened next (his sickness, his death, his leving to another country, whatever). <S> Past perfect is used when you want to talk about what happened before an explicit time; in this case, of what he did before dying. <S> What you said is a valid use <S> but, if you just want to say that he lived a happy and wholesome life, past simple is better.
| Use the past perfect to speak of a time before a referred to past event.
|
'china restaurant' or 'chinese restaurant'? I am very confused. I prefer the latter, but I did saw the former in many cases. Which one is more appropriate? <Q> Chinese restaurant is correct. <S> There is nothing like a china restaurant . <S> If you have come across that, it is incorrect. <S> However, if China Restaurant is the actual name of an establishment, then it stays unchanged because it is a proper noun. <S> Examples: <S> We had dinner at a Chinese restaurant. <S> We had dinner at China Restaurant. <A> When describing a restaurant, you use an adjective. <S> Thus, the adjective Chinese describes the nature of the restaurant. <S> Similarly Indian Restaurant , Thai Restaurant etc. <S> China in this usage is a noun and so is not appropriate in this type of phrase. <S> (Although another meaning of China is an adjective describing something made of ceramic) <S> There is an alternative description for restaurants that uses a noun phrase rather than an adjective. <S> This is when a specific food is served, rather than a style of food. <S> Examples are Burger Restaurant or Pizza Restaurant . <A> As some have noted, there are sometimes exceptions for certain food like "California wine" or whatever, but when you are talking about cuisine, the adjective form is almost always used. <A> Chinese is the correct one! <S> Because China is the place and Chinese describes the authentic food and culture of the place called China.
| If this is a restaurant that serves Chinese food, then indeed call it a Chinese restaurant as chinese is the adjective and restaurant is the noun.
|
Is this a wrong sentence "Heidi Montag is probably more famous for the plastic surgery that she has had carried out than for her TV Career"? This sentence is literally copied from an English textbook (Solutions 2nd Edition -Intermediate) " Heidi Montag is probably more famous for the plastic surgery that she has had carried out than for her TV Career "? Does it say " She has had the plastic surgery carried out "? <Q> Surgeries, plastic or otherwise, tend to be ' undergone ' rather than ' carried out '. <S> At least when you're talking about the patient and not the surgeon. <A> doctors carry out surgical procedures . <S> The does collocate properly here. <S> A person can be said to have had a surgical procedure carried out on himself or herself. <S> has had done [on her] would have been better. <S> In every day speech. <S> However, to have had carried [on her] is fine. <S> Notice the passive tense: <S> She has had them carried out [by a surgeon]. <A> The sentence is not grammatically incorrect but has been written by a non-native and is not colloquial or idiomatic to native prose. <S> The issue is with the use of carry out.
| It is not a wrong sentence, but it is perhaps not the most conventional phrasing.
|
Can we use appositives before the subject? Good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, sense of style--all are basic writing skills. Basic writing skills--good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, sense of style-- can be learned by almost everyone. In (2) the series of appositives are "good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, sense of style". So by definition "The appositive is a noun or noun phrase that modifies another noun" so it means appositive comes after the subject right? But my doubt is can we use appostives before a subject like in (1) and in (1) which is the subject(i.e noun) thatmodifies the noun phrases "Good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, sense of style" ? <Q> Yes. <S> Appositives most commonly appear after the noun or pronoun they rename, as in these examples from Pattern 7 from The Art of Styling Sentences (I have boldfaced the appositives and italicized the noun they rename): <S> He learned the necessary qualities for political life -- guile , ruthlessness , and garrulity -- by carefully studying his father's life. <S> My favorite red wines -- Zinfandel , Cabernet Sauvignon , <S> Pinot Noir -- blend well in making California rosé wines. <S> The basic writing skills ( good vocabulary , knowledge of grammar , sense of style ) can be learned by almost everyone. <S> However, as shown in these examples from Pattern 6 of the same book, appositives can also appear before their associated noun or pronoun. <S> In these cases, the appositive usually starts the sentence: <S> The depressed , the stressed , the lonely , <S> the fearful -- <S> all have trouble coping with problems. <S> Here, "the depressed", "the stressed", "the lonely", and "the fearful" are appositives renaming the subject "all". <S> Gluttony , lust , envy -- which is the worst sin? <S> "Which" is the pronoun being renamed here. <S> The link to Grammar Bytes! <S> given by FumbleFingers in the comments includes another example: <S> When the appositive begins the sentence, it looks like this: A hot-tempered tennis player , Robbie charged the umpire and tried to crack the poor man's skull with a racket. <A> Your examples are both good, although I wouldn't say that an appositive "modifies" anything. <S> It's simply a rephrasing. <A> 1) <S> Good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, sense of style--all are basic writing skills. <S> There is no appositive in the sentence above. <S> There are three noun phrases, all different. <S> There are three different things, not the same things. <S> 2) <S> Basic writing skills--good vocabulary, knowledge of grammar, sense of style-- can be learned by almost everyone. <S> In the sentence above, there is no apposition. <S> Here are FumbleFingers' examples: 1) <S> Tom, Dick and Harry, the brothers [brothers renames Tom, Dick and Harry] 2) <S> The OP here, a new visitor to ELL [a new visitor renames the OP] 3) <S> My Aunt, Mary Elizabeth Trosper [the name renames My Aunt] An appositive has to RENAME a thing, but not be a completely different thing. <S> An appositive is NOT three items starting a sentence. <S> Bananas, apples and oranges were on the table. <S> [no appositive] Bananas, an edible fruit, were on the table. <S> edible fruit renames bananas] <S> Appositions can be used anywhere in a sentence to rename an existing person or thing. <S> The orange man, aka the US president, is unfit for office. <S> That scum ball doctor, a true pervert, molested those girls. <S> A large dog, man's best friend, can be a lot of work. <S> Any cat, a furry feline creature, is great for petting. <S> They are often at the beginning of sentences, but not always. <S> John was coming down the driveway in red RAM truck, a very heavy car. <A> Virginia Tufte in her book Artful Sentences , talks about "inverted" and "initial" appositives, as in "A lonely boy, Coleridge retreated into books...and fed his mind with adventures so wild and fancies so morbid that he often feared the coming of the night" so I'm not convinced that appositives "Always come AFTER the noun." <S> What she doesn't say, <S> but I think she should--and the examples provided above from The Art of Styling Sentences have further emboldened me to think so-- is that these inverted appositives have to be at the beginning of sentences and the noun that follows the appositive has to be the subject of the sentence. <S> Otherwise, I have no answer for the student who might say to me, <S> Well why isn't Coleridge in apposition to "A lonely boy" instead of the other way around? <S> I'm curious, has anyone else heard the term Tufte uses,"inverted appositive"?
| Appositives always come AFTER the noun they accompany and rename them or restate them.
|
Particular Moment of Understanding In a formal document, I want to mention something which I was not able to understand for a long time. After that time, I had learnt some other thing and suddenly click! and I understood the other also. So I want to say something like, I had the click moment . But I am not sure if this sounds natural and appropriate to use. What would you use for that? <Q> The formal word I can think of is epiphany : <S> epiphany <S> 3 <S> a (1) : a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something (2) : an intuitive grasp of reality through something (such as an event) usually simple and striking (3) : an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure <S> b : a revealing scene or moment Definition of epiphany for English Language Learners : a moment in which you suddenly see or understand something in a new or very clear way <S> (M-W) <S> It depends on the context, but usually the verb click is used, as opposed to click moment . <S> For example, "And then it clicked! <S> I realized why X worked. <S> " It's informal. <S> click verb (BECOME CLEAR) <S> [I] infml to be understood or become clear suddenly: Something clicked, and I remembered where I’d seen her before. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> Another informal phrase using moment is "aha moment": <S> Definition of aha moment : a moment of sudden realization, inspiration, insight, recognition, or comprehension <S> The aha moment you experience when you've been trying to remember the name of a song and <S> three hours later it hits you … — Jeffrey Kluger (M-W) <A> In the context of a personal statement "clicked" could be ok, but a simpler <S> and I think better alternative is to write about the "moment of understanding" <S> As a high school student, I tried to work out why there are two tides each day. <S> At the time I found this hard to understand. <S> My moment of understanding came when I read a book describing the Lagrangian approach to mechanics. <S> I understood how it would be possible to formulate the equations of motion in a rotating frame of reference. ... <S> The reader is interested in how you were able to overcome difficulties (as this shows your aptitude as a student) than whether it was sudden or not. <S> Indeed there may be more to gain by suggesting that you worked hard to achieve an understanding, instead of it coming suddenly. <A> A eureka moment is when the solution to a problem which you have been unable to solve suddenly becomes clear. <S> It comes from a story told about Archimedes where he suddenly realized the solution to a problem while taking a bath, and shouted "Eureka!" <S> Such a moment is also often called a flash of insight . <S> The Eureka moment is commonly used when talking about solving a problem or puzzle, while a flash of insight is also used to describe a sudden burst of creativity or understanding about people or events. <S> Both are often described with the word epiphany, which has the same basic meaning, but can have some religious or spiritual connotations. <A> You experienced a "moment of clarity." <S> If you choose to phrase it that way, do remember to keep the conveyance succinct (the moment part) and simple (the clarity thing) for the sake of your listener.
| Such a "click" of sudden understanding is often called a " Eureka moment " or a " flash of insight/inspiration ".
|
Usage of the word "copybook" Is the word "copybook" used in school practice nowadays? Is it acceptable to use it instead of "notebook" or "workbook"? Thanks. <Q> In my US experience notebook , workbook and copybook are three different things. <S> A notebook is a book of blank lined paper, usually wire-bound, in which the student takes notes of lectures and class activities. <S> A notebook is not handed in to the teacher or reviewed by the teacher: its contents are there for the student's benefit, to be reviewed as needed outside of class. <S> A workbook is a book containing exercises for the student to perform (and it may also contain instructional material supplementing that in lectures and textbooks). <S> Sometimes it is a printed book with spaces where the student writes answers and shows her work, and the book or pages from the book are handed in for the teacher to review and grade; more often a printed workbook contains only the directions for the exercises, and the student hands in her answers written on separate papers. <S> In some cases printed pages of exercises are handed out piecemeal in class, which the student fills out and turns in; these are graded by the teacher and returned to the student, who may be required to keep these in a 'loose-leaf' binder of some sort to be turned in for comprehensive review at the end of the course. <S> The use of workbooks is common in classes whose subject-matter tolerates it, including college "intro" courses. <S> (This too may be a collection of loose-leaf pages bound into a binder.) <S> I never encountered copybooks in US schools, but their use was common in primary schools down to about 1950; and when I attended an Austrian school for a year, in the 7th grade, most classes required students to copy outlines written on the blackboard into a bound copybook. <A> Actually copybook have contents which have to be imitated by the learner. <S> But notebook and workbook are different. <S> The workbook is where students workout what they have learned and notebook is for noting down the seminars. <S> Every book has a specific name based on their need. <A> For whatever reasons, "copybook" is firmly entrenched in English classes in Kazakhstan. <S> Replacing with "notebook" is made difficult because "notebook" is used for laptops in English and Russian. <S> With so many other things to teach (e.g., proper parallel construction with third-person singular and the fact that a chalkboard or whiteboard is not a "desk"), I wonder if it is efficacious to try to correct this usage in the pupils. <S> If anything, the attempt should be made with the local teachers, who seem to be perpetuating the use of this otherwise, shall I say, "quaint" word.
| A copybook is a book into which a student copies texts and exercises dictated by the teacher; this may serve as a 'notebook' for future reference, but its primary purpose is to train the student in legible handwriting.
|
What does it mean to "dine off" something? In my English book, I've got an article about traveling, and one sentence in particular caught my eye: I've always put these incidents down to experience, and dined off some of them for years. What does dined off mean in this context (because I've only found meanings related to eating, and that doesn't quite suit this sentence)? <Q> It's a slightly quirky idiomatic usage that even many native speakers might not be familiar with. <S> What the writer means is that these "incidents" form the basis of interesting tales that can be recounted repeatedly in after-dinner conversations by a skilled raconteur (by implication, such as himself ). <S> Because people like to be entertained in this way after a (formal) dinner, the host / organisers of the event would be likely to invite the writer. <S> And there's usually the implication that any such "after-dinner speaker" would be likely to actually be paid to turn up (in addition to getting a free luxury meal, whereas the other diners are probably paying for the privilege of being there). <S> Sometimes there's no suggestion of payment / free food. <S> I dined out on that story for years <S> might simply mean <S> When I went out for a meal with friends, I often used to tell that amusing anecdote , even if the speaker always scrupulously paid at least his fair share of the bill. <S> He might just mean that his ability to entertain fellow-diners ensured such evenings were a success, and/or that people invited him out to dinner for this very reason. <S> Note that this idiomatic usage often includes other prepositions... <S> He dined off that for years <S> He dined out off that for years <S> He dined out off of that for years <S> He dined out on that for years <S> He dined out with that for years All those (and probably more) seem fine to me, but others may feel different. <A> The more usual version in English is "dine out on". <S> That is, the experience, or whatever, is so fascinating that people will invite you to dinner just to hear about it. <S> (They don't necessarily invite you to a restaurant. <S> You could equally well be invited to someone's house, but from your own point of view <S> you are not at home <S> and you are therefore dining out.) <S> "Dine off" means essentially the same but is less English. <S> It may be American. <A> PART ONE: In English, writers seek to be creative and avoid clichés . <S> So here the writer used the **well-known phrasal verb to live off and changed it <S> **to dine off of <S> ****. <S> to live off of something [food, people, land] means to consume or use that thing in order to live or to survive. <S> He lives off cans of beans. <S> I don't know how he does it. <S> [only eats beans for food to survive] <S> They have lived off the land for three generations. <S> [used the land as a means of existence] <S> She lives off her mother because she cannot get any work. <S> [uses her mother's monetary help to live]. <S> PART <S> TWO <S> : The writer is using the idea of incidents as a means of survival. <S> He lives [dines] off these incidents either means he is a paid journalist and these incidents provide him a subject to write about or it means that the writer "survives" in his imagination by "consuming" these incidents. <S> As mentioned by FumbleFingers, he could be telling stories. <S> In this day and age, media is considered to be consumption. <S> Most people hear about incidents through the media. <S> And dining is a kind of eating. <S> But NOT for survival. <S> If you are dining, you are doing more than surviving. <S> You are probably pretty well off. <S> PART THREE <S> : He has transformed the idiom to live off [something] into: to dine off something. <S> The use of the verb dine is either sarcastic or funny. <S> Dining is connoted in English as a formal activity. <S> "Where did you dine last night? <S> " it is slightly old-fashioned and would be considered somewhat snobby. <S> Dining is also the place for conversation. <S> Conclusion <S> : So these incidents provide content for him. <S> If you dine on something, you eat it.
| If you dine off of something, you are using the thing to your advantage in some way that goes beyond survival and involves a formal activity (dining) which you enjoy.
|
Does "Three countries including Germany, Canada, and China" sound unnatural? I have been to three foreign countries: Germany, Canada, and China. I have been to three foreign countries, namely Germany, Canada, and China. I am trying to rewrite the sentences above without using ":" or "namely".Specifically, I would like to use a verb/preposition "include/including" or similar words such as consisting, containing, and comprising. Is such usage acceptable? <Q> Not unnatural as much as confusing. <S> Many countries have signed the accords, including Germany and France (and others). <S> You might follow-up with an example of something not included: <S> I like many kinds of pasta dishes, including spaghetti and ravioli (and others), but not lasagna. <S> Your example is confusing because, if you name all three countries, then what other countries would be included in the list? <S> If you used a larger number, it would be fine: <S> I have been to fifteen countries, including Germany, Spain, Japan, China, and Canada (and ten more). <A> The two sentences you give are the normal way to say this. <S> The other common way to express this idea is to say, "The foreign countries that I have been to are Germany, Canada, and China. <S> " Putting "three" in there would be awkward. <S> But it would flow naturally if you're emphasizing that this is a small number, like, "The only three foreign countries that I have been to ..." <S> Using "including" would be wrong because "including" is used when you are giving a partial list, not a complete list. <S> You could say, "I have been to three foreign countries, including Germany." <S> But if you list all three, than it's not "including" any more. <S> It's the whole list. <S> "Containing" is used when the things listed are stored in some bigger thing. <S> Like, "I have a closet in my bedroom containing my clothes and my shoes. <S> " It's rarely used to talk about countries because we don't normally think of countries as being inside something. <S> Perhaps you could say, "Europe contains Germany and France", but I don't recall ever hearing someone say that. <S> People do talk about "containing" a country when they mean to restrain it in some way, like "During the war the British navy kept Germany contained on the continent." <S> "Consisting of" and "comprising" are valid if you talk about the countries you have visited as a list. <S> That is, you can't say, "I have visited three countries consisting of Germany, Canada, and China", because there's no object there to do the consisting. <S> But that seems an awkward way to express the idea. <S> Why don't you want to use a colon or the word "namely"? <A> Make it simple. <S> Start with: <S> I've been to Canada, China and Germany. <S> There's a problem here, "been to" might be a bit ambigious. <S> If you were born in the US, have you ever "been to" the US? <S> To avoid this ambiguity you might try: I've visited Canada, China and Germany. <S> The disadvantage of the above is that you're only conveying that you've been to the countries above, not excluding you having been to any other countries. <S> So why not try try: I've only visited Canada, China and Germany. <S> That might not have the tone that you're looking for though, because it might be perceived as self-limiting. <S> If you're worried about that, drop the "only". <S> If you want to emphasize that further, you can go with "only ever". <S> The moral of the story is that how to write a sentence has to flow from context, which we've not been given here, and that simple is often better than complete. :-) <A> Including only includes part of you list, but since you only have three items in your list, it would be awkward. <S> Also, it is more formal to name the countries in alphabetical order. <S> The best way to say it would just be to imply that you have been to three foreign countries earlier on and then say, "I have been to Canada, China, and Germany". <A> How about: <S> The three foreign countries I have been to are Germany, Canada and China. <S> That's changing the emphasis a bit, but communicates the message that you want to get across.
| You could say, "Here is a list of countries I have visited, consisting of Germany, Canada, and China." "Including" means what follows is a partial list of what items are included .
|
"12-year-old boy changes his mind just two years later" — how old was he at that moment? I've encountered an article from The Independent: 12-year-old boy who transitioned to female changes his mind just two years later Isn't it ambiguous, how old was he at that moment? Was he 12 when he transitioned to female or when he changed his mind? The article itself clarifies this, but I want to know is the title ambiguous for a native speaker. <Q> It's not exactly crystal clear, but here's how I would interpret this: [12-year-old boy who transitioned to female] <S> [changes his mind just two years later] <S> A B <S> Part A of the headline has a past-tense verb, while Part B has a present-tense verb. <S> Therefore, I would assume that the individual was 12 at the start of transition, and 14 when second thoughts arose. <S> That said, I'm just explaining my rationale for my assumptions. <S> I'm not arguing that it's entirely unambiguous. <S> To reduce ambiguity, one could say: Boy who transitioned to female at age 12 changes mind just two years later <S> As a footnote, I think the witty comment left by @Tᴚoɯɐuo points out something that adds to the confusion: the masculine pronoun. <S> That's why I've deliberately omitted the possessive pronoun in my revised headline. <A> Upon reading the text the first time, I imagined the boy was 12 when he started the transition, because of the assumption that the transition should be complete <S> and he should be a 14 year old girl now. <A> @choster rightly says that "the purpose of the headline is to attract readers and encourage them to read the article itself". <S> Even in pre-clickbait days, the purpose of a headline was primarily to entice people to read the story. <S> Headlines are written in headlinese (and British headlinese is sometimes different in style from American, so the views of native BrE speakers are possibly more valuable here). <S> Features of headlinese vary but can include noun piles, omission of determiners, omission of auxiliaries, and other slightly unnatural wordings. <S> In headlinese, the simple present tends to stand in for the present perfect. <S> So "France declares war" would mean "France has declared war"; "Trump announces new executive order" would mean "Trump has announced a new executive order". <S> Hence, "12-year-old boy who transitioned to female changes his mind <S> just two years later" can be interpreted as "A 12-year-old boy who had transitioned to female has changed his mind just two years later". <S> This doesn't seem to solve the problem of ambiguity, though. <S> If anything, the literal interpretation would seem to be that he is 12 now. <S> For what it's worth, my assumption was that the boy was 12 when he transitioned - and this turned out to be correct. <S> I agree with you that it seems ambiguous, but I can't say for sure whether I would have thought about the ambiguity if I had seen the headline in the wild, rather than being preconditioned by your post to see ambiguity there. <S> If other native-speaker readers had the same interpretation as me, the question arises as to whether that's based on our parsing of the headline or whether it is just a pragmatic assumption that transitioning at the age of 10 is relatively rare and therefore less likely.
| However, based on the text itself, upon further thought, we don't know whether the transition is complete, so the text is indeed ambiguous, and can mean that he started the transition when he was 12 or when he was 10.
|
What does "have a pop-up feel" mean? Support for the Rohingya cause across the region has a pop-up feel. Source: Nouzie I looked up pop-up in Merriam Webster: 1: pop fly 2: a component or device that pops up 3: a pop-up book 4: a pop-up window on a computer screen I guess pop-up feel has to do with the first definition,so does it mean the support of the Rohingya is very high, as a pop fly is? Or does it mean something else? <Q> The writer of this article is probably a native speaker (or very good with English) but that doesn't mean the article itself is particularly well-written. <S> For example, there is a paragraph where the word "seemingly" is used at least three times, when once would be more than enough. <S> "A pop-up feel" is not a very elegant turn of phrase. <S> It's not a typical or standard English idiom, so we all have to guess what the writer means by reading the rest of the paragraph: <S> This North Caucasus bias was reflected in Yandex, Russia’s largest national search engine, reporting a sharp increase in searches about Myanmar coming from the region. <S> Support for the Rohingya cause across the region has a pop-up feel. <S> Many long-standing Islamic-themed Vkontakte pages have transformed themselves into 24/7 pro-Rohingya advocacy channels overnight . <S> It seems that "pop-up" means "appearing suddenly", or "without a long history". <S> It would have been better if the writer had used the common English idiom "to pop up overnight". <S> Support for the Rohyngya cause across the region has popped up seemingly overnight . <A> I would guess that here pop-up means roughly the same as temporary , i.e. something that emerged quickly, but is unlikely to last long. <S> The author of that sentence may be comparing the support for the Rohingya cause to other similar occasions. <S> When the plight of some people once catches the imagination of the general population (may be due to some tragic event heavily reported in the news), but is equally quickly also forgotten. <S> Compare with pop-up restaurant . <A> The Merriam-Webster definitions don't seem to explain a relatively new meaning. <S> "Pop-up" is used as an adjective to describe anything which is organized in a manner which may be border-line illegal, and it only intended to last for a short time. <S> A typical example would be a "pop-up shop" that is set up in a building that is temporarily empty - some of these operate literally for only a single day before closing again, to avoid any legal action. <S> Part of the customer attraction of the concept is in actually finding out about them (via social media, etc) before they close and disappear again. <S> Note, "pop-up shops" are now becoming a mainstream marketing technique, and organizations are renting out space for them, etc - the original "border-line illegal" implication is starting to die out. <S> A similar expression for one-off events that involve a crowd of people for a short time is "flash mob." <S> That would seem a better description of some of the protests etc in the OP's link than "pop up". <A> I agree that the definition of pop-up is suddenly appearing , and this is probably what the author intends to convey. <S> Wiktionary is a better resource for this word. <S> However, the full phrase is "pop-up feel". <S> To say that the protests appeared quickly is a fact, not a feeling. <S> I think that pop-up has a connotation of something artificially constructed . <S> Pop-up implies that it is not a natural phenomenon, but instead has an underlying purpose. <S> In politics, this is suspicious; it brings up associations like Potemkin village , astroturfing , and sockpuppetry . <S> The author doesn't seem to intend this connotation because it isn't otherwise addressed in the article. <A> In Los Angeles and San Francisco, "pop-up restaurants" are a trendy thing. <S> For short, they're just called "pop-ups. <S> " <S> Finding out about these places is usually by word-of-mouth or Twitter. <S> The pop-up locations, by nature, are makeshift; more attention is paid to the food than to the surroundings. <S> Once the pop-up is gone, the space usually goes back to being to whatever it was before -- an empty storefront, a Halloween costume shop, what have you. <S> The writer may have been referring to the fleeting, fly-by-night, chaotic nature of the support for Rohynga. <S> Amusing article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/pop-up-restaurants-study-people-more-obsessed_n_7035394.html
| A pop-up is a location that is open only for a few nights and usually features a trendy chef serving a special menu.
|
Can I use "aging" to describe a thing that has deteriorated from long use? The feeding bottle has been used for a long time. It started aging. The plastic is melting and became sticky. The bottle is old and aging. Does the verb "aging" describe well the quality decreasing because of using for a long time? <Q> "Aged" is often used to note the physical effect of being old, for people and also objects. <S> The book was very old. <S> Its aged pages were now nearly dust. <S> Also, to me (native speaker) "aging" sounds active and alive, like a person. <S> " <S> Aged" doesn't sound this way to my ears. <S> If a plastic bottle is old, it may be degraded by ultraviolet rays breaking polymer bonds, often taking on a cloudier appearance. <S> I don't know that it would become sticky, but if it were around grease vapors in the air then these might make it sticky over time. <S> If the bottle has changed as a result of much use, you may also want to consider the word "timeworn". <A> "Old and aging" would be redundant . <S> If you want to say the bottle is in poor condition due to its age , there are many other words you can use: deteriorating, decrepit, degraded, disintegrating, falling apart, corroding, cracking, etc. <S> The house at the end of our street is old and dilapidated , and looks like it's about to collapse. <A> To me aging is a process. <S> So my shoes are aging quickly because I wear them every day. <S> Or another example is : "My father is aging quickly because he has smoked all his life. <S> Aging is the process of becoming aged.
| The word "aged" may fit better than "aging".
|
When you can't change the girl, change the girl How can one differentiate between these two "Girl"? I mean I was not able to understand the sentence first is there any sort of punctuation missing in this sentence? Just want to clarify my intention is not to offend and these are not my words. I just want to learn. <Q> There is no difference between "the girl" and "the girl". <S> The first means something like alter or transform . <S> The second means something like trade or replace . <S> That being said, I find it more natural to mark that difference by changing the number of the direct object. <S> I would phrase that sentiment in this way: If you can't change the girl, change girls. <S> Social implication aside <S> , there's nothing wrong with the original sentence. <S> The second sense of "change" doesn't require a plural object. <S> The singular is common enough in phrases like "change the light bulb", despite the fact that there must be at least two bulbs involved in that exchange. <S> Without context, the original sentence could mean either: When you can't transform the girl, replace her. <S> or When you can't replace the girl, transform her. <S> Unlike my paraphrasing, there is nothing in the original to show which sense of "change" belongs in each place. <S> The only thing that marks that there are two senses of "change" in that sentence is the contrast between them. <S> There have to be separate senses for one to still be possible while the other is impossible. <S> I assume that the original means "if you can't transform her, replace her" because there are plenty of fish in the sea but a leopard can't change its spots . <A> IMO, it means "if you can not change the girl, then you should switch to another girl." <A> This is not a punctuation problem. <S> This is a play on two different meanings of the verb change. <S> In Wiktionary <S> the meanings are (transitive, ergative) <S> To make something into something different. <S> The fairy changed the frog into a prince. <S> I had to change the wording of the ad so it would fit. <S> (transitive) <S> To replace. <S> Ask the janitor to come and change the lightbulb. <S> After a brisk walk, I washed up and changed my shirt. <S> " It's the same girl, different change. <S> And someone could legitimately be insulted (in my opinion) by being viewed as transformable and/or interchangeable.
| The sentence means, "When you can't make the girl into the kind of girl you want, replace the girl. There is a difference between "change" and "change".
|
Using "I hurt my hands" when they feel hot I cooked noodles and put them in a bowl. I accidentally touched the bowl with my hands. I hurt my hands. My hands are not injured and just feel really hot. Can hurt be used in this context? <Q> Whether or not it is visible or caused a lasting injury is not relevant. <S> Having said that, if your hands are just "hot" and not in any pain, using "hurt" would not convey your intended meaning. <A> "Hurt" is generic. <S> There are many words used to specify a particular kind of injury, which you should try to use as appropriate: <S> I touched the hot stove and burned my hand. <S> I got out of bed and bruised my knee on the table <S> I lifted the box and strained my back. <S> I tripped and twisted my ankle. <S> I cut my finger while slicing tomatoes. <S> etc. <S> "Burn" can be used even for mild injuries like the one you describe. <S> You'd just want to add some qualifier to indicate the burn is not serious. <S> I burned my hand on the hot bowl, but it's fine now. <A> In this context, I would say: I tried to burn my hands. <S> (This is being facetious but you get the idea.) <S> or I almost burned my hands. <S> It might have happened, but as you said it didn't that time. <S> Nor did you hurt them (some pain/discomfort would not be considered hurt ).
| "Hurt" can be used for anything that causes physical or emotional pain.
|
what are the nouns that can be used to describe something that is out of reach What would be another word for the following scenarios? Similar to high hope, and certainly not a "daydream","fantasy", "delusion" (which conveys a sense of impossibility), with just a little negative connotation of the event being not likely to occur but still "hopeful" (1) This 27 y/o boy wants to run for a mayor of the city. Most people think it is a noun (2) You have been an employee of this unit for only 2 years. Now you want to be the group leader that runs this unit? It is like a noun " (3) This 25 y/o man has been a congressional aide for only 5 years now he wants to run against his boss for the senator position. This is noun . <Q> I would probably use long shot or an attempt or effort that is not likely to be successful . <S> The etymology of "long shot" is the figurative sense of "something unlikely," 1867, from long (adj.) + shot (n.). <S> The notion is of a shot at a target from a great distance, thus difficult to make. <S> Josh filed the paperwork to put his name on the ballot for Mayor , but we all know it's a long shot. <S> Don't confuse it with " by a long shot " though, which is an idiom that means "a very big difference or disparity". <S> Why are you going home so early? <S> We haven't finished the stuff we promised to get done today by a long shot. <S> There's at least 4 more hours of work to do here! <A> A colloquialism that fits is pie in the sky or a a pipe-dream . <A> Or it could be wishful thinking <S> - believing in something just because you want it to be true. <A> We might say That is a delusion . <S> or He is in cloud cuckoo land . <S> or He is on a fool's errand . <S> Edit <S> If the answer should not be a put-down, I suggest That is an unrealistic ambition . <S> but it doesn't quite hit the spot.
| It might be a pipe dream - a fantastic hope or dream that is unlikely to come true.
|
Go to the stairs ask your mother come down We are about to go out. My wife went to the washroom. My son shouted his mother at downstairs. So I told him: She can't hear you. Go to the stairs ask your mother come down. Would it clarify the place of the location if just simply use "stairs"? <Q> If you want him to speak at the bottom of the staircase, you can say Go to the stairs and ask your mother to come down. <S> If you want him to speak at the top of the staircase, you can say Go up the stairs and ask your mother to come down. <A> Go upstairs and ask her. <S> We can go upstairs and go downstairs . <S> Upstairs and downstairs refer to locations. <S> Go upstairs = go to <S> the floor above . <S> Go downstairs <S> = go to the floor below . <S> Where is mom? <S> -- She is upstairs. <S> That is, she is on the floor above. <S> We don't say " at downstairs|upstairs". <A> Stairs have a top and a bottom, so you can always say which you want: <S> Go up (to the top of) the stairs and ask your mother to come down. <S> Go to the bottom of the stairs and ask your mother to come down. <S> You don't have to specify, but then you leave the listener to guess from context. <S> My son shouted up the stairs, "Mom, Dad wants to you to come down!" <S> (your son is at the bottom of the stairs) <S> My wife shouted down the stairs, "I'll be there in a minute!" <S> (your wife is at the top of the stairs) <S> This only works with certain verbs, though. <S> "Shout", "yell", "call" and other loud vocalizations all work. <S> For some reason "whisper up/down" is also idiomatic, but not "speak", "ask" and other normal vocalizations.
| You can also say: Don't shout. An alternate solution is to modify the direction of the action, which implies the location of the speaker:
|
Do digits after the decimal point have a specific name? I would like to know if there's a name for "digits after the decimal point" (in only one or two words). For instance in french these digits are called "décimales". I've found "decimal places", but I am not sure it is synonym, for instance, considering the number 7.9362, would it be correct to say that its decimal places are 9, 3, 6 and 2? EDIT: several answers are useful, so it's not easy to choose only one... <Q> Fractional part is both used in mathematics and other fields where such things are discussed, and easily understood by lay readers. <A> Java <S> I/ <S> O, Harold (2006): <S> For instance, in the number 31.415, there are two integer digits and three fraction digits. <S> Microprocessor Engineering, Holdsworth (2013): ... <S> where n is the number of integral digits and <S> m the number of fractional digits. <S> Perhaps these terms are not well-established, but they are used in the literature and will be understood in the appropriate context. <A> The fractional part of a number is known as the Mantissa . <S> The mantissa is defined as the positive fractional part of a real number. <S> Your suggestion of decimal places is usually used to specify a number of digits that must follow the decimal point. <S> The term mantissa makes no such restriction. <S> It defines all the digits after the decimal point. <A> They're called decimals . <S> This is a term everyone will understand. <S> If a billion decimals of pi were printed in ordinary type, they would stretch from New York City to the middle of Kansas. <S> Panic in Level 4: Cannibals, Killer Viruses, and Other Journeys to the Edge of Science by Richard Preston
| You can call the digits to the left of the decimal point integer digits or integral digits and those to the right of the decimal point fraction digits or fractional digits .
|
Most of, most of the This is the way i have been taught: 1) Most kids like cake = "most kids in the world" = in general. No article needed. 2) Most of the kids in this house like cake = "in this house" makes it specific. The article is needed here. My doubt is about words like neighbourhood, country, province and so on. For instance 1) Most of the people in this neighbourhood are English. 2) Most people in this neighbourhood are English? 3) Most people in this country/province/area are rich? 4) Most of the people in this country/province/area are rich? How could I identify these aspects for future references? Is it about things that i can count and things that i can not count? How big/small enough should a group of things or people be as to be defined as general or specific? <Q> If you don't qualify the group, you can say, "Most people are ...", etc. <S> If you qualify the group, you can say, "Most people in France are ..." or "Most of the people in France are ..." <S> Whether you use "of the" or not doesn't really change the meaning. <S> It's not a question of "how big/small a group". <S> The two are equivalent. <S> You don't need "the" because the group is specific. <S> You need "the" because you included the preposition "of", which turns what follows into a preposition phrase. <S> So "most" is no longer modifying "people" (or whatever), it's modifying "of the people". <S> Now "people" is in a separate phrase and needs an article. <S> Size can go either way. <S> You can say, "Most of the creatures in the universe ...", or conversely you can say, " <S> Most people in this room ..." <S> Update <S> Thanks for asking that question. <S> It brings up a point I didn't think about. <S> This gets into some very subtle and idiomatic points in English. <S> When the qualifier is long, like "people who have lived in Germany at some point in their lives", including "of the" is pretty much optional. <S> "Most people who have lived in Germany at some point in their lives like sausage", and "Most of the people who have lived in Germany" etc, are basically interchangeable. <S> When the qualifier is short, like "Germans", we usually only use "of the" when we want to say that this is a sub-group of some larger group that we have already identified. <S> Like, "People from 20 countries are attending our food festival. <S> Most of the Germans like sausage. <S> " If you just said, "Most Germans like sausage" it would be unclear if you meant, Germans in general, or just Germans at this festival. <S> We rarely say "of the" when the qualifier is short and we are not identifying a subgroup. <S> If you were just talking about food in general, you would say, "Most Germans like sausage", not "Most of the Germans like sausage. <S> " If you used the second, it would be understood to mean the same as the first, but it's not what people normally say. <A> https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/most_1[enter link description here][use of most] <S> Most is the superlative form of much and many and can be used in the following ways: as an adverb (before an adjective or another adverb) <S> : a most interesting lecture the question that is asked most often.(with a verb): <S> Love is what these children need most. <S> (after “the”):Angie looks the most like her father. <S> as a determiner (before a noun): Most stores will be closed on Christmas. <S> (after “the”): Which athlete won the most medals? <S> as a pronoun : All the victims were male, and most were between the ages of 15 and 25.(after “the”):(followed by “of”): Most of my friends live in this area. <A> " most " means " the majority " so we can render " most ' as " the majority of (the) + noun ". <S> There is a difference when we need to speak about a certain noun that has a contextual connection with the previous statements. <S> In this case it would be wise and correct to use " most of the + noun ": <S> Take this context: <S> If you want to find those books go to the library. <S> Most books <S> you have on your list <S> can be found there. <S> (this sound wrong, since we are speaking about some specific books that you need from your list, so the definite article is a must) Or take this example for instance: <S> The driver has been updated recently. <S> Most of the work was aimed at improving perfomance in games. <S> (although " work " isn't mentioned ealier <S> it still has a direct connection with the previous statement and thus is specific) <S> Also notice that you cannot use " Most + possessive + noun ": <S> Most my friends are younger than me. <S> (incorrect) <S> Most of my friends are younger than me. <S> (correct) <S> Notice that when the noun is a single object or a mass noun, then we can only use " most of the + noun ": <S> Most of the planet is filled with water. <S> (not most planet ) <S> Most of the space was occupied by huge crates. <S> (not most space )
| " Most + noun " and " Most of the + noun " are often interchangeable.
|
Meaning of Alexander Pope quotation I cannot understand the meaning of this quote from Thoughts on Various Subjects (1727) by Alexander Pope, and it is not explained anywhere else on the Internet. Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they understand everything too soon. I don't see the difference between understand and learn in this context. <Q> My interpretation of this quote is that some people don't take enough time to think deeply about an issue. <S> They only think about it on a superficial level and then suppose they already know all about it when they actually don't. <A> There is play with ideas here. <S> But there is no special use of English. <S> Before I talk about the Pope quote. <S> Think about the famous saying attributed to Socrates <S> The only thing I know is that I know nothing. <S> Socrates is saying that he is wiser than a man who has (or pretends to have) knowledge, because that man will stop asking questions. <S> Pope's quote is along similar lines. <S> People often think they understand a topic better than they actually do. <S> In order to learn you must first be honest with yourself about what you don't understand. <A> It seems quite simple to me, as I have experienced it myself. <S> This quote simply means that some people understand too quickly i.e <S> they have a fast thought process <S> so they understand it easily n fastly <S> but they never really learn that thing to remember it or perfect it, they just get bored of it. <S> I m surprised <S> I couldn't find this explanation any where.. it's apparent to me.. <S> but again maybe I'm wrong
| If you (pretend to) understand things, or think that you know all about a topic then you will stop learning.
|
Can we use "no" and then say an affirmative sentence to a yes/no question? Take this question. Do you have two brothers? For short answers we can say" no,I don't and for long answers we should say " No I don't have two brothers Can I answer "No, I have 3 brothers." <Q> These are all good: <S> Do you have two brothers? <S> Yes, I have two brothers. <S> No, I have two sisters. <S> No, I have three brothers. <S> Yes, I have three brothers. <S> [INCORRECT] <S> Well, I have three brothers. <S> [OK] <S> I have three brothers. <S> [OK] <S> If you don't want to say "no" to the questioner (for whatever reason), you can say "well" instead of "no." Or simply give the correct information: <S> I have three brothers. <S> Worth <S> noting: there is a different type of quantity-related question that would expect a different response from above. <S> For example: Do you have two dollars? <S> Yes, I have $500 in my bank account. <S> In this case, the question is really <S> Do you have at least two dollars? <S> In such cases, you would respond with "yes" even though you don't have exactly two dollars. <S> This might be common sense but is worth mentioning. <A> Yes, definitely you can say that. <S> Other examples: <S> Did you turn in the reports this morning? <S> No, I turned them in yesterday evening. <S> Did you make me breakfast? <S> No, it's after noon, so I made you lunch. <S> If you wanted breakfast you should have got up earlier. <S> Does she play tennis? <S> No she's a golfer. <S> and so on. <A> it would be wrong to answer "no" to the question "do you have 2 brothers" <S> if in fact you have more than 2 brothers. <S> the question is ambiguous; does it mean "do you have exactly 2 brothers?" or "at least 2 brothers?"
| Yes, you can say "no" whenever you disagree with any part of a question.
|
Why is “I have learnt English since 2 years” incorrect? Or maybe better phrased as “I have been learning English since 2 years”. I took the example sentence from For - Since English Grammar Rules . From Dan’s answer I learnt that “learnt” is not short for “been learning”. It is interesting that it is used as an example of a correct sentence on the linked page. The sentence should be “I have been learning English for 2 years”. As a native English speaker without an in depth understanding of how grammar rules work beyond “it doesn’t sound right”, I was wondering if there is an easy to understand explanation for what (and how) grammar rules should be applied when differentiating between “for” and “since” to describe how long something has been happening. I think StoneyB's answer to Proper usage of the word since largely answers this but I would like to know a little more about what the present perfect is and how it relates to this sentence construction. As I seem to frequently encounter this confusion with ESL speakers, I was wondering is this a peculiarity of the English language that makes it difficult to translate? Is the grammar differences caused by the lack of a conceptual difference between “for” and “since” in other languages rather than just choosing the wrong dictionary word? If so, what is the best way to explain this? <Q> In my opinion, the sentence has 2 issues. <S> 'Have learnt English' implies that you have done with your learning 2 years before. <S> In this case, if you want to express "something has been happening", you could put it as "have been learning English" ' <S> Since' is used with a point in time. <S> '2 years' is not a point of reference in the past. <S> You could use "for 2 years" to indicate you've kept learning in the past 2 years. <S> I am not sure if "since 2 years ago" works here. <S> I saw some debates on the validity of "since 2 years ago" on some websites. <S> So, the whole sentence could be rephrased as: I have been learning English for 2 years or I have been learning English since 2 years ago.(I guess some would take issue with the latter sentence.) <A> I have learnt English since 2 years Since identifies a starting point in the past, not a duration. <S> For X is used to express duration X. <S> If an action occurs over a duration rather than a point in time, the continuous/progressive form should be used. <S> (It's very doubtful <S> you instantly and completely learned English two years ago.) <S> I have been learning English for 2 years. <A> I have been studying English since I came here two years ago . <S> Where I came here <S> two years ago is a complete clause (complete sentence). <S> Note: <S> We can also use a reduced Ving clause (higher level english grammar), if the subjects of both the clauses are the same: <S> (I) have been studying English since (I) came here . <S> Reduced to <S> I have been studying English since coming here . <S> There are other exceptions such as since yesterday since today which are common phrases almost accepted as proper English. <S> for is a preposition , in this meaning, and is only followed by a noun, to complete a prepositional phrase, like I have been studying English for 2 years . <S> Where for is a preposition and two years <S> is a noun creating a prepositional phrase <S> The usage precise difference between the prepositions for and in, is difficult to pinpoint, you could say usage depends on US/British/Australian English, and certain phrases may tend to use one over the other. <S> As for I have learnt : <S> It is unclear with present perfect, in this case, if your meaning is that sometime in the last 2 years, you have accomplished your goal, or not, so this tense is very very unclear, unlike this statement <S> "I have killed a boar in the last 2 years". <S> Also, the since, implies an ongoing even happening since some period up to now, and with the verb study, we choose to use the continuous tense to ensure people understand it is a continuing action before to now <S> (yes, native speakers use the present perfect continuous tense often). <S> Therefore, a native speaker would choose another tense to give a more precise meaning. <S> Instead you, probably meant, that these past 2 years, you were doing something, therefore, present perfect continuous tense, which stresses that the action has been continuous, is appropriate. <S> I have been learning English since I moved here. <S> Definitely ongoing
| If you want usage following proper grammar, this is a definitive answer: Since is usually/most commonly/should be used as a conjunction , in this meaning, and should be followed with a complete clause (full sentence)
|
Excessively figurative and wrong usage of a phrase The first line of the passage is: My emotions are complicated and not readily verifiable. I feel a vast yearning that is simultaneously a pleasure and a pain. ... The question related to the italicised portion above is to identify which of the given options matches correctly with the author's meaning. The dictionary meaning of verifiable is - for your reference -: able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified. surely it happens to correspond more with "unable to be authenticated" ( prove or show (something) to be true, genuine, or valid. ) than with "not completely understoood". While I understand that the author must have meant the latter option (and it is given correct option as well), my question here is that: Isn't the author wrong in using a word which doesn't reflect at all what he means? Consider the point that: this isn't a poem so figurative speeches should be limited such misuse of words can confuse the readers anyway if I wrote verified - when I actually meant understood - in my high school examinations - the examiner would deduct my marks here's the complete passage and question for reference - courtesy KhanAcademy <Q> (Native speaker.) <S> I agree with OP - "verifiable" is not a suitable word to use for emotions -- or, for that matter, for any subjective phenomena. <S> When scientists talk about "verifiability", they are talking about whether the result of a test can be reproduced in different circumstances. <S> But that doesn't apply to emotions. <S> The screenshot that OP linked repeats the error: <S> In this context, his emotions are "not readily verifiable", or not completely understood. <S> The narrator clearly doesn't fully comprehend his own emotions. <S> He feels compelled to do something, but doesn't understand why. <S> But "not completely understood" does not mean the same thing as "not readily verifiable" -- not at all. <A> It does seem to me like a little bit of an unusual and possibly awkward use of the word "verifiable", but I'm pretty sure the author is intending to describe uncertainty about exactly how they feel rather than any uncertainty about the validity of their feelings. <S> Usually when people talk about "validating" their emotions, they're talking about external validation; they're looking for someone else or something else to support the idea that a given emotion (that they definitely feel) is reasonable and makes sense. <S> A person might have a "valid" emotion after having made a "valid" point. <S> They might feel "validated" if someone else agrees with them. <S> People don't usually talk about "verifying" their own emotions, but a person certainly might say "I'm not sure how I feel about that," or "I think I feel this way, but I'm not really sure" which is what I'm pretty sure the author is meaning to say, here. <S> They can't readily "confirm" or "verify" that they definitely feel the things that they kind of think they maybe do. <S> So in other words they kind of have a lot of different, potentially conflicting emotions <S> , many of which are maybe a little vague and hard to pin down, and in fact they're not even really sure about exactly how they feel at all. <A> By stating "my emotions are complicated and not readily verifiable," the author, I think, is being very clear. <S> It sounds as though the author is describing an inability <S> make sense of those emotions. <S> It seems to be a good use of language. <S> Edit: <S> I know plenty of native English speakers who would never have answered that question correctly, though! <S> haha.
| The "not completely understood" part is correct -- the text contains words and phrases such as "don't know", "don't understand", "my motives... are not entirely clear", and so on.
|
Can we say "bed of disease" In Persian we have a phrase, whose translation would be "in the bed of disease". It means when you are ill and resting in bed. Can we use the same in English? What are equivalent phrases? <Q> She lay in her sickbed, wracked by fever. <S> One of the duties of a pastor is to visit the sick-bed. <A> To be bedridden is having to be in bed because you are ill or injured. <S> For example, Jason was bedridden for a year after the accident . <A> Indeed, sickbed was a very common term in litterature especially around the times of Jane Austen, because people stayed at home in bed when they were ill, andoften in stories of kings the king lies on his sickbed/deathbed, historical famous scenes are often located at the deathbed and at the sickbed of a father or child. <S> Rather than using Latin to find new words for English, we normally add old words together, so we get riverbed, seedbed, flowerbed, hotbed, bedrobe, bedbug, bedroom. <S> There's an expression which sais: good night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite , for children. <S> The concatenations are possible because of the stress-timed intonation, same as arabic and italian but different from french which is rythmic, and because of the soft consonants of R and W and GH in english which makes longer complex syllables which have less percussion sounds and more ambigious and transitional, i.e. compare latin percussive rythmic words like "conviviality" "sonically" "écouter" with english soft words like "humerous" "heard" "sound". <S> the complex syllables means we can use less syllables than some other languages, because the syllables have varied sounds. <S> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sick+bed&year_start=1700&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csick%20bed%3B%2Cc0 <A> Yes, you can say "the bed of disease" but it sounds archaic. <S> For example: <S> Family Worship (1841): <S> We cannot tell how soon we may be laid prostrate on the bed of disease and of death. <S> Richmond Enquirer (29 November 1811) Mrs. Poe, lingering on the bed of disease and surrounded by her children... Baptist Missionary Magazine (1835): <S> In all these things there was no failure; but to administer spiritual comfort, to pray beside the bed of disease , to guide the devotions or enliven the hearts of others... <S> Dealing with the Dead (1856): <S> Who would not wish to avoid that pain, which is reflected, for days, and weeks, and months, and years, from the faces of those we love, who watch, and weep, about the bed of disease and death ! <A> Using "[noun] of [modifier]" in English sounds poetic or theatrical to me - something that you might say to dramatically emphasize a point, more than something you'd use in normal speech. <S> The more common ordering in day-to-day speech would be "[modifier] [noun]"; e.g., "sick-bed" (as other answers suggest), "winter flower", and so on. <S> With "bed of disease" <S> , there's also an ambiguity: "bed" can mean a place where something lives/grows, so without context I would find it hard to tell whether you mean "a place to rest from disease" or "a place where disease lives (or spreads from)". <A> It's been mentioned in 1006a's comment , but no-one's posted the expression I'd probably use for OP's context (if I didn't phrase things differently by saying I was laid up ). <S> Here's the usage chart... <S> bed rest <S> NOUN - Confinement of an invalid to bed as part of treatment <S> (Oxford Dictionaries online)
| The term in English is sick-bed or sickbed .
|
Whereas vs although vs while In most cases, the way I see it, these words mean the same thing in context: Whereas/although/while this car is old it is still very popular and pricey. How do I choose one or another or is there no difference between them? I mean, should it bother me to care to choose one and not any other in certain contexts? <Q> Yes, these all are different words with different meanings. <S> There are some circumstances where all three might work , but that doesn't mean all work in all circumstances. <S> Whereas is much more formal and is used in things like legal documents and formal proofs. <S> It means the same as "given" or "presuming", and is really little more than a preface to some logical statement: " whereas A is true, we can conclude B". <S> Whereas can also be used to contrast two statements in much the same way as "but" or "however", in a more formal way: <S> "Whereas A is true in one case, B is true in another" <S> Whereas the plaintiff was given many warnings about the dangers of his product, he cannot now claim he should bear no responsibility to the defendants who were injured by it. <S> Although is common and generally means despite or regardless of : "although* A may be true, it is not relevant to B". <S> Although the plaintiff was given many warnings about the dangers of his product, those dangers are inherent to its use and clearly iterated in the user manual, and the defendants should assume full responsibility for the risk. <S> While it is true the use of the product is inherently risky, <S> the issue lies in the plaintiff's faulty design, not the way the product was used. <S> Again, there is some overlap in many contexts, because each represents similar logic. <A> Assuming the idea you want to express is that you prefer to get wet over carrying an umbrella; it is raining but nonetheless <S> you are not going to carry an umbrella: <S> Although it is raining, I refuse to bring an umbrella. <S> OK <S> Whereas it is raining, I refuse to bring an umbrella. <S> not OK <S> While it is raining, I refuse to bring an umbrella. <S> not a perfectly clear expression of the idea <S> In most non-legalistic contexts in contemporary English, whereas can be understood as a synonym for yet or to the contrary : <S> You bring an umbrella whereas|while|yet <S> I do not. <S> OK <S> It introduces a clause that runs contrary to the idea expressed by the previous assertion. <S> In legalistic contexts, whereas works like Since or Given the fact that : Whereas Customer wishes to purchase platinum-plated electrical connectors and Vendor is in the business of providing such connectors, therefore the two parties do hereby agree ... <A> Although/though can be used to contrast ideas. <S> Although/though are subordinating conjunctions used to connect a subordinate clause to a main clause, like after, as, before, if, since, that, even though, even if. <S> *But cannot be used in the same way as although/though . <S> We use but to connect items which are the same grammatical type (coordinating conjunction). <S> We’ve still enjoyed our holiday, although it rained a lot. <S> It rained a lot <S> but we’ve still enjoyed our holiday. <S> Not : <S> But it rained a lot, we’ve still enjoyed our holiday. <S> Although can sound more formal than <S> but . <S> Though is much more common in speaking than in writing. <S> Although is much more common in writing than in speaking. <S> From Cambridge Dictionary <S> While and whilst mean the same when we use them as conjunctions. <S> Would you like something to eat while we’re waiting? <S> (less common: … whilst we’re waiting?) <S> (during the time we’re waiting) From Cambridge Dictionary <S> We use the conjunction whereas to indicate a contrast between two facts or ideas: He loves foreign holidays, whereas his wife prefers to stay at home. <S> Whereas most new PCs have several USB slots, older ones often only had one. <S> Note that: Whereas means the same as while in sentences expressing contrasts. <S> It does not mean the same as while when while refers to time: From Cambridge Dictionary
| While is common and generally means concurrent or included with : "while A may be true, B is also true". They both mean ‘ during the time that something else happens ’, or ‘in contrast with something else’. While is much more common than whilst, and whilst sounds more formal:
|
another word for "tight schedule" and the quality to hand the tight schedule? 1.For the sentence" the schedule is tight", and is there any other words to express the same meaning with the adjective" tight" ? 2. i would like to say some one have the quality that are able to handle the tight schedule, how to express that kind of quality?Thanks! <Q> When a project schedule is tight , there is usually less time to complete the project than person or team assigned to it really needs for it. <S> That means that they will have to stay focused on the task at all times, or sometimes work faster than they normally would, or work extra hours during the week, depending on how "tight" the schedule is (and on the country where the job is located, since there are a few countries which do not permit exploitation of workers). <S> Typical phrases used to describe a candidate for such a job involving tight schedules: ... must be task-oriented <S> ... must stay focused ... must be able to handle pressure ... must respect deadlines ... must be willing to stay late ... must be willing to work weekends <S> * <S> * where permissible If you had to sum those things up in a single quality , the most commonly used word in job descriptions (in AmE) is dedicated . <A> You could use juggle : verb <S> If you juggle lots of different things, for example your work and your family, you try to give enough time or attention to all of them. <S> The management team meets several times a week to juggle budgets and resources. <S> Mike juggled the demands of a family of 11 with a career as a TV reporter. <S> You wouldn't call that person a juggler though (the usual meaning is different). <S> Maybe a person who can juggle various activities to follow a tight schedule. <A> She is good at working under pressure . <S> She is able to meet (her) deadlines . <S> more informal <S> She is a go-to player . <S> She is a performer . <S> She is a crunch-time player .
| She is someone with good time-management skills Other words to describe such a person might be multitasking or versatile .
|
"Conveince": A word commonly used in Pakistan having to do with transportation but no English person knows about it In Pakistan, when we don't have any transportation then we say "I don't have any conveince". This spelling is wrong but I never used in written English so I don't know. None of my English fellows in London knows about it. And secondly since I only know the pronunciation and my Asian accent is difficult to catch so they understood what this word is. Can someone please guide me if this word is completely wrong or is this word lost in translation. <Q> I think the word you want is conveyance . <S> It is a valid English word, but it's slightly obscure and stilted-sounding for what you want to say, which may also be why people have trouble understanding it. <S> I'm American, not British, but I would be more likely to say "I don't have any way to get there " or "I don't have a vehicle ". <A> I assume you mean conveyance , which OALD defines as [uncountable] <S> ( formal ) <S> the process of taking somebody/something from one place to another [countable] <S> ( formal ) <S> a vehicle <S> The formal tag indicates that while educated people might know the word, even they might not use in day-to-day conversation. <S> I am not familiar with how the term is used in Pakistan, so I cannot offer a direct substitute. <S> If you are trying to indicate that you do not own or have access to a car, you can simply say I don't have a car . <S> There are a variety of ways to explaining that you do not have the means to get someplace. <S> Suppose I live in the city center, and have neither a car nor a driver's license, and am invited to someone's house in the countryside for the weekend. <S> I could explain that I can't go because I don't have a car, or because I can't drive, or more generally <S> I would need a ride — in order to get there, someone will need to drive me or otherwise arrange transportation for me <S> I don't have a way of getting there <S> — this is less direct, if you are concerned your host will interpret the first as a request which it would be impolite to turn down. <A> This is awkward in English, and there is no agreed upon acceptable substitute to indicate that you don't have your Car & Motorcycle & Bike other than the imploring case <S> "I need a lift/ride". <S> "I have no means of transport" sound like you don't own a car, and also are grandiloquent <S> There is an informal case you might like: " <S> I don't have wheels" assuming boating is not an option, that conveys the right tone and state need without a direct ask. <A> I suggest I am on foot . <S> It perfectly conveys <S> what you mean.
| It's pronounced something like kun-VAY-unss and means "a method or way of being transported".
|
Button up your shirt "Button up your shirt" What is the antonym of button up? Is it button down? Before taking off a shirt. We need to button ___. <Q> You would say: Unbutton your shirt. <S> The up in "Button (up) your shirt" can be optional, though. <S> It has nothing to do with the current state of buttoning activity. <A> To "button up" a shirt implies that you start from the bottom button and work your way up. <S> You can just say " button your shirt" and leave to the listener to decide how they prefer to do it. <S> A button-down shirt is one with an extra button for the collar. <S> This doesn't mean you start from the collar and work your way down (unless you want to). <S> Rather the term <S> "button-down" is likely short for " buttoned -down" meaning "securely fastened with a button" . <S> The opposite of to button is, fortunately, to unbutton . <S> Yes, it's one of those rare cases where English makes sense; however, you do not "unbutton down " a shirt. <S> You just unbutton it. <A> It would be 'unbutton your shirt' <S> this is the way that is used generally.
| A button-down shirt is a shirt that can be buttoned (up).
|
How do I describe this pattern: B-R-G-B-R-G-B.... (In the same sense as "B-R-B-R-B..." is "alternating")? Consider the following patterns of colored squares: Courtesy: MS Paint application I can't seem to find a word (phrase?) to describe the pattern observed in the third row. The first row has consecutive blue squares. The second row has alternating blue squares. The third row has _______________ blue squares. Does such a word describing the third pattern (preferably, in terms of "blue") exist? Or should I use some phrase instead? And what phrase? <Q> You can call them regularly spaced blue squares. <S> regularly adverb <S> With a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual items. <S> ‘regularly spaced buildings’ - ODO <S> Note that talking about regularly spaced blue squares says nothing about the order of the red and green squares. <S> Here's an example of the term used in the context of having other things in the spaces between pairs of regularly spaced pixels (emphasis, mine): <S> Applying spatial offset, the green sensor is moved one-half pixel out of alignment with respect to the blue and red targets. <S> The strategy is intended to capture detail that would otherwise fall inside the grid, i.e. between the regularly spaced pixels . <S> - Video Shooter: Storytelling with DV, HD, and HDV Cameras by Barry Braveman <A> The third row has a repeating pattern of blue, red and green squares. <S> You just have to determine what the pattern is (in your example blue-red-green). <S> Unfortunately you can't "describe the pattern observed in the third row" by only mentioning the blue squares. <S> Edit: <S> Based on your comment, if we are considering only the blue squares (the others being irrelevant), you might say: Every third square is blue. <A> An ordered series or arrangement. <S> "The array of blinking green lights flashed happily in the darkened server room." <S> Series: <S> A particular order in which related events, movements, or things follow each other. " <S> The series of colored boxes followed a regular pattern of blue, red, and green."
| There are a couple words that can be used to describe the pattern on the third row: Array:
|
Idiomatic ways to say something like "the starting time for the meeting is put off for one hour" Suppose a meeting is scheduled at 8:00am but is postponed to 9:00am (I am not sure if "postpone to 9:00am" is idiomatic). I want to say something like The meeting ______(some verb or phrase) one hour. How many ways can I fill in ____? <Q> Postpone is most certainly the right expression. <S> The meeting has been postponed one hour. <S> The meeting has been postponed until 9:00. <S> The following are also possible, but less likely for any kind of formal announcement: has been pushed back to ... <S> has been delayed until ... <S> has been rescheduled to/for ... <A> One more option: <S> The meeting has been deferred until 9:00 AM. <A> You can use the verb reschedule which means to schedule again according to a different timetable. <S> Source; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reschedule . <S> The meeting is rescheduled to 9:00 pm <A> Some ways (the first is my favourite) are: <S> The meeting has been put back one hour <S> The meeting has been delayed by one hour <S> The next two are not quite there, they imply the meeting already started: <S> The meeting has been held up for one hour <S> The meeting has been adjourned for one hour
| The meeting has been put off for one hour
|
Is there a word to describe or to refer to a child who talks sweetly? Nobody can deny how sweet and cute some young children talk; they make you laugh by the way they put words together and it's mainly because of the thought behind it or minor grammatical mistakes. When you're delighted by a child making some funny statements, what words would you use to describe or to refer to them? A: Yes. Mosquito want to eat me and I chase him and I tell don't come here. B: Aren't you a little [the word]. I'm open to adjectives too and it doesn't need to be the words to address a child himself/herself. <Q> There is a rather common phrase here in the U.S.: <S> Kids say the darnedest things which became somewhat popular with the rise of the television show with the same name . <S> A UK version of the show was named “Kids Say the Funniest Things”, but I don’t know if that expression made it into the vernacular over in the UK as it did here in the US. <S> As another option, I suppose you could simply say, “You’re so cute!” <S> (The word cute can be applied to many contexts; one of them is the kinds of things a young child says, particularly when that child makes an adult laugh.) <A> Then, because that's a very general word (it can describe many different behaviours or even appearance), I'd add something like "S/ <S> he says the funniest / randomest / sweetest / cutest / darnedest things" and quote the line. <S> To the child <S> him <S> /herself I wouldn't give that reply, to be honest. <S> Children know when they're being talked down to! <S> I would probably answer the child's intent, not my impression: <S> That was clever of you! / <S> That was thoughtful of you! / <S> What a funny thing to do! <A> A word that is often using to describe a child's manner of speech: a prattling child a prattler When used of children it is understood to refer to a child's simple manner of speech as they learn the local idiom. <S> It can also mean that they speak quite a lot.
| I would most likely describe this child to a friend as adorable .
|
Em Dashes as seperation of a preposition phrase Can em dashes be used to separate prepositional phrases? So that phrase is only used as to modify the noun directly before it, and to the rest of the sentence is non-existent. Examples: Truth is I — at my position in time — strive to succeed. [Em dashes are used to make clear that I strive, my position in time has nothing to do with me striving.] The pencil has yellow scrapes — which were made by Billy who has a multitude of diseases — which are concerning. [Em dashes are used to make clear that the scrapes are concerning. Not in any way is this sentence saying Billy's diseases concerning.] The alien looking man — with a red lizard that seems as if it might run—ran quickly. [Em dashes are used to make clear that the man ran, not the lizard (even those the lizard looks like it might run)] Do the em dashes do what I say they do in the sentences? If yes, then the answer to this question would be yes. Otherwise the answer would be no. Thank you. <Q> The use of dashes doesn't necessarily make the phrase completely independent of the rest of the sentence. <S> Also, in terms of punctuation these should simply be called dashes. <S> If you decide to make your dash the same width as the letter 'm' then it is an em-dash, but that's merely a typographical decision. <S> Truth is I—at my position in time—strive to succeed. <S> [Em dashes are used to make clear that I strive, my position in time has nothing to do with me striving.] <S> I don't think this necessarily makes clear that your position in time has nothing to do with your striving. <S> The pencil has yellow scrapes—which was made by Billy who has a multitude of diseases—which are concerning. <S> [Em dashes are used to make clear that the scrapes are concerning. <S> Not in any way is this sentence saying Billy's diseases concerning.] <S> (You mean "which were made by Billy, who".) <S> Certainly the most natural reading is that the text enclosed by the dashes is a parenthetical aside, and the yellow stripes are the thing that's concerning. <S> I don't think that this is the only possible meaning, though. <S> Sometimes a sentence has only one dash - so your second dash could be intepreted as starting a second parenthetical aside (one relating to the diseases) rather than as the end of the original aside. <S> The alien looking man—with a red lizard who seems as if it might run—ran quickly. <S> [Em dashes are used to make clear that the man ran, not the tattoo (even those the lizard looks like it might run)] <S> It's a bit confusing to personify the lizard here. <S> (I'd write "that seems" rather than "who seems".) <S> The repetiton of the verb "run" has the potential to confuse the reader, who might also think the lizard is a real lizard rather than a tattoo, unless that was explained earlier in the text. <S> But I agree that the sentence must be read as meaning that the man ran, not that his tattoo ran. <A> (Correct em dash usage) . <S> I would however argue that your example sentences don't convey exactly what you mean to convey. <S> In the first sentence, there is no reason to include "at my position in time" unless this isn't the case at other points in time. <S> In the second sentence it is unclear whether you're referring to the scrapes or the diseases <S> so I would write it as, "The yellow scrapes on the pencil—which were made by Billy who has a multitude of diseases—are concerning." <S> In this case were refers to the scrapes made by Billy and not the pencil <S> therefore we must use the plural form 'were'. <S> In the third sentence the use of the em dashes is correct but the word who should be replaced with "which" or "that" i.e. "The alien looking man—with a red lizard tattoo <S> (I assume you forgot to add in the word tattoo here) <S> which seems as if it might run—ran quickly". <A> Different elements of punctuation serve different purpose. <S> For example, parentheses are said to "whisper" while dashes are said to shout . <S> Commas are somewhere in-between. <S> Otherwise, all three use more or less the same grammar: <S> Billy, who was known to be prankster, put the frog down Mary's dress. <S> Billy -- who was known to be prankster -- put the frog down Mary's dress. <S> Billy (who was known to be prankster) put the frog down Mary's dress. <S> Otherwise your examples are not quite grammatically or stylistically correct, but they are close. <S> Truth is I -- in my position at this time -- strive to succeed. <S> The yellow scrapes on the pencil -- made by Billy who has a multitude of diseases -- are concerning. <S> The alien-looking man -- who had a red lizard that looked like it could scamper off at any moment -- ran quickly. <S> I changed the order of the sentences and a few words here and there for clarity. <S> In general you should avoid using the same word twice in a sentence except for intentional emphasis, otherwise it can be confusing. <S> Side note: <S> The "em dash" or "long dash" generally only appears in typewritten documents because it's not a key on a standard keyboard. <S> Instead we substitute with two regular dashes "--". <S> The dash should also not be confused with the hyphen , used to connect words like "alien-looking".
| Yes, em dashes can be used to replace commas but are "less formal".
|
My question is about an expression "way too good for me and don't deserve you " When my friend,whom I helped with house work while she was out and I love her,she'svery nice and kind ,send me a message saying You way,way,way too good for me I don't deserve you.What she mean by that?is it meant as a compliment or was she annoyed by receiving too much help and attention? <Q> Your friend meant that she was very grateful for your help. <S> "You are too good for me, I do not deserve you" is a compliment in which the speaker is lowering their own self in order to elevate the other person. <S> Some people mean this phrase more literally than others do, so you have to use what you know <S> about the person to understand exactly what they meant. <S> A person with low self-esteem who thinks very highly of you may actually believe and mean that they are not worthy of your friendship (though they may still accept your friendship). <S> However, many people use this phrase in an off-hand manner. <S> They do not actually have self-esteem issues. <S> They are simply somewhat exaggerating their true feelings. <S> What they are trying to communicate is that they genuinely and deeply appreciate your friendship. <S> As with most phrases, "You are too good for me" can be used sarcastically to mean the opposite of its usual meaning. <S> However, it is clear from the situation that your friend was not being sarcastic or dismissive toward you. <S> A natural response to what your friend said might be something like "Not at all. <S> I was glad to help. <S> " If you suspected the speaker might have low self-esteem, you could say, "That's not true. <S> You're a very good friend, and I am always happy to help you." <A> Your friend was overwhelmed by how much you helped her and is very happy. <S> She feels that she didn't do anything to deserve so much kindness from you. <A> Yes, it was meant as a compliment, but the probable sub-text is that she is saying that she does not love you in the gentlest words that she can find.
| In other words, she is probably saying that she appreciates your help, thinks highly of your kindness, but wants you as a friend rather than a lover.
|
What is The meaning of "Sorry. Your decision has not been reached" I applied for a job online about 1/2 month, and this is what I received in my mail YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY REVIEWED YOU WOULD RECEIVE AN EMAIL SHORTLY ON THE STATUS OF YOUR APPLICATION Another one month down the line, I haven't received any email from them. But I visited their site by trying to log into my account, and this is what I saw. update illustration Sorry. Your decision has not been reached Please what is the meaning of the above statement regarding my application? even though there's no official statement on the site telling applicants to check their application status. Thank you. <Q> This isn't so much an English language question, as a generic/lazy Human Resources/Personnel question. <S> (I'm not blaming you for asking the question, though.) <S> When I was job hunting <S> about two years ago, it was extremely common for HR departments to refuse to say anything for months after receiving an application, often blowing past their self-imposed deadlines with no shame. <A> The English used by the online site is poor. <S> Do not worry that you do not understand it. <S> It's not particularly understandable. <S> The first message should have read -- YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY REVIEWED YOU <S> WOULD <S> WILL RECEIVE AN EMAIL SHORTLY ON THE STATUS OF YOUR APPLICATION <S> The second message is a bit of a mystery. <S> I would guess that they mean -- <S> Sorry. <S> Your decision DESTINATION has not been reached. <S> Which would more likely indicate a url error as opposed to a rejection message. <A> They have not yet decided whether to hire you. <S> Effectively their sentence is: <S> It's badly constructed, and I'd be surprised if it didn't confuse most native English speakers to some extent. <S> A more full version should have been: Sorry, but we have not yet reached a decision about your application. <A> As already answered the status message " Your decision has not been reached " is terrible English. <S> As such, we can only guess at its meaning. <S> However there are some common mistakes. <S> Here's what is wrong with it: <S> "Your decision..." A decision belongs to whoever makes it. <S> It isn't your decision to have your application accepted (if only it was!). <S> However, it has become common for the word "decision" to be used to describe the result that comes from a decision. <S> One area in which this is common is government administration, where political correctness has influenced terminology in an attempt to try and steer perceptions. <S> For example when someone is paid state benefits (what some countries know as welfare payments) <S> the amount they were given was historically known as an award , but to prevent the perception that people are rewarded for not working it is often referred to as a " decision ". <S> In your case, I believe they are trying to say: We have not yet reached a decision about your application. <S> But because they are speaking about a decision on your application they have phrased it (badly) to try and indicate that it the decision <S> you are waiting for. <S> If I am correct, then this status is still hopeful - it sounds like you are still waiting for a decision, so a decision has not yet been made on your application either way.
| Sorry, your decision (the decision about your application) has not been reached yet (has not been made).
|
When something carries more than recommended What adjective or noun can be used to describe something carrying more than is recommended? For instance a truck can carry 300 kg. but it's loaded with 310kg. so it's what? I was thinking of overloaded but it seems really awkward. Some time ago I heard a word like overencumbered or something like that but can't really remember the spelling. <Q> "Overloaded" is indeed the most idiomatic expression for this. <S> Not only is an overloaded truck in violation of numerous state and federal regulations, it is unsafe to operate. <S> As statistics show, year-after-year, overloaded trucks are one of the leading causes of truck-related accidents. <S> The reason is that payloads that are overweight or unbalanced increase the likelihood a driver may lose control of the vehicle. <S> (source) <S> "Overencumbered" (or simply "encumbered") is more likely to refer to a person or an animal, but it means the same thing. <A> Don't overlook the obvious " overweight ", especially in contexts where the weight (and not the volume) is the most relevant factor for sizing. <S> Even though it is very associated with body weight (and health), it gets plenty of use in other contexts, such as transportation. <S> For example, airlines often charge fees for overweight baggage. <A> Overburdened load (someone) with too many things to carry. <S> "they were overburdened with luggage" <A> I would never say a truck is encumbered or overburdened unless I intended to personify the truck. <S> These adjectives simply do not sound correct when applied to something other than a human or animal. <A> It seems like you are searching for " encumbered ": restrict or burden (someone or something) in such a way that free action or movement is difficult. <S> "She was encumbered by her heavy skirts." <S> Although a better option in scenario that you have mentioned would be the use of something like overloaded or overburdened.
| In my view, "overloaded" is the only correct answer to this question given on this page, with the possible exception of "overweight".
|
She spilled the green beans She was holding a green beans bag and accidentally dropped it. The beans were all over the floor. My son saw it and told me, "She spilled the green beans." I always saw this word use for water, milk and soup. Could it be use for green bean? <Q> Yes, you can use spilled for green beans (or any other kind of beans). <S> In fact, to spill the beans is a very common metaphor, meaning "to reveal a secret". <S> You wouldn't use it with something more solid, like "steak" - "Spill the steak" doesn't make sense. <A> Spilled is used more for something escaping a container . <S> Usually a liquid, occasionally multiples of a solid, and rarely a single solid item. <S> For example, these all make some sense: <S> Milk spilled on the table and floor. <S> Beans spilled out of the bag. <S> Frozen steaks spilled out on the road. <S> (Imagine an overturned truck) <S> A steak spilled out of the of the overturned grocery bag. <S> Define 'spilled' gives: cause or allow (liquid) to flow over the edge of its container, especially unintentionally. <S> (of liquid) flow over the edge of its container. <A> You can use spill for anything that is fluid-like. <S> Liquids are obviously fluids, but mass quantities of small things can also act as fluids in certain instances. <S> Things in open bushels or buckets often fit this criteria, but non-actual-liquid things in closed bags often do not. <S> Or, put another way, if you can say pour X , you can say spill X . <S> You could use it for a large bucket/bushel of green beans but not really a bag of them. <S> Unless it's a large bag with an open top (i.e. like a bucket or bushel). <S> Because you don't pour greens beans from a bag typically. <S> (Other types of beans might work with spill ).
| We usually use spill with liquids, but it can be used with anything that flows like liquid, such as beans, rice , grain , sand , salt , etc.
|
Meaning of "play up" in Henry Newbolt's poem "Vitai Lampada" From Vitai Lampada : There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night— Ten to make and the match to win— A bumping pitch and a blinding light, An hour to play and the last man in. And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat, Or the selfish hope of a season's fame, But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote " Play up ! play up! and play the game!" I looked up the meaning of play up in several online dictionaries and the main meaning seems to be "misbehave", the second meaning is "emphasize (something)". Both seem unfit in this context. What is the meaning of play up in this poem? <Q> I would take it to mean "play on" or "step up." <S> However, you must consider the way that it is used in the other verses, as well, to get a better picture of how it should be interpreted. <S> It is not just in the context of a game, but in the context of life itself. <S> These words, according to Coulson Kernahan, author of Six Famous Living Poets, were a call to all men and women to defend their country in an hour of need. <S> These famous lines demand that “in life’s battle-field [sic], whether a battle-field only figuratively, or a battle-field in reality to play the game.” <S> ( https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/henry-newbolt ) <S> So when I use those two phrases above, it is more a matter of persevering in the face of the present challenges being faced, than it is simply a call to start up the game again. <S> The first verse describes a very tense situation in the cricket match. <S> The game is drawing to a close. <S> The penultimate batter was just caught out. <S> That encouragement that will stay with the man throughout his life, to spur him on in the middle of a dire situation in WWI, and it's the exhortation he will leave to the generations to follow him as his life ends. <A> I believe his captain is exhorting the player to play forward defensive shots. <S> That is usually the best way to play defensively in English conditions. <S> As the last man he would likely be the worst player, but batsmen in cricket bat in pairs, so his job is to stay in long enough for the other batsmen to score the remaining runs. <S> However on a bumping pitch that is somewhat dangerous. <S> By moving forward you give yourself less time to react should the ball bounce more than expected, which is likely to happen on a "bumping pitch". <A> The reference to war was not a direct reference to WW1 as suggested above because - although Newbolt and his poem were recruited to the propaganda effort during the Great War - the poem dates from 1897. <A> refers to holding the line and standard of a cause (winning a game) not giving up even in the face of certain loss. <S> Play for principle <S> -because principle is the best and only reason to be in the game/in the fight.
| The expression means "do your best within the rules of the game". The captain is encouraging his (final) batsman as he sends him in to make the last ten runs needed to win the match.
|
"Lily, not he/him, had planned the party" — Which pronoun is more appropriate? In this sentence should I use "he" in place of 'him"? He explained that Lily, not him, had planned the party. <Q> In formal and scholastic registers, "he" is appropriate. <S> It is part of the subject of the subordinate clause. <S> The alternatives presented here are that Lily had planned the party and that he had planned the party. <S> The complete subject of the clause is "Lily [and] not he", which excludes the latter alternative. <S> That being said, the informal registers of many English dialects are not exclusively subject-oriented. <S> For the same reason that the formal <S> "it is I" is often replaced by the common <S> "that's me", <S> the appositive "not him" can easily take the oblique case -- not as an object but merely as a non-topic. <S> We don't commonly regard English as a topic-oriented language. <S> Still, we can't explain how the informal variants of copular clauses (such as "that's me") and interrogative clauses (such as "who did you see?") function under a purely subject-oriented framework. <A> Given the clause (what was explained): <S> Lily, not him, had planned the party. <S> both Lily and "him" are subjects. <S> So use the subjective pronoun form, <S> he is correct: <S> He explained that Lily, not he , had planned the party. <S> But in informal speech, people often say it either way, often depending on what seems to sound best. <A> Both "he" and "him" are awkward. <S> This sentence falls into a broad class of sentences in which a pronoun is used as part of a subject, but isn't the whole subject. <S> The most well known example of this type of sentence is: John and me planned the party. <S> or John and I planned the party. <S> Both may be considered correct, as both are used commonly by native speakers. <S> There is an alternate rule, which states that "I" should only be used when it forms the whole subject, and as it is not the whole subject, the correct pronoun should be "me". <S> In your example, application of the first rule leads to "not he", the second rule would lead to "not him". <S> However both are awkward <S> Rephrasing would be a much better alternative. <S> He explained that Lily had planned the party; he had nothing to do with it. <A> Other people have already told you the correct answer (it's "he" <S> according to the strict rules of English, but that sentence sounds a little awkward to native speakers). <S> So instead, I'm going to focus on something that only one person has mentioned in a comment, which is a general rule for figuring out the right pronoun in sentences like this one. <S> A good way to decide between "he" and "him" (or "she" and "her") in sentences like "John and (I/me) went to the party" or "Lily, not (he/him), had planned the party" is to remove the extra subject. <S> Leave the pronoun alone in the sentence and see what it should be. <S> Consider these two sentences: I went to the party. <S> or Me went to the party. <S> When you look at them like that, it becomes clear that the correct pronoun is "I", <S> therefore the correct sentence is John and I went to the party. <S> This general rule will help you figure out the pronoun in other situations too, like when the pronoun is the object, rather than the subject, of the verb. <S> For example: My friends bought movie tickets for my wife and (I/me). <S> Which one should it be? <S> Well, remove the extra object and that sentence becomes: <S> My friends bought movie tickets for (I/me). <S> And now it's clear that the right pronoun is "me", so <S> the correct sentence is: <S> My friends bought movie tickets for my wife and me . <S> NOTE: <S> This particular example ("for my wife and me") is one that many native speakers of English get wrong. <S> There's also some dispute about whether it's really "wrong" or not, but that's a question that you probably don't need to worry about as a second-language learner. <S> Just remember the general rule (remove the other words to figure out what the pronoun would be if it was alone), and you'll get it right. <A> you should use he in this case. <S> because here in the sentence Lily is the subject who does the action so you have to use a subject pronoun <S> you can not use the object pronoun.
| The second sentence is correct in "prescriptive grammar", as the word "I" is in the subject, and so the nominative case should be used.
|
“Senior” and “Junior” suffixes Is it possible to call a child "Jack Watson Junior" if his father is called "Charles Watson"? Is it necessary that the father and the son have the same name to be called "Junior" and "Senior" or is it possible to name a child "Jack Watson Junior" in honor of his uncle, for example, or his grandfather who would be called Jack Watson? Are "Junior" and "Senior" only to be used for fathers and sons without any generation between them? <Q> I wanted to know if it was possible to call a child Jack Watson Junior if his father is called Charles Watson? <S> No; junior and senior are only used if the names are exactly the same. <S> Or is it possible to name a child Jack Watson Junior in honor of his uncle for example or his grandfather who would be called Jack Watson? <S> Technically, a child named after a relative who is not his father should be called "Jack Watson II" (pronounced "Jack Watson the second ") instead of "junior". <S> Then if there is a third Jack Watson in the family, he would be "Jack Watson III" ("Jack Watson the third "), and so forth. <S> (I actually did once know a person who was called "John Smith junior" even though the original John Smith was his grandfather and not his father, but this was unusual enough that people remarked on it, because it is not the normal way to do it.) <S> Also, junior or senior is almost always written as Jr. or Sr. instead of being spelled out. <S> Source: <S> The Emily Post Institute, "Men's Names and Titles" <A> This depends on country and culture. <S> These suffixes are found much more commonly in the US than elsewhere, and I think most of the existing answers are US-specific. <S> In the UK it used to be common to refer to men and boys by surname alone; this probably survived in boys' schools for rather longer than it did in the outside world. <S> Two brothers would then be referred to as Jones senior and Jones junior, regardless that they had different first names. <S> But the suffix was never part of the name, just a way of distinguishing them. <A> example: my name is Rob Rouse Jr. (because my dad's name is Rob Rouse) <S> Your example with Charles & Jack wouldn't be the correct situation, because their first names are different. <S> You ONLY call someone Junior if their father has the exact same name, never in honor of somebody. <S> Usually, when you want to honor someone's name, you typically use their name as the middle name of the child. <S> For example: if you want to honor uncle Michael, then you'd name your child Jack Michael Watson <A> The convention of the "junior" suffix is there to easily distinguish between people who might be mixed up. <S> Generally, there would be another close living relative of the same name to require the use of 'junior'. <S> The closer the generations are in age, and the more geographically proximate they live, the more likely it is that "Junior" will refer to a living grand-parent or living great-grandparent, rather than a parent.
| Junior is used to refer to people that have the exact same name as their parent (usually dad) .For
|
You have to quit diapers He is still wearing diaper. "You are old enough. You have to quit diapers. " Can I say quit as stop using the diapers? <Q> It makes sense, but it sounds a little unfamiliar to me. <S> Two alternative phrases that came to my mind were: <S> You need to get out of diapers. <S> That said, I looked up all three phrases in Google searches, and found hits for all three: <S> Are you on your way with your 4 or even 5 year old to a psychologist since he won’t quit diapers ? <S> (from a blog ) <S> Kids do grow out of things. <S> They grow out of diapers , crawling, preschool, training wheels, and Barney. <S> (from a blog ) <S> Keep the mood light and airy and refrain from any harsh words when your child does have an accident in the middle of the night. <S> They will get out of diapers someday. <S> (from a blog ) <A> "You are old enough. <S> You have to quit diapers. <S> " <S> Can I say quit as stop using the diapers? <S> Grammatically <S> it's fine, however in the US it would be odd to state this way. <S> It's more common to instead focus on what's next, and use the word "instead": <S> You are old enough to start using the bathroom instead of diapers. <S> or You are old enough to use underwear instead of diapers. <S> Without getting too much into parenting, the concept is to focus on the next step or new activity (bathroom, underwear) rather than focusing on what's lost. <A> Usage here might well vary regionally. <S> I guess you're asking about US usage (in the UK we call them "nappies"). <S> In the UK, "stop" is used much more frequently than "quit", with a few exceptions like "quit smoking". <S> You can stop or quit an activity (quit smoking), and you can stop a moving object (stop the bus), and you can quit a place (quit the campsite) but "diapers" doesn't really fit into any of these categories. <S> I would say "stop using". <S> (As for the psychology, I strongly suspect that addressing a small child in this way is unlikely to achieve the desired effect, but that's a question for a different forum.)
| You need to grow out of diapers.
|
One-word expression for 'making a slope gentler' I cannot come up with a one-word expression for 'making a slope gentler' and the opposite expression also (making a slope steeper). For example, it may be less redundant to express ' A ing a slope', if there is a verb A to indicate making it gentler. Could anyone recommend some expressions? <Q> Levelling Levelling is a word used to make something more level. <S> To use it in some sentences close to your question: The slope was too steep <S> so I levelled it off a bit. <S> Adrian thought the slop was too steep so he's spending the afternoon levelling it off. <S> The opposite could be raising . <S> It doesn't work perfectly and when I try saying it out loud <S> I'd go for a longer form but this word would achieve your goal. <A> There is the verb to grade : <S> To level or smooth to a desired or horizontal gradient: Bulldozers graded the road. <S> Usually it has to do with making the ground slope at the correct amount of steepness, but it can be used for other things. <S> For example: Without background activity (dashed line), the probability was all-or-none, reflecting the threshold for action potentials. <S> With background activity (continuous line), the response curve was graded and there was a non-null response for subthreshold inputs (<0.2 mS/cm2). <S> Source: <S> FLUCTUATING SYNAPTIC CONDUCTANCES <S> RECREATE IN VIVO -LIKE <S> ACTIVITY IN NEOCORTICAL NEURONS <A> The slope of the driveway is too steep. <S> It needs to be eased somewhat. <S> We would like it to be more gradual.
| You can also ease a slope.
|
He is honest (9 out of 10). How to construct a phrase in which a person's honesty is scored on a scale? I'd like to describe a person that he is a honest person and add how honest he is but couldn't figure out. How can I say this? He is honest on the scale of 9 out of 10. Is this correct? Or is there any shorter form that native speakers say? <Q> I think a more likely construction would be: <S> I’d give him nine out of ten for honesty. <A> He is honest on the scale of 9 out of 10 is not fluent or idiomatic. <S> If I had to express it with a scale, I would say something like <S> On a scale of one to ten, his honesty is a nine. <S> or If you ranked honesty on a scale from one to ten, his would be a nine. <S> or He's a nine on a one-to-ten scale of honesty. <S> But really, it sounds awkward and clumsy to rank someone's honesty on a numeric scale; I would rather say something like "He is almost completely honest" or "He is nearly always honest." <S> That may be more of a stylistic issue than a linguistic one, though. <A> If you want short and pithy, you may have the wrong subject. <S> If you want short, pithy and dynamic, you may also have the wrong verb. <S> Without further context, we can't tell whether this places his honesty at a 90% occurrence rate or puts him in the 90th percentile of his peer group, but that's hardly relevant. <S> The one-to-ten rating scale is rarely used with precise measurements, and tends to represent nothing more than the strength of a gut-level reaction. <S> By the way, the scale isn't 9 out of 10. <S> The scale is 1 to 10 (or sometimes 0 to 10), the rating is the 9 out of that range. <S> Since it is a rating, we can use the verb "to rate": <S> His honesty rates 9 out of 10. <S> If you're not comfortable with the verb "to rate", the less formal "to get" serves the same function: <S> His honesty gets 9 out of 10. <S> The stative "is" implies that you don't expect the rating to change. <S> Dynamic verbs like "rates" and "gets" imply that the rating could change over time. <S> Perhaps is honesty rates a 9 this year, <S> but next year his rating might drop to 3. <S> As a final note, the title of your question also works. <S> I don't expect any native-speaking reader to be confused or mislead by <S> He's honest (9 out of 10). <S> where the parenthetical functions as an abbreviated afterthought or aside. <S> I immediately interpreted it as "He's honest. <S> ([I give/rate his honesty <S> a] 9 out of [a 1 to] 10 [scale].) <S> " <S> Someone else might interpret it as "He is honest (9 [times] out of 10)", which is practically the same general sentiment, if somewhat less generous. <S> The simple parenthetical may be poor style in a formal context, but it looks fine from the perspective of an informal, conversational register. <A> An option that maybe doesn't have quite the same meaning, but is certainly more natural-sounding, is: <S> He is honest 90% of the time <A> Honesty is not about percentages. <S> Honesty is about personal gain. <S> If he's honest most of the time, but lies about the critical things that, in the proper social context, he should not lie about, then the "90%" rating is meaningless. <S> Some things do not make sense to evaluate in terms of percentages. <S> i.e.: "Oh, I don't sleep with 99% of the women I meet, I only slept with that one. <S> " <S> I think honesty falls into this category. <S> There is no fluent way to describe what you're trying to describe, because honesty doesn't work that way. <S> The concept itself is bizarre, so any description of it will be bizarre to begin with. <A> I'd like to also suggest the following: <S> He's a nine out of ten on the honesty scale. <S> This is idiomatic, and quite common in my experience. <S> Additionally, in my neck of the woods, we say something like this often enough: <S> On a scale from one to honest, he's a nine. <S> Since we so often rate things from 1 to 10, it's left implicit that the adjective ("honest") is the value of a score of 10. <S> It's worth noting that this second construction is usually said with some sense of humour, since "a scale from one to honest" is, when taken literally, rather silly. <A> Someone who is perfectly honest, even to the point that it might actually sometimes be a problem rather than a virtue, is "honest to a fault". <S> So in this case, we might say, "honest, though not to a fault". <S> This nine out of ten concept seems dodgy. <S> If a retailer rips off 1 in 10 customers, I would simply call them dishonest, not "9 out of 10 honest". <S> A reputation for honesty is very sensitive to fairly slight blemishes. <A> Isn't there a more simple way? <S> Suggestions: <S> He is quite honest <S> He is rather honest <S> He is fairly honest <S> He is really honest <S> He is very honest <S> Variant: <S> He is a [quite|rather|fairly|very|really] honest person <A> Rating on scales from 1 to 10 is so common that it has become idiomatic to say things like: <S> On a scale of 1 to perfectly honest, he’s a 9 where the 10 at the top of the scale is implied. <S> Examples of this construction: <S> On a scale of 1 to America, how free are you tonight? <S> On a scale of 1 to even, I can’t On a scale of one to Britney Spears, how stressed are you?
| His honesty is 9 out of 10.
|
What does the phrase the more you know mean? What does The more you know mean? Alex: Did you know a flock of crows is known as murder? Jim: No. The more you know. <Q> It was (is?) <S> a television slogan from American broadcaster NBC. <S> They show an educational announcement, and end it with the NBC logo and the words "the more you know". <S> It became a meme for when someone says something educational, typically used as a sarcastic response when someone mentions a fact that the other person considers trivial or unimportant. <A> Completing the sentence is just guesswork. <S> Based on PMV's answer, I would guess that the television spots intend something in praise of learning, something like " <S> The more you know, the better-off you are," or perhaps "The more you know, the more you want to know. <S> " <S> It is certainly possible that the writers for those television spots, or anyone else using the expression, had in mind the maxim <S> “The more you know, the more you know you don't know.” <S> One finds these word attributed to Aristotle all over the web ( here , and here , and here , for example), and while the authenticity of this attribution is not clear , it still suggests that someone might think of those words as a familiar saying. <S> Similar words are attributed to David T. Freeman: “The more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know — <S> the less you know <S> , the more you think you know.” <S> Someone using the words in conversation (as in your example with Alex and Jim) without sarcasm might mean something like that, or maybe just something like <S> "Oh, I didn't know that." <S> If someone intend a sarcastic remark, that would reverse the meaning. <S> The conclusion would still be the same words, but intended sarcastically to convey that the information did not actually make the listener better-off. <A> This has the same meaning as: <S> The more you know , the more you'll understand. <S> which may be more understandable. <S> It means that Jim just learned something new and increased his knowledge. <S> Now he knows more than he did before. <S> Writing it as: <S> The more you know . <S> emphasizes the knowledge learned rather than the person(s) learning it. <S> More recently it has become a catch-phrase for advertising how knowledgeable some company is. <A> It seems to me this curious phrase--which sounds at once self-sufficient and unfinished--implies the following phrase to formally finish it: the more insight you have into the nature of things. <S> The problem stems in that the inclusiveness of the original phrase makes it possible for speakers of our language to take it to mean largely different things. <S> Someone with influence in our language could help to standardize the meaning of the phrase.
| The phrase is so unclear that it's anyone's guess what someone means by it, or whether he means much at all.
|
About this sentence I am so doubtful about the sentence.Because I think that could mean both. One is, most people know well, that someone cut my hair.The other is, I think it is possible in that the verb 'get' does mean just to transform a situation to another, that I cut my hair so that the hair was from a long to a short. So we ought to write like this 'I cut my hair' to avoid misunderstanding it to the other case. <Q> I wouldn't worry about confusing anyone by that phrasing. <A> "I got my hair cut" is standard and implies that someone else cut your hair at your request. <S> "I cut my own hair" means you cut it yourself. <S> A third possibility, that is, I think, what you are talking about in your second meaning, is "my hair got cut". <S> This is the passive voice and doesn't say anything about who did it. <S> However, since the other two sentences are standard, this construction implies that some other thing happened. <S> E.g. someone cut your hair while you slept. <S> If there was some way that your hair could get shorter by itself, it could mean that, but I can't think of how that could happen. <A> Whenever I doubt a phrase, I often think it's helpful to see it alongside similar phrases. <S> So I got my hair cut at the weekend. <S> Who cut the hair? <S> Probably the barber or someone, but that doesn't matter and the sentence isn't explicit about who did it. <S> His parents withhold his pocket money until he gets his household chores done <S> Who is eventually going to do those chores? <S> Probably the boy, but there's nothing to say he won't manipulate a younger sibling into doing it. <S> After a long struggle with the rusty lock, we finally got that door opened <S> Who opened the door? <S> I don't know. <S> It might even have swung open by itself once we cut the lock off. <S> My computer has been running so slowly lately; I think I need to get it serviced. <S> Who's going to look at the computer? <S> The sentence doesn't say. <S> You say you think <S> the verb 'get' does mean just to transform a situation to another . <S> I don't agree with that: this construction seems to be about obviating the agency and making more a point of the accomplishment.
| "I got my hair cut" is the standard and natural way to express that I "got someone to cut my hair".
|
meaning of the word "grounding" in context Some think your family allows you to stay connected to the person you once were, and if you are not that person anymore, that connection can be grounding, and valuable. I looked up the word "grounding" in loads of dictionaries, but still have no idea what it means in the sentence. <Q> grounding here means to be psychologically well. <S> The expression is to be grounded. <S> However, in that sentence it is a little confusing. <S> Connecting to family is grounding. <S> Usually used in the passive but here it is used actively: To ground someone=to give a person a sense of well-being <S> Swimming grounds me. <S> I feel grounded when I swim. <S> Swimming is grounding for me. <S> All those mean <S> : Swimming gives me a sense of well-being. <S> The image is connection to the ground, as opposed to: being up in the air. <A> The term usually takes the form "grounded". <S> It refers to the metaphorical senses of "ground": connected, solid, fixed, based in reality, purposeful, sense of meaning. <S> It contrasts with out-of-touch, in a bubble, isolated, flighty, fanciful, unmoored, wandering. <A> When evaluating a person who will be working as a caretaker for young children, you should carefully assess whether they are psychologically grounded. <S> That which helps produce, or is conducive to, such a grounded state of mind can be called grounding , just as that which produces a state of alarm can be called alarming .
| grounded in psychological and emotional contexts refers to a stable, rational state-of-mind.
|
Past perfect with before-clause I don't get the difference , why in first example we use past simple, and in the second past perfect. " He decided to get a present for his children before he left Rome" " He began apologizing before I had paid the driver " <Q> the before term indicates an action that was done prior to a previously stated action. <S> so he paid before the other person apologised, <S> in such a time sequence we use past perfect for the action that occurred before in the past(both actions were done in the past butt quote not at the same moment back then) <A> As you have been learning from your similar questions, the perfect tenses present an action as one that has been completed. <S> One action's completed state can serve as a relative point of reference against which other actions are situated in time. <S> Other time-phrases (e.g. "before", "after" and so forth) can serve much the same purpose. <S> Time-phrases can work in tandem with the perfect tenses, in which case they corroborate each other. <S> But if the time phrases alone are clear enough in context, speakers will often use the simple past: the idea is readily understood without the temporal information supplied by the perfect. <S> He decided to get a present for his children before he left simple past Rome. <S> He began apologizing before I had paid past perfect the driver. <S> In the first sentence above, the time-word before clearly is sufficient to present the simple idea that his decision to buy a present occurred earlier than his departure from Rome. <S> In the second sentence above, the idea is not as simple. <S> Notice that the sentence is trying to situate one action-in-progress relative to another not-yet-complete action. <S> Let's look at the time-information supplied by the sentence: <S> He {began apologizing} { <S> before} I {had paid} the driver. <S> The act of apology began and progressed BEFORE the driver had been paid. <S> Expressing this idea, which involves an action in progress in relation to a yet to be finished action, is a far more complex undertaking than expressing the simple fact that "one action happened earlier than another action", which we have in the first sentence about Rome. <S> Situational nuances are being presented there: the person apologizing did not wait for the payment of the driver to be completed. <S> We don't have the full context, but he is apparently so eager to apologize that his apology interrupts, or at the very least occurs during, the action of paying the driver. <A> Forexample:I had completed my home work before I went school. <S> but some grammarians lik"Michael Swan say that past perfect is not necessary when the conjuctions before and after are used. <S> So the first sentence " He decided to get a present for hischildren before he left Rome" is correct <S> Similarly' He had decided to get a present for his children before he left Rome' <S> is also correct <S> The second sentence is rather confusingi so if it is rephrased the meaning becomes clear <S> I think it should be rephrased as <S> "I had paid the driver before he began apologizingor <S> I paid the driver before <S> he began apologizing <S> I paid the driver is the first activity <S> He began apologizing <S> is the second activity <S> Then the sentence means you (had)paid before he began apologizing He began apologizing before you paid is possible if apology happened before the payment or He had begun apologizing before I paid the driver means the same thing <S> your second sentence seems vague
| When we talk about two activities we use the past perfect for the first activity and simple past for the second activity.
|
Present Perfect versus Past Tense when relevancy of is still given, but time clue given as well I have read on this site the discussion about when to use Present Perfect versus when to use Simple Past. The cases explained are all clear and seem unproblematic to me, but what about the following: A: Peter, have you answered David's mail? B: Yes, I have answered that mail already yesterday / Yes, I answered that mail already yesterday. The problem here is: on one hand, there is a TIME CLUE indicating the past ("yesterday" => Simple Past?), but the fact that the mail has been answered is STILL RELEVANT at the time of speaking, which suggests that Present Perfect should be used. Further: I HAVE (?) learned in school (many years ago, but that is still relevant!) that "already" is often an indicator of Present Perfect. On the other hand, I have learned that you don't use Present Perfect when the event is (has been?) finished in the past and a time (indicating that this (has?) happened in the past) is given, or the word "ago" is used. So which is correct? <Q> Actually this is less about grammar and more about intention . <S> The present perfect, in general, indicates an ongoing condition. <S> Phrasing the question in the present perfect implies that the task may not yet be complete . <S> On the other hand, the simple past indicates a complete condition. <S> If I want to emphasize that some task is complete , I use the simple past: A: <S> Dave, have you finished the report I need for the big meeting? <S> B: <S> Yes John, I did finish it <S> -- it's been on your desk for the past three hours. <S> This doesn't have the same emphasis as the simple past, but that usually makes little difference: <S> B: <S> Yes, I have finished it. <S> Let me print you a copy. <S> or, if it's not yet complete. <S> B: <S> No, I haven't finished it yet. <S> Give me another half hour <S> and I'll get it to you. <S> Side note: if you use the present perfect, you don't need "already". <S> You can use "already" with the simple past, again to emphasize that it's done : <S> Yes, I already finished it. <S> Please stop asking me. <S> As for dialect: I am a native American speaker, but if the British (or Australians) say this differently, I'm sure they'll let me know :) <A> The choice of present perfect or past simple depends on whether whether you are talking about the state at the present or on an occurence in the past . <S> Saying "Yes, I have answered that mail already" is a statement about the present. <S> It is equivalent to as of now, the mail has been answered . <S> If you add "yesterday" to this phrase it sounds odd; you are supposed to talk about the present, not about the past. <S> The common thinking about present perfect as a "kind of past tense" is due to the fact that it describes a state of completed action. <S> Of course, the completed action took part in the past; but using present perfect emphasizes the completeness. <S> In contrast, using past simple is sort of telling the other person about a past event. <S> You are not emphasizing the completed action, you are not talking about the present. <S> You can follow it with another event that followed: "I answered this mail yesterday, and I also called David and made sure he was satisfied". <S> I am not a native English speaker <S> but I speak, read, write and edit English at a professional level. <S> I communicate with speakers of different English dialects, as well as non-native speakers, and in my experience usage of perfect does not depend on dialects as much as it depends on the general skill in the language. <S> You can find American English speakers as well as British, Australians and Indians that use perfect in the same way (perfectly) when they speak or write at a high level. <S> When it comes to non-native speakers it is less common (or sometimes used too much, with some German speakers). <S> There may be difference between dialects in colloquial usage that I'm not aware of. <S> The canonical post about the perfect in this web site is a great resource, if you haven't read it yet. <A> The time-phrase in a present perfect construction must not exclude the present. <S> yesterday excludes the present and is thus incompatible with the present perfect. <S> Yesterday + simple past. <S> An explicit time phrase trumps relevancy. <S> Relevancy-to-present is just a phrase used when trying to explain to learners the present perfect's use in the absence of a time phrase.
| It's fine to use the present perfect to refer to a complete task, if you want to mirror the verb tense of the question (a common practice in English).
|
usage of "not only...but also" can I use "not only...but also" in the following sentences without "also" 1- I like not only strawberries but (also) bananas. 2- We walked through the hills not only when it was sunny, but (also) when it was raining. 3- The government was not only effective in lowering taxes, but (also) helped to reduce unemployment through careful measures. 4- It was not only fun, but (also) educational. 5- They were not only friendly, but (also) helpful. <Q> In the construction, "not only x but also y ", y adds to x . <S> In the construction, " <S> not only x but y ", y extends x . <S> "We were offered not only strawberries, but also bananas." <S> but also (heh-heh) <S> "The paper was not only crumpled but soiled and torn." <S> In the latter situation, "not just" is more common than "not only". <S> "My cheap thesaurus is not only terrible, but also terrible." (old joke) <A> I am not sure there is a hard and fast rule about the "not only... but also" construction, but my instinct when looking at your example sentences is that only #2 is completely natural without the "also" included, while 1, 3, 4, and 5 are various degrees of weird. <S> So if we examine what makes #2 different, I'd say that it's the fact that, in number two, the two ideas being contrasted – "sunny" and "raining" – are very close to direct opposites. <S> If you read "not only when it was sunny," you can reasonably guess how the sentence will end, even if you're not totally sure which word it will be (rainy? <S> cloudy? <S> overcast? <S> gloomy?). <S> Contrast that against #1, where we are comparing strawberries and bananas. <S> It could plausibly say "I like not only strawberries but also Ferraris. <S> " I'd posit that that's the reason #1 sounds not just unnatural but actually ungrammatical to me. <S> Sentence 3 suffers from a similar problem as #1 in that we can't really make a guess what the end of the sentence will be by reading only the first half because governments can be helpful for many different things. <S> Sentences 4 and 5 are somewhere in the middle in terms of naturalness. <S> The fun vs educational dichotomy in #4 is common enough that that sentence sounds decent enough to me, but still just a bit weird. <S> Similarly #5 <S> I think is fairly sensible, but just slightly unnatural. <S> I'd say both 4 and 5 are grammatical but unnatural. <A> You can't omit "also", no. <S> You would still be understood, but it wouldn't really make sense. <S> The word "but" contrasts two things. <S> In the first example, you are not contrasting strawberries and bananas. <S> You are contrasting "not only" with "also". <A> Sentences 4 and 5 can have "also" omitted. <S> The reason for it is straightforward when you think about it. <S> When you describe an object using multiple adjectives, you can combine them using conjunction "and". <S> For instance, take the following sentence: <S> The apple was juicy and delicious. <S> Juice and delicious both describe the apple, but more importantly, the "and" used to combine them is not bridging two clauses or sentences together. <S> It is strictly being used to combine adjectives. <S> The apple was sour but delicious. <S> It is in this case that "also" can be omitted, because in that case, it is auxilliary. <S> In your other sentences, it is not being used to bridge two adjectives, so the also is needed to suggest that the contrast is to say "yes, this, but in addition to this also this". <S> In other words, you're adding emphasis that there is more than one <S> so the "also" is needed.
| Just like "and" to combine adjectives, you can use "but" to combine adjectives which starkly contrast one another. First off, bananas are one of a zillion fruits; second, there's no such thing as opposite of strawberries (besides no strawberries); and finally, depending on the context, the second half of the sentence might not even need to be about another fruit at all.
|
Which one is more correct "had been stabbed" or "was stabbed"? Can we report the matter as below? Which one is more correct by using Simple past (was stabbed) or Past perfect (had been stabbed)? Four persons were arrested by the police on Tuesday for the murder of a scrap dealer's son, XYZ (25), who had been stabbed to death on the terrace of a market complex building on the night of October 1. Four persons were arrested by Ghaziabad police on Tuesday for the murder of a scrap dealer's son, Farmaan (25), who was stabbed to death on the terrace of a market complex building on the night of October 1. (Source: Article in The Times of India ) <Q> In my opinion, the correct choice in this particular case is past simple. <S> The reason is that the stabbing is described as a separate event that took place on the night of October 1 . <S> It is not a simple background of the arrest. <S> Another way to look at it is that past perfect describes a state of completeness in the past, rather than an event in the past. <S> If you say "he had been stabbed six hours ago", it means that six hours ago he was already wounded; the stabbing supposedly occurred at some unspecified time before that. <S> Except of conditional statements (which sometimes use past perfect for another reason), past perfect almost always carries a sense of "already". <S> In the text you quoted, I think this "already" would not make too much sense, so past perfect should not be used. <S> Looking at the comments, I realize that some speakers would use the perfect in this case, and it would probably be understood just the same. <S> However, consider good rule-of-thumb defined in the Canonical Post about the Perfect is "Don’t use the perfect unless you need it. <S> " There is no hard-and-fast rule, but look at that post to see how sentences can sometimes be formed with past simple and still convey the order of events. <S> In my opinion, the given sentence is clearly understood using past simple, and the past perfect is not needed. <S> As a counter-example, I think it would be adequate to use the perfect to describe the actions/events of the suspects that directly led to the arrest, such as <S> The four persons who were arrested by the police on Tuesday had been under surveillance by the police for several weeks . <A> Both are grammatically correct. <S> The choice is a matter of style. <S> The past-perfect version gives the additional information that the stabbing happened before the arrest. <S> In context, this is probably redundant but it is easy to imaging a situation in which it could be an important fact. <S> It could be argued that the past-simple version is better because it is, well, simpler while giving the same information. <S> Personally, I think the past-perfect version gives a better sense of the chronology of events. <A> That seems to me as a matter of style, where I would choose the first example and use the past perfect. <S> When you talk about past events, you may want your to convey, that one of these past events you mention actually took place prior to the other past events. <S> Attempting to mimic the OP example: I got into the bedroom <S> and I saw my wife under the bed. <S> She was stabbed to death. <S> I got into the bedroom <S> and I saw my wife under the bed. <S> She had been stabbed to death. <S> The simple past version describes the past events unfolding in a chronological order, which the narrator wants them revealed in. <S> The past perfect version also reveals them in chronological order, but differentiates the last event mentioned, as having taken place before the other past events happened. <S> In the OP's simple past example it is pretty clear from the context, that the stabbing happened prior to the arrest, but you could use the past perfect version instead to indicate this even further. <S> Modern fiction makes extensive use of the simple past because it gives a strong sense of the action unfolding as you read.
| When you utilize the past perfect, it conveys the feeling, that the action have already taken place and now you are reading about it.
|
What is "are you"? What is " are you " in the question "Are you going to the beach?" I thought it might be a verb phrase but when I looked up the definition of this type of phrase in the WJEC A Level English Language terminology glossary it says "A phrase made up of a single lexical verb, or up to four auxiliaries and a lexical verb" Examples given along with the definition are: "follows, was following, should have been following, may have been being followed". <Q> Are is the sentence's verb, the head word of the verb phrase are going . <S> You is the sentence's subject. <S> The order is V-S instead of S-V because it's a question. <A> "be going to" is a pattern or idiom in English language. <S> It means, that something will be done for sure. <S> "am", "is", "are" - are forms of the verb "to be": <S> I am (not I be), You/ <S> We/ <S> They are (not you/we/they be) and He/ <S> She <S> / <S> It is (not He/ <S> She <S> /It be) <S> For example: I am going to the beach. <S> -- I strongly intend to go to the beach. <S> She is going to the beach. <S> You are going to the beach. <S> According to the English rules to form an interrogative question we should situate a main verb at the first place, but after a question word. <S> In the sentences above the main verbs are: "am", "is", "are". <S> So, the interrogative questions are: Am I going to the beach? <S> Is she going to the beach? <S> Are you going to the beach? <A> Simplified tree diagram: <S> The clause exhibits subject-auxiliary inversion, as expected in this kind of interrogative construction. <S> The auxiliary verb "are" is treated as a pre-nucleus related to the predicator which is represented by 'gap' in the nucleus clause, with both items cross-referenced with the subscript index i . <S> This may all seem a bit complex, but the tree is useful for analysing the functions of the subject and auxiliary verb in such interrogatives
| We use the verb "are" with "you" regardless you address to a single person or to several people.
|
The giraffe ear is fell off "The giraffe ear is fell off ." my son told me. One of the ear of giraffe wall sticker is fell off. What do we say for this? The rest (giraffe's body) is still sticking on the wall. Only part of its ear is dropping. <Q> The giraffe's ear is falling off . <S> or The giraffe's ear has fallen off . <S> You can also say: The giraffe's ear is coming off . <S> or The giraffe's ear has come off . <S> To be accurate, you wouldn't say something has fallen off (or come off ) unless it was completely separated from whatever it was attached to. <S> But kids are not always as precise with their language. <S> (Edit): <S> Also (as per BruceWayne's comment) <S> The giraffe's ear fell off . <S> The giraffe's ear came off . <A> Or, in the possessive form, The giraffe's ear is loose . <S> Describing the attachment, or lack thereof, between the two components. <S> You can also use the word detaching , but it has other connotations if not entirely unsuitable denotation. <A> The giraffe's ear has not fallen off, it is still stuck, precariously, onto its head. <S> If it had fallen off it would have landed on the floor. <S> Perhaps the child meant to say it is about to fall off . <S> another way of describing this endearing zoological feature is to say: <S> The giraffe's ear is lopsided Oxford Dictionaries state that lopsided means (emphasis mine): <S> “ With one side lower or smaller than the other.” <S> synonyms include: unsymmetrical, uneven, unevenly balanced, unbalanced, off-balance, off-centre, unequal, askew, skew, skewed, squint, tilted, tilting, crooked, sloping, slanted, aslant, one-sided, out of true, out of line, to one side, awry. <A> Does this help? <S> One of the ears of <S> my giraffe wall sticker has fallen off. <S> Or if you want to say only part of the ear has fallen off: Part of one of the ears of my giraffe wall sticker has fallen off. <A> When stickers, paint, wallpaper, posters, and other such flat things that are stuck to walls come partially unstuck, native English speakers would usually say that they are peeling off the wall. <S> The verb fall off <S> is reserved for when the object has come completely unstuck and is now on the floor/ground below where it used to be. <S> (In the case of paint, wallpaper, and other things that are intended to cover the entire wall, we say "peeling off" even when there are bits on the floor, because usually the entire wall hasn't lost its covering.) <S> In your case, we would say "the giraffe's ear has peeled off the wall" but "the giraffe sticker is peeling off the wall". <S> Also, adult native speakers would only say that the ear has fallen off if it has detached from the rest of the sticker . <S> The entire sticker can fall off the wall, but the ear by itself can't fall off without either taking the rest of the sticker with it, or tearing away. <S> But we might say that the ear has fallen down if we wanted to emphasize its new position rather than how it got that way (peeling off the wall). <A> I like the suggestion of The giraffe's ear is coming off . <S> In this case I would stick with the present continuous (not came off) because the ear isn't all the way off the wall: it's still attached, either by part of the ear or by the rest of the giraffe. <S> If it eventually tears away from the rest of the giraffe so it's completely gone then <S> came off would be more appropriate. <S> If you wanted to be more specific about the fact that this is a sticker , you could also use the verb peel , again in the present continuous: <S> The giraffe's ear is peeling off (the wall). <S> Personally, because it's a sticker, I would probably say The giraffe's ear has come unstuck . <S> Or The giraffe's ear is coming unstuck . <S> With "come unstuck" you can use the present perfect, because the unsticking of the ear started in the past, and still is in effect now. <S> You could also use the present continuous because only part of the ear is unstuck, but more might be losing its sticky as we speak. <S> The first is better if you want to emphasize that the ear is detached from the wall, and the second is better if you want to emphasize that it's only part of the ear. <S> I wouldn't really expect a young child to use "come unstuck", though, especially in the perfect form. <S> (It might sound especially felicitous to me because of the famous line <S> " Listen: <S> Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. " ) <S> A more casual alternative that would probably work for a child is to use the verb <S> unstick : <S> The giraffe's ear is unsticking (from the wall).
| The ear on the giraffe is loose .
|
Common names for shoes, which are used in the house I was looking in the dictionary for the name of usual indoor shoes which are used by kids in the house. I found 'slippers'. The explanation of the term is in relation to the attributes. Therefore it seems inappropriate to describe flip-flops as slippers. Flip-flops are pretty common in Germany in the house during summer. Is there a name which includes all different kind of shoes, which are worn in the house? What are some examples for pretty common shoes used inside the house during summer or winter? <Q> I expect the answer to this question is based on environment and personal experience. <S> In my opinion, slippers is the best term in English for the German "home/house shoes". <S> A common trope in some older 1950s <S> American TV shows was to have the "man of the family" come home from work, sit down in his favorite chair, change into his slippers , smoke his pipe, read the newspaper, and wait for supper to be ready. <S> "Flip-flops" (named I think for the sound they make when you walk in them) are a variety of slipper, especially when worn inside the house. <S> Similar shoes meant to be worn outside would be called "sandals", especially if made of sturdy material. <S> Otherwise there is no generic term for "shoes you wear inside the house". <S> A slipper is a slipper, not a sneaker/trainer. <A> In the UK, "slippers" are normally made from a soft material, not at all waterproof, and so unsuitable for outdoor use. <S> However, there are other kinds of "comfortable" shoes that individuals may choose to make their "house shoes" by wearing them exclusively indoors, even though other people may use them outdoors. <S> Flip-flops you mentioned. <S> "Crocs", also sometimes referred to as "clogs" or "sabos" are another. <S> There are also "house socks", sometimes called "bed socks" which are more like thick socks than shoes but are worn around the house instead of slippers. <S> As these latter types of footwear I mentioned are only "house shoes" out of personal preference, you would be better using a broad term like "house shoes" or "slippers" to get your point accross. <A> In the UK we would just say slippers - for me this includes flipflops
| "Slippers" is the most common term for what are sometimes more broadly known as " house shoes ".
|
Help to understand the sentence What's the main clause for the sentence below in bold? North Korea has been linked to other hackings. Among the most notable targeted Sony Pictures in 2014 as it was releasing "The Interview," a comedy about an assassination attempt on Kim. More recently, the WannaCry ransomware attack targeted hospitals across the United Kingdom. North Korea has denied involvement in any of the hacks and attacks. <Q> This is an example of nominal ellipsis . <S> A noun has been left out by the author and must be inferred from the context. <S> The prepositional phrase , "Among the most notable [hackings]" is the subject. <S> The verb of the main clause is "targeted" and its direct object is "Sony Pictures. <S> " The remainder of the sentence includes an adverbial phrase "in 2014 as it was releasing The Interview " and an appositive , "a comedy about an assassination attempt on Kim." <A> This sentence seems to be shortened from a full sentence, something like North Korea has been linked to other hackings. <S> Among the most notable [ones] targeted Sony Pictures in 2014 as it was releasing "The Interview," a comedy about an assassination attempt on Kim. <S> Or even better North Korea has been linked to other hackings. <S> Among the most notable [ones is the one that] targeted Sony Pictures in 2014 as it was releasing "The Interview," a comedy about an assassination attempt on Kim. <S> In other words, one of the most notable hackings is the one that targeted Sony Pictures. <S> Words are sometimes omitted for brevity, but in this case the sentence does become somewhat obscure. <A> Based on the answers of Gossar and laugh , now I incline to interpret/complete the sentence as: <S> [One] among the most notable [hackings] targeted Sony Pictures in 2014 as it was releasing "The Interview", a comedy about an assassination attempt on Kim. <S> So, the main clause is: [One] among the most notable [hackings] targeted Sony Pictures in 2014. <S> with the subject [one] among the most notable [hackings]
| The main clause is "Among the most notable [ones is the one that] targeted Sony Pictures"; but I assume this is not too important for understanding the meaning.
|
Was or Were, what to use? As though he were praying. As though he was praying. Which is the correct one? What is the difference? <Q> [1] As though he were praying . <S> [2] As though he was praying . <S> Both are correct and equally acceptable, so it is a free choice. <S> Some people call the “were” in [1] the past subjunctive. <S> But that is quite wrong since it is not a past tense form of “be” at all, but a distinct mood form unique to “be” called ‘irrealis’, used to convey varying degrees of remoteness from factuality. <S> Irrealis “were” is unique to “be” and limited to 1st and 3rd person singular. <S> It’s an untidy relic of an earlier system and some speakers usually, if not always, use the less formal preterite (past tense) “was” instead, as in [2]. <A> Both are used: <S> As though he were praying. <S> As though he was praying. <S> However, some speakers consider the was form less acceptable in formal use. <S> According to Oxford Living Dictionaries , the subjunctive is used (among other places) "after if (or as if, as though, unless ) in hypotheses or comparisons", for example: If that were so, things would be very different. <S> It was as if Sally were disturbed in some way. <S> His voice strained as though he were walking on a wire above a pit of sharks. <S> The site comments that: The indicative may also be used <S> , i.e. was instead of were , in all the examples above, but the subjunctive arguably conveys the hypothetical sense more forcefully. <A> Were and was are both past forms of to be and most of the time can be translated from the present is/are to the past was/were. <S> There are some constructions that require the subjunctive, e.g. Were he weary, he would not be walking so fast or <S> If he were weary, he ... , where using was is not possible (to be correct grammar). <S> In all other circumstances, such as this, was is an acceptable standard alternative to the subjunctive were . <S> In this case, either can be used. <S> As though he were praying and As though he was praying are both acceptable.
| This construction with as though means that the subjunctive form could be used, thus As though he were praying is correct. Though the third-person singular form is usually was , the form were is used as a subjunctive form when referring to unreal or hypothetical conditions - including with the phrase "as though".
|
Are these infinitive and gerund clauses? Are these infinitive and gerund clauses? He agreed to give him the ball - Here in this sentence, the infinitive clause is "to give him the ball" which is the object of the verb "agreed"? Am I right? He has problems repairing his car - Here in this sentence, the gerund clause is "repairing his car" and it acts as an adverb to "has". Did I understand the things correctly? Or there is something wrong? <Q> [1] <S> He agreed [ to give him the ball ]. <S> [2] <S> He has problems [ repairing his car ]. <S> The bracketed non-finite clauses are neither objects nor adverbs. <S> These are both catenative constructions. " <S> Agree" and "have" are catenative verbs and <S> the bracketed non-finite clauses are their catenenative complements. <S> The term 'catentative' is derived from the Latin word for 'chain', for the construction consists of a 'chain' of verbs in which all except the last have a non-finite complement. <A> He agreed to give him the ball You are correct. " <S> He has problems repairing his car <S> This one is less clear. <S> I would consider "repairing his car" to be a participial phrase acting as an adjective and modifying "problems." <S> I believe you could also make the case that "repairing his car" is a gerund phrase acting as a noun and an appositive to "problems" but I think the first is more likely. <S> A few comments. <S> I've never heard of an infinitive or gerund clause. <S> In English grammar when I learned it, "clauses" were sentence units with subjects and predicates (verbs) and "phrases" were sentence units without predicates. <S> Since infinitives and gerunds do not behave as verbs (remember, they are considered nouns), it is proper to call them "phrases". <S> Gerunds and infinitives are always nouns and therefore cannot behave adverbially. <S> If an -ing word seems to be behaving as an adverb or an adjective, it is called a "participle". <A> Infinitive phrases can function adverbially, contrary to what was stated above. <S> Consider, for example <S> , this sentence: He took grammar to improve his language skills. <S> The infinitive phrase "to improve his language skills" is adverbial, modifying the main verb "took." <S> The best test for an adverbial infinitive phrase is to insert the words "in order" in front of it, i.e., He took grammar (in order) to improve his language skills.
| To give him the ball" is an infinitive phrase that is acting as a noun and is the direct object of the verb "agreed".
|
I miss the old bus When I was a child, the woody old bus usually comes to our village. I want to say that I miss that old bus, something like I miss someone or something. But can it also mean that I didn't catch to see the old bus? I missed to see it? How to make these two meaning a bit more clear when I talk to someone? <Q> There's really nothing you need to change. <S> Many words in English have multiple meanings, and native speakers become quite used to figuring out from context which is intended: <S> I missed the bus means you didn't get on it. <S> The past tense establishes <S> this is an action that has already happened , and by default, the listener will interpret this as "I failed to catch the bus". <S> English speakers use the present tense to describe regular or repeated action. <S> Something like <S> I often miss the bus <S> (because my alarm is broken) would not be ambiguous, especially with "often", as that establishes the frequency of the action. <S> A native speaker will know this means you regularly fail to catch the bus. <S> However if you say something like: <S> I miss the (old) bus <S> any native <S> should know you intend the other meaning, " <S> I have fond memories of the (old) bus". <S> In this context, there is no adverb to establish frequency, plus the use of "old" establishes you are talking about something you remember . <S> Naturally this is not foolproof. <S> For example: I missed my friend. <S> Does this mean you failed to meet up with your friend, or that you used to have fond memories of your friend? <S> We don't know without context: <S> I missed my friend so much <S> (I got her a job in our home town so she would move back.) <S> The "so much" is enough to establish we're talking about nostalgia or longing to see someone. <S> I <S> just missed my friend (at the train station -- she left right before I arrived.) <S> The "just" is enough to establish a the time frame, and indicate that you failed to meet up with your friend. <A> The word miss has multiple meanings. <S> The present of miss is used to indicate the feeling of absence. <S> I miss those old buses. <S> The past form of miss is used to indicate being late for the bus, meeting, etc. <S> I missed the bus in the morning. <S> It gets a bit tricky if you want to express the feeling that you felt in the past. <S> I would do it by adding a time period to indicate that it was not a single occurrence of missing a bus. <S> I 've been missing such old buses for a long time. <A> The idiom you want for the first sentence is: <S> When I was a child, the woody old bus used to come to our village. <S> That characterizes the bus' visits as something which happened often in the past but no longer happens. <S> If you now cast miss in the present tense, the contrast of tenses will make it clear which sense of miss you intend, since the bus is no longer present to be missed in the other sense: I miss that old bus. <A> So you're right, if you have: <S> I missed the bus <S> This can mean two things - that you had some memories of the bus that make you feel you want to see it again, or that you arrived too late to ride the bus and it was gone. <S> Often the right one is clear through the context of the conversation. <S> By adding a verb it immediately becomes clear. <S> Also by adding a verb you are explaining more about what you missed. <S> For example: I missed seeing the bus Could also be: <S> I missed riding the bus <S> Or: <S> I missed waving to the bus driver <S> Because 'I missed the bus' is very general and doesn't go into specifics. <S> I should also explain the difference between miss and missed. <S> I miss the bus. <S> Means that you have a feeling about wanting to see the bus again. <S> I missed the bus. <S> Means either as above, that you didn't get on the bus because you were late (or similar reason), <S> OR, it means that you finally saw the bus again so your desire came true. <S> A better example of this: I miss my friend. <S> I haven't seen my friend for a long time. <S> I wonder if he is okay? <S> I missed my friend. <S> I haven't seen my friend for a long time, and I wondered if he was okay, but today I saw him again.
| If you want to make it clear though you can say: I missed seeing the bus
|
Do I need the "that"s in the following sentence? He reconstructed the wall with bricks (that) people had given her before, but (that) she had refused to fit together. Do I need the "that"'s? Why or why not? <Q> Yes, I would use the "that"s. <S> However, this is a question of what can be left out -- which is not governed by hard and fast rules. <S> The first "that": Definitely use it, because otherwise the reader is going to trip over the words "bricks people. <S> " It can sound odd when quickly reading, someone built a wall with "bricks people," like "lego blocks. <S> " This is an example of using "that" to separate words so they don't sound like an odd phrase. <S> In the second case, "that" is also helpful. <S> Here are suggestions: "He reconstructed the wall with bricks that people had given her before, but that she had refused to use." <S> Or "He reconstructed the wall with bricks that she had been given but refused to use." <A> I'll disagree as a (fellow) native speaker with user8356's answer. <S> Personally my choice would be to omit the first "that" but include the second. <S> He reconstructed the wall with bricks people had given her before, but that she had refused to fit together. <A> Hmm i thik that putting ''that'' or not putting it is correct. <S> You can say this :'' <S> He reconstructed the wall with bricks that people had given her before, but she had refused to fit together.''
| You would be widely understood with any combination or omission, but I always find that sentences flow better with variation, and "but that" (or "but which") to me better directs a followup comment towards something you've just mentioned.
|
Will or would in future time Why in following news they use "she'd" and not "she will" to talking about the future ? And crucially, it's not clear how far she'd actually go in criticising Vladimir Putin himself, a close family friend since her childhood. <Q> and/or if that thing does occur, the nature or extent of it cannot be known as a fact because it has not yet happened. <S> 'Will' is imperative, i.e. it refers to something that has certain intention or for which the result can be predicted with certainty. <A> It depends on the context, would is used: to talk about the past. <S> to talk about hypotheses – things that are imagined rather than true. <S> for politeness. <S> It means that: for some reasons they've imagined , she misplaces her id card <S> , she would found it. <S> I don't know how she'd react if I did that. <S> she'd actually go in criticising Vladimir <A> The " 'd " in question is referring to would. <S> Though it does sound like past tense, English speakers use would to talk about things in an 'if' context <S> For example, if I wanted to prank someone, but wasn't sure what her reaction would be, I could say <S> " I don't know how she'd react if I did that." <S> Because I am talking about what would happen after <S> I pranked her, we use the past tense <A> The answer above sums it up. <S> I am no English professor, and, when I approach the language, I tend to listen to my intuition. <S> Afterall, it would sound awkward if I were to say instead of the following: <S> "I don't know how she'd react if I did that." <S> With: "I don't know how she will react if I did <S> that" To a native speaker, the latter sounds a bit strange and most would prefer the sentence before. <S> However, if you do use "will" instead of "would," at least in this context, then your sentence would not be considered "grammatically incorrect."
| In the context of this question: 'Would' is conditional, i.e. it refers to something that may or may not occur
|
Technical English for HTTP This is a simple question but regarding a little bit more "Technical" english. It has been years since I have worked with HTTP (web) so I have forgotten. In a client-server system you can "Post" and "Get" information to and from a Server. One is from client to server, the other from server to client. When you request information from the server (with GET) you call that a "request" How do you call when you send information to the server (with POST)? I can't recall the correct word... EDIT:Just in case, rather than a question about HTTP (which should go to So or sites like this) this is a question centered on finding a english word that sounds natural for english speakers. The theme is HTTP, yes, but the point is I am translating a document in japanese to english which uses "Youkyu" (request) for GET and "Tsuchi"(notification, Report) for POST. I am going for "Submission". How about that? Does it sound correct? <Q> POST and GET are two HTTP request methods. <S> A google search returned me this post in Stack Overflow as the first result. <S> POST and GET are two HTTP request methods. <S> GET is usually intended to retrieve some data, and is expected to be idempotent (repeating the query does not have any side-effects) and can only send limited amounts of parameter data to the server. <S> GET requests are often cached by default by some browsers if you are not careful. <S> POST is intended for changing the server state. <S> It carries more data, and repeating the query is allowed (and often expected) to have side-effects such as creating two messages instead of one. <A> Technically, POST is a 'request' (as is everything in HTTP) but most commonly I see the word itself used, e.g. "POSTing data" or "POSTed data" or " <S> POST this to the server". <S> Often, though, the actual mechanism is ignored, so an author might talk about "form submission" without mentioning POST, since it can be inferred. <A> Because with GET request actually you are preparing a form for a client with some predefined options to be submitted by the client! <S> So for a returning POST request you can easily say "submitted request" .
| As a computer programmer, I would like to suggest usage of: Submitted Request
|
What is the difference between opposite and against? When pushed, this push switch generates a reaction force opposite (opposing) / against a force applied to it, protecting it from an excessive applied force. I would like to know which of "opposite / opposing" and "against" is suitable for the sentence above I created. As far as I searched, it seems that "against" is usually used in combination with real objects, such as walls and wind. <Q> In the sample sentence, both are valid terms. <A> I would write: <S> When pushed, this push switch generates a reaction force opposing the force applied to it, protecting it from an excessive applied force. <S> A force is more of an abstraction than a physical object. <S> So I would use opposing . <S> And I would use the , since it is specifically the result of the "push" already mentioned. <A> The dictionaries present the two words as write similar, without making a distinction. <S> From my point of view, the difference between them is the active / passive kind of action which they describe: <S> opposite / oppose - is more passive; e.g. a wall is opposing the force applied to it; the wall does not make an effort, it just refuses to comply; against - is a more active active attitude; e.g. people protest against (something); they use energy trying to cancel something they do not agree with. <S> When we speak about forces, either of opposite / against is (usually) OK, as the reference word (force) already makes clear that use of energy is involved.
| They both express the fact that the reaction force is contra to the force applied.
|
How can I identify "Indian" in the US? Christopher Colombus has made a big mistake and I am confused when I am told there is an Indian in the US because how do I know that is a real Indian from India now working in Silicon Valley or a real Indian living in this continent for many many years and never leaving? <Q> Usually, you can tell from the context of the conversation. <S> Yes, the Cleveland Indians is a classic example of using "Indians" to mean "Native Americans". <S> If I say, "We are playing cowboys and Indians", then you know which Indian it is. <S> I hear Indians all the time in the U.S. when referring to Native Americans, but the person usually says "American Indians" except when talking about the Cleveland Indians. <S> In fact, I'm wearing a Cleveland Indians shirt right now! <A> "Native American" might be a good term to use. <S> But be aware that almost any name could be construed as racist or insensitive. <S> You can read more at this Wikipedia article . <A> There is an ambiguity in words. <S> If someone says "American" does one include everyone from the continents of North and South America. <S> Does "Indian" include the whole Indian subcontinent, or only the modern state of India. <S> This is played for laughs in The Simpsons <S> Apu: I am no longer an Indian living in America; I am an Indian American. <S> Lisa: <S> You know what, Apu, in a way, all Americans are immigrants; except Native Americans. <S> Homer: <S> Yeah, native Americans like us. <S> Lisa: <S> No I mean American Indians. <S> It is normally not necessary to talk about someone's race. <S> On those rare occasions when it does become necessary you should use terms like "Native American", or "First Nation" in Canada. <S> If someone uses the term "Indian", it is probably clear from context which meaning is meant, or it doesn't matter. <S> Give this paper to Kat <S> Who's that? <S> She's the Indian woman in the end cubical. <S> There is an ambiguity, but it doesn't matter. <S> In fact the last speaker should have just said "She's in the last end cubical", as it wasn't necessary to mention Kat's ethnicity. <S> There may be very rare situations in which precision is needed. <S> In which case you can ask for clarification. <S> But note the warnings: <S> It is normally not necessary to discuss someone's race, and the ambiguity, if it arises, often doesn't matter.
| "Indian" is used for Native Americans, and people from (or descended from) India or the Indian subcontinent.
|
Plastic part on the tip of a shoelace What is the common English name for that " plastic part on the tip of a shoelace " which helps to easily insert the lace into the shoelace holes? (I'm not sure that's the correct name) . Edit: There are also metal parts of the kind. <Q> It's called an " aglet ". <S> a metal or plastic tag or sheath at the end of a lace used for tying, as of a shoelace. <S> I've known and used this term for years but whether it can be considered "commonly known" is up for debate. <S> It's certainly not unheard of. <A> "Aglet" is a good word and one that I didn't know, possibly more correct and specific (thanks <S> Catija) <S> but I have always heard them called a " ferrule ". <S> Generally it is a ring or tube reinforcing something prone to splitting or fraying. <A> While "aglet" is the technically correct term, it is one that many people do not know (as evidenced by how often this question is asked, even by native English speakers). <S> I would instead simply use the word "tip. <S> " If you need to specify, you can even say "shoelace tip." <S> I will also note that "ferrule" derives from "ferrous" which means "made of iron metal." <S> Hence the term "ferrule" is more often used for a metal tip.
| However, it is also an uncommon word, so I would actually just suggest saying "metal tip" or "metal ring," whichever is more appropriate. Sometimes it is heatshrink tubing applied to the end of a rope, sometimes a little aluminium tube squeezed onto the end of a bicycle's gear cable, sometimes the brass ring on the top of a chisel's wooden handle where it is struck by the mallet.
|
What does 'subjunctive recrimination' mean in this sentence? The following is from 'The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival' by John Vaillant The father did not cry and barely spoke, but in that silence, hooped and bound, he weathered a torrent of subjunctive recrimination that would only intensify with time. What does ' subjunctive ' here mean? I know what 'subjunctive mood' is in grammar so I am guessing 'subjunctive' here is along the lines of 'hypothetical', something to do with the father's guilt. Am I getting this right? <Q> I've got an answer from the author. <S> I messaged him some time ago, didn't really expect a reply though. <S> I was afraid he might think I am some kind of weirdo. <S> ( You never know these days) <S> But he messaged me back! <S> Thank you all of you who tried to help me! <A> Recrimination means a retaliatory accusation Subjunctive means "Relating to or denoting a mood of verbs expressing what is imagined or wished or possible" <A> Yes, I think I know what it means here. <S> I have never heard anyone use "subjunctive" as the adjective of "subjoin", however. <S> "To subjoin" something means "to append something at the end" or "to add or attach at the end of something spoken or written, etc." <S> This is the verb whence <S> we get the word "subjunctive. <S> " <S> Anyway, I think, in this instance, the author uses it figuratively to mean that the "recriminations" or "counter-accusations" are being added at the end, i.e. that somebody had made some accusations and then, in the end, a torrent of these "recriminations" came out of nowhere to be levelled against him. <S> That's my guess; it's an educated one, but I have no proof that that is what he's using it to mean because no dictionary that I could find has a definition of "subjunctive" as "of or relating to being subjoined"; I am just following the paradigm of other etymologically-similar words. <S> I hope that might have helped answer your question, nonetheless. <S> Take care and good luck in your studies.
| I think the author is using the word "subjunctive" as the adjective of the verb "subjoin" just as "adjunctive" is the adjective of "adjoin" and "conjunctive" is the adjective of "adjoin" and "disjunctive" is the adjective of "disjoin" and "injunctive" is the adjective of "enjoin".
|
100 apples are/is considered as a large number of apples Should I use is or are in this sentence? 100 apples are/is considered as a large number of apples. <Q> Subjects expressing periods of time, amounts of money, or quantities may take either singular or plural verbs depending on whether [they] represent a total amount or a number of individual units. <S> For example, "Four weeks is not enough vacation time" and "Two days have passed since I asked for your response." <S> (Section 2 paragraph 8 of source ) <S> In your example, as the complement ("a large number") is singular, the subject represents a total amount, and so is treated as a singular. <S> I would use is . <S> Compare that with 100 apples are rolling down the hill. <S> Here the 100 apples represents 100 individual units, so I use the plural. <S> The source notes that this is a tricky point, and there is variation among native speakers. <S> Rephrasing can avoid this issue: <S> One hundred is considered to be a large number of apples <S> We consider a hundred to be a large number of apples. <A> Both can be considered correct, but I think there are good reasons to prefer "is". <S> If you say "100 apples are [something]", there's an expectation that what you're saying applies to each apple individually. <S> For example, if I tell you "ten children are playing football", you'd expect me to be able to justify my claim by pointing at each of the children and saying, "That child is playing football." <S> However, if I say "100 apples are a large number", I can't point to any single apple and say "That apple is a large number. <S> " <S> Instead, you're implicitly talking about a single collection of apples. <S> The collection has the property of being a large number, but the individual apples don't. <A> One hundred is considered a large number of apples. <S> One hundred apples is considered a large number of apples. <S> One hundred would be considered a large number of apples. <S> A sentence should not begin with a numeral ("100"), but a word. <S> The verb ambiguity completely disappears if you remove the word "apples" from the beginning. <S> You can put "apples" back at the beginning if you want to, but it doesn't add anything to the meaning. <S> "Considered" or "considered to be" can be used here, but not "considered as". <S> Optional, but I would use the conditional tense "would be" if it's an opinion, or "is" only if I'm completely sure that people consider it a large number. <S> As a bonus, "would be" doesn't change for singular or plural, so you don't need to worry about the is/are distinction. <A> Here are some examples of how a plural noun has nothing to do with verb agreement when the subject is a single entity: 100 apples is a large number of apples. <S> (it's a singular thing called "100 apples") <S> That barrel of apples is full. <S> (Barrel is singular) <S> The number of apples you have is large. <S> (Number is singular) <S> The amount of apples in the warehouse is large. <S> (Amount is singular) <S> The 100 apples you have there are in a large pile. <S> (100 separate things are...) <S> 100 is a large number <S> (it's not 100 "ones," it's one thing named "100"). <S> The number 100 is large... <S> (again, a number is singular, no matter how high the count). <S> The orchestra (it) sounds great. <S> Its members (the players) play magnificently.
| Only "is" can fit, because it's talking about the number, and there is only one number here.
|
Can visibility be "gained" and "lost"? Is it appropriate to use the verbs "gain" and "lose " with the noun "visibility" ? If not, what can be used instead to describe something that can change its state from visible to hidden and vice versa? <Q> Some one can "gain visibility", but in the sense that you described I believe you are talking about some thing . <S> We would use "gain visibility" when talking about a person's visibility amongst senior management in a workplace, e.g. "giving the presentation enabled him to gain visibility with the directors", however it wouldn't be used for items/objects. <S> In your case I would suggest to use the phrases "to become visible" and "to become invisible" as this is more appropriate for items/objects. <A> Visibility has several definitions : 1 the state of being able to see or be seen. <S> 1.1 <S> the distance one can see as determined by light and weather conditions. <S> 1.2 <S> The degree to which something has attracted general attention; prominence. <S> An example that immediately comes to mind is with airplane pilots, who gain or lose visibility (def 1.1) when dealing with clouds or fog. <S> It's also not uncommon to talk about the visibility of people or public services, in terms of how well the public pays attention to what they are doing: Trump gained enormous visibility after the first Republican debate, where he completely mopped the floor with the other candidates and showed himself to be the crowd favorite. <S> In the same way "to lose visibility" can be used as a synonym for "fade into obscurity". <S> The esteemed professor was well-known during the 1950s for his public lectures on human development, but afterwards he quickly lost visibility when he stopped lecturing, and the public lost interest in the topic. <A> Yes, but is that really the correct term for your intended use? <S> When talking about an object that changes its state so that it cannot be seen at all, it "becomes invisible" or "disappears. <S> " If it changes state so it can be seen even a little bit it "becomes visible" or "appears. <S> " <S> If we're discussing elements in a layered image, video, or website, you " increase " or " decrease " opacity (not "visibility") to make an object more or less opaque/transparent. <S> The object itself in this case could be said to "gain" or "lose" opacity. <S> If there is no gradual transition between states, it "appears" or "disappears." <S> If there is a transition over time it could be said to "fade in" or "fade out." <S> The object could "become opaque " if its state changes to appear 100% solid - <S> you cannot see other objects through or behind it. <S> It could become "translucent" or "partially transparent" if you can see the object but can also see other objects inside or directly behind it. <S> "Gaining/losing visibility" typically refers to the examples given in previous answers, so if you're not talking about people then "gain/lose visibility" might not be what you're looking for: A pilot "loses visibility" when flying through clouds, or a SCUBA diver "loses visibility" in hazy water. <S> Their ability to see very far decreases due to conditions.
| It only gains/loses "visibility" when it either totally disappears, or slightly appears. A person "gains" visibility by doing something to bring attention to themselves.
|
Proper way to pronounce "Middle of" in GenAm English I was watching anime and noticed the sentence "In the middle of the city". So I wonder how would I pronounce middle of in American English. Should I connect sounding sort of like "middle+love"? Or should I interrupt sounding more like "middle+really quick pause+of" ? Ps. When I connect the tip of my tongue is still on the top of my mouth when I go about to pronounce "of" which sounds more like "love". When I interrupt I pronounce middle, then my tongue goes to its normal resting position and then I pronounce the "of" sounding exactly like "of". Pps. Can I ask this kind of question here? If I don't. I'm really sorry, but I couldn't find anything on google or youtube. <Q> While I agree that 'middle of', when spoken in normal conversational English, can be pronounced as 'middluv' (what you're calling a real fast "middle-love"), an even further reduction is possible so that the /v/ sound is omitted, so that you get 'middla' . <S> This pronunciation might not work before all following sounds, but on the Forvo page for 'middle of nowhere' you can hear a speaker from the US (MoiraMinch) and one from Ireland (MollyDub) say 'middla nowhere' . <S> I assume this is because it's easier to omit the 'v' sound before the 'n' sound. <S> So, pronunciation is always influenced by surrounding sounds. <S> (User chrylis <S> comments <S> The /v/ gets dropped especially when the next word starts with a stressed syllable and a consonant. <S> This is the case in 'nowhere'.) <S> This might be considered even less formal than retaining the /v/, but pronunciation varies among speakers, and neither version can be called wrong or right. <A> You may ask this kind of question but you may not get a direct answer. <S> While there is a kind of "standard" American accent, it varies considerably from person to person depending on how clear their diction . <S> but I'm not trying to pronounce the second "L" sound. <S> I just don't bother to move my tongue from behind my top front teeth. <S> Of course in things like public speaking where I might want to sound more precise in my language, I will add a pause and clearly enunciate each separate word. <A> If the speaker isn't too concerned with emphasizing a very specific location, then yes it's essentially spoken as 1 word: <S> I dunno <S> , it's somewhere in the "middelov" all that junk over there. <S> If the speaker wants to emphasize the exact location, there might be a slight pause or stress on "middle": <S> "OMG the monster is right 'in the MID-DLE ... of' the CITY!! <S> Run away!!!" <A> In normal conversation, the phrases middle of and middle of the are often fused into essentially one spoken word. <S> When this occurs, the of is still pronounced, but the normal schwa sound of the o can sometimes become more like the u of put . <S> The pronunciation of of and the end of love are identical. <S> What difference between them have you encountered in practice? <A> Go for clear enunciation every time, irrespective of what sloppy native speakers may do. <S> If you're not a native speaker, there's all the more reason to go slowly and enunciate clearly. <S> Give a slight pause after "middle" before the "of". <S> As someone whose profession involves extensive public speaking -- and often to audiences who are not native speakers of English -- I make intelligibility a priority.
| I personally pronounce it as you say, "middle-love"
|
The car smoke is stink A car went and the smoke flew in our house. "The car smoke is stink." "The exhaust smoke is stink. He told me. It should be car smoke or exhaust smoke when we telling someone the stink was came from the a car's exhaust? <Q> Focusing purely on how to refer to the stuff that comes out of the car: <S> "*exhaust smoke" is redundant, and sounds wrong to me. <S> " <S> car smoke" is okay, but isn't the idiomatic way to say it. <S> In American English, better is " car exhaust " or just " exhaust " <S> - that's the more typical way to refer to it. <S> Additionally, "is stink" isn't grammatical. <S> You could say "stinks" (as a verb), or "is stinky" ("is" + adjective). <S> So, the closest American English match to your examples would be one of these two: <S> The car exhaust stinks <S> The car exhaust is stinky <A> If your doubt is whether to use ' car ' or ' exhaust ', then both sound fine to me, and I would know that you were referring to the smoke produced by the car, <S> provided you say it at that moment, and I'm standing with you/ or am aware of the car that just went by. <S> But from the grammar point of view, I'll modify these sentence, a little bit, to make it sound better: <S> The car smoke stinks. <S> ( Present ) <S> The car smoke is stinking. <S> ( Present Continuous ) <S> The car smoke stank. <S> ( Past ) <S> The exhaust smoke stinks. <S> ( Present ) <S> The exhaust smoke is stinking. <S> ( Present Continuous ) <S> The exhaust smoke stank. <S> ( Past ) <S> You could also try " The car's smoke ... " and the " The exhaust's smoke... " <A> If you are trying to tell another person what has caused a smell, you could do it like this: <S> That smell is car exhaust. <S> That smell you're smelling <S> is car exhaust. <S> What you're smelling is car exhaust. <S> You are smelling car exhaust. <S> The odor you're smelling -- it's car exhaust. <S> A car's exhaust caused the smell. <S> The house reeks of car exhaust. <S> The house smells like car exhaust now. <A> The smoke from that car stinks! <S> The smoke from that car is stinky! <S> (a more childlike way to say it) <S> That car's exhaust fumes stink! <S> ("fumes" are plural) <S> That car's exhaust fumes are stinky! <S> So either "smoke (from a/the/that/this car)" or "exhaust fumes". <S> exhaust (noun) - a system for removing waste gases from an engine fumes - a type of smoke or gas, e.g. also petrol fumes (gasoline fumes in the US)
| The stink comes from car exhaust.
|
When does the letter "e" get to have a long sound before a consonant? When does the letter 'e' have a long sound before a consonant? For example: senior venal menial -melia penal Venus Pelias And in the case of Pelias , why can 'e' have both a short sound and a long sound? <Q> I don't disagree with most of James K's answer, but I think he's missing a point which needs to be made. <S> (The distinction then, as far as we know, was really one of length, as in some other languages today. <S> The distinction between so-called long and short vowels in English today is mostly the substitution of a different vowel sound). <S> In writing, a closed syllable ended with a consonant; and if another syllable followed, that started with a consonant. <S> So there was a strong tendency for words with long vowels to be written followed by a consonant and another vowel, and short vowels to be written followed by a consonant and the end of the word, or by another consonant. <S> When the Great Vowel Shift happened, as James K says, the long vowels waltzed around the mouth, but the short ones didn't. <S> The upshot is that usually (though not always) <S> a vowel letter followed by a single consonant and another vowel letter is pronounced with the so-called "long" vowel sound of Modern English. <S> This is familiar in the case of "silent e", but it is more general than that. <S> I'm dubious that the pronunciation of "senior", "venal" and "Venus" owe much to French, as they follow regular rules of English pronunciation. <S> Conversely, I suspect that "Pelias", known at least in modern times mainly from Debussy's opera "Pélias et Mélisande", has been influenced by the French pronunciation. <S> I can't account for "genus" (or "general"), or the "short" pronunciation of "plenary". <S> "Juvenal" doesn't seem relevant to me, because the stress is on the first syllable. <S> Edit (months later): actually, I can account for "general" and "plenary" (but not for "genus"): these can be explained by trisyllabic laxing . <A> These are fairly obscure words (except perhaps senior and Venus). <S> The usual reason for any pronunciation in English is "because it is" and you have to get used to it. <S> The deeper answer is the history of words changing sound without the spelling following. <S> The general reason for the letter "e" being pronounced as /iː/ is the great vowel shift in which the stressed or long "e" /eː/ <S> changed to /iː/. <S> In the case of "senior", "venal" and "Venus", the word is influenced by the French accented vowel, "sénior", "vénal" and "Vénus". <S> The accented vowel sound becomes a long /iː/ <S> when shifted in the great vowel shift. <S> The word "menial" and "penal" seems to have gone down a similar route, originally "meinial" and "peinal", with a vowel change from /ei/ to /iː/, and and a spelling change too. <S> "Pelias" is the same here the "e" is used to represent the greek letter "epsilon", but there has been a sound shift. <S> Not a common word - I needed to look it up to check the pronunciation. <S> The native Greek would be closer to /e/ <S> than /i:/. <S> I can't find any words that are even slightly commom that have a -melia suffix, the closest was "camelia", a type of flowering shrub. <S> That may have been interesting, but it won't help you decide if "genus" "Juvenal" or "plenary" have a long or short "e" sound ( <S> The first two don't and plenary has both pronunciations) <A> E may be "long" before a single consonant letter (other than x) that is followed by a vowel letter. <S> But it isn't always long in this context. <S> Even similar words may have different pronunciation patterns, and some words or names, like your example of "Pelias", may have multiple pronunciations. <S> Words ending in the Latinate suffix -al tend to follow a rule based on the position of the stressed syllable: if the stress falls on the second-to-last syllable, the vowel in this syllable will take its "long" pronunciation (unless there is a heavy consonant cluster after it). <S> This accounts for the "long e" in venal and penal. <S> Nouns or names that have the exact same spelling in English as they do in Latin, like Venus, also tend to follow this rule about penultimate stress corresponding to a "long" pronunciation of a vowel letter that has only a single consonant after it. <S> The rule based on the position of the stress does not apply to all English words, only to specific types of words. <S> For example, the word lemon (from French) has a short, not a long "e" in the first, stressed syllable, despite its spelling. <S> The words metal and petal also are pronounced with "short e": despite being spelled with the letters "al", they don't contain the suffix -al , so they don't follow the rule mentioned above.
| In Old English and Middle English, vowels in stressed open syllables tended to be long and in closed syllables short.
|
What is the door frame hole called (where the door latch goes)? I am looking for the proper English name of the little hole in door frames where the latch goes in. Specifically, I want to know what that hole is called for "indoor" doors, without a lock, e.g. the door to a bedroom. Please note that I want to refer to the hole itself, not to the metal plate surrounding it . Is there a term in common use , as opposed to a professional term? For example, "I got my finger stuck in the ....". Even if there's not one word to describe it, how would a native English speaker finish that sentence? Here's a picture of what I'm talking about: <Q> The hole itself is a mortise which is: a hole or recess cut into a part, designed to receive a corresponding projection (a tenon) on another part so as to join or lock the parts together. <S> Example: The picture shows the strikeplate installed over the mortise. <S> More commonly though, strikeplate hole would likely be more widely understood. <A> I'll gladly yield to any professional carpenters. <S> The hole on the other side, that is, the hole in the door that the bolt slides through, is called the "edge bore". <S> But I don't know of any corresponding term for the hole in the door frame. <S> (But if you look at the last door that I installed, you will quickly see that I am not a professional carpenter. :-) <A> That is the door jamb <S> A jamb (from French jambe, "leg"),[1] in architecture, is the side-post or lining of a doorway or other aperture. <S> The jambs of a window outside the frame are called “reveals.” <S> Small shafts to doors and windows with caps and bases are known as “jamb-shafts”; when in the inside arris of the jamb of a window they are sometimes called "scoinsons." <S> A doorjamb, door jamb (also sometimes doorpost) is the vertical portion of the door frame onto which a door is secured.[2] <S> The jamb bears the weight of the door through its hinges, and most types of door latches and deadbolts extend into a recess in the doorjamb when engaged, making the accuracy of the plumb (i.e. true vertical) and strength of the doorjambs vitally important to the overall operational durability and security of the door. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamb <A> I found a term on another website that referred to a "box", and I think that is what the doorframe hole may be called.
| But to the best of my knowledge, the only name for this is "the hole in the strike plate".
|
Help me parse this comma interrupter structure The student was trying to structure an interrupter. I am looking for a grammatical explanation to help her understand the error between the conjunction and the preposition. Beyond just explaining the meaning of each term ('even though' and 'with'), isn't the subject also needed before the interrupter begins? On the other hand, big cities are excellent places for people who like diversity. These cities have a population of millions of people. People around the world come to big cities to find better job opportunities, or because they are looking for places with lots of fun. Even though, with many people going from one place to another, traffic on the streets will always be a problem in the big cities. Unlike from small towns, the social environment is more diverse. <Q> "Even though" in this case functionally serves as a conjunction. <S> The problem here to me seems not that the interruption clause is misconstructed, but rather, as you said, that the first part of the sentence has no subject. <S> Even though traffic on the streets will always be a problem in the big cities. <S> This is pretty clearly missing something. <S> Maybe the subject is referred to in the previous sentence? <S> Starting a sentence with a conjunction can be tricky, so maybe just relocate the meaning into this sentence and then add the interrupter. <S> Big cities nowadays, with many people going from one place to another, will always suffer from traffic on the streets. <A> It looks like this sentence was intended to contradict or modify what was said in the preceding sentence. <S> I believe what was meant could be- <S> Even though we accept this, with many people...etc. <S> In my example usage the word ' <S> this' implies what was said in the preceding sentence. <S> A conjunction joins two sentences. ' <S> Even though' by itself does not carry any implication of a join to another idea. <A> The concession clause, which cannot stand on its own as an independent clause, is: even though traffic on the streets will always be a problem in the big cities <S> This adds extra info and would be an adjunct: with many people going from one place to another <S> The adjunct could follow even though or it could follow big cities : even though, with many people going from one place to another, traffic on the streets will always be a problem in the big cities even though traffic on the streets will always be a problem in the big cities, with many people going from one place to another <S> At this point we still have only the fragment of a sentence; it lacks an independent clause. <S> Even though traffic on the streets will always be a problem in the big cities, with many people going from one place to another, many city-dwellers still purchase automobiles and rarely take public transportation.
| I'd first tell her to remove the interrupter from the sentence and analyze if THAT makes sense.
|
"She's preparing up my break." "Where's your mummy?" I asked. "She's preparing up my breakfast." he said. In dictionary, up is preposition that towards a higher value. According to the context above, what does it mean? <Q> The utterance mixes two expressions- <S> "She's cooking up my breakfast." <S> and what sounds rather formal to my Australian ears- <S> "She's preparing my breakfast." <S> The idiomatic use of up implies coming to a conclusion (the dictionary higher value). <S> As in-He came up with an idea. <S> Meaning, he thought about things and formed and idea. <A> The more usual expresions would be: <S> She's preparing my breakfast. <S> She's preparing breakfast. <S> She's getting my breakfast ready. <S> She's getting breakfast ready. <S> She's making breakfast. <S> "Up" is incorrect here. <S> "Preparing" is a relatively formal word. <S> In my experience, a young child would be more likely to say "making breakfast" or "getting breakfast ready". <A> I'm a native speaker and I have no idea what it means. <S> It could be a dialectal thing; perhaps "prepare up" is an idiom in what appears to be a British dialect from the use of "mummy" above. <S> It's not American; that's for sure. <S> I really don't know what the speaker is trying to say here. <S> I couldn't find the phrasal verb "prepare up"; however, if it should be dialectal, it may not be in the dictionary as an idiom since it may be said by just a small group in some remote area. <S> If you find out what it means, please let me know. <S> All I know is that if someone said, "She's preparing up my break," to me, I'd ask him to rephrase it because I would tell him that I didn't comprehend his original statement.
| I believe the usage "preparing up" is a literary device to suggest a very young child is speaking.
|
What do we call English with dots and dashes? In our native languages, pronunciations of the words are different if we write it in normal English. For that reason, we have a different set of alphabet. Such writing helps us speak correct pronunciation. This specially happens in writing language like Sanskrit in English. What do we call that English? Here is the example: <Q> If you want a writer to use the “dots and dashes”, ask them to “use diacritic marks”. <S> 1 <S> the letters of the English and many other western languages <S> 2 the dots and dashes 3 to write in another script <A> The process of converting the letters of one script into the letters of another is called "transliteration" Definition of TRANSLITERATE transliterated; transliterating transitive verb :to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet — transliteration [...] <S> noun https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transliterate <S> Indeed the scheme used in your OP is called IAST <S> (International Alphabet for Sanskrit Transliteration). <S> You should ask for a "transliteration" or a transliterated version. <S> Now, for sure, sarvasya chaahaN hridi ... is also a transliteration, but it's not an academic/scientific transliteration. <S> Both of these words ('academic' and 'scientific') are used for precise, scholarly transliterations of Cyrillic <S> and I see no reason why they cannot be used more generally. <S> If you want a precise, scholarly transliteration, what you must really do is specify the scheme, which is more important. <S> There is nothing inherently wrong with the Indian government-approved Hunterian transliteration which uses few diacritics, or Harvard-Kyoto which uses its own schemes with no diacritics at all, but also doesn't strive to reflect pronunciation closely. <S> So what you must do is specify the transliteration scheme which you are using. <S> For example, IAST will transliterate ए as e whereas <S> ISO15919 will use ē. <S> Both, however, will transliterate आ as ā. <S> Many transliteration schemes use diacritics. <S> You can ask for a transliteration with diacritics, but you must specify the scheme, because different schemes may use different diacritics or use diacritics for different purposes. <A> These are called diacritical marks.
| Technically, you are not writing “in English”, you are using a Latin script 1 with diacritics 2 to transcribe 3 Sanskrit.
|
Not one vs None I have two sentences: He is not one of us. He is none of us. While I can clearly understand the first one, does the second one make sense and is it correct? What is difference here between " not one " and " none "? <Q> The first one makes sense insofar as it means that "He is not a member of our group." <S> The second one does not make sense in the context of the former statement even though "none" comes from Old English and is a per se contraction of "not one". <S> Despite this oddity, most of the time, "not one" and "none" can be used interchangeably. <S> Could one possibly interpret "He is not one of us" and "He is none of us" as equivalent? <S> Yes, one probably could; however, it would cause a lot of confusion. <S> So, to clarify for you, SovereignSun, here is how I, as a native speaker, would interpret the two statements: <S> "He is not one of us." <S> (He is not in our group.) <S> "He is none of us." <S> (The person whom you are looking for is not here.) <A> The meanings are A. not any member of our group (i.e. no person among those in our group) {not one} {of us} <S> We are, none of us , perfect. <S> We are, not one of us , perfect. <S> There is, none of us , but has some flaw in his character. <S> There is, not one of us , but has some flaw in his character. <S> B. not a member of our group <S> (i.e. does not belong to our group) <S> {not} {one of us} <S> He is from another (country, tribe, group, clan, county, ... whatever). <S> He's not one of us . <S> In the 18th c. and earlier, "none of us" could be used to mean "not one of us", not a member of our group, and the usage has survived in regional dialects. <S> A stranger, he is. <S> He's none of us. <A> X is not one of Y means X can't be named Y, but X still exists. <S> None of X means there isn't any of X. <S> Saying X is none of Y doesn't typically make sense, unless you use the idiomatic phrases none of your business or none of your concern .
| I would not ever say, "He is none of us" to mean that he is not part of our group; I would use "He is none of us" to tell the person that there is not one person here who is the individual that he is looking for.
|
Can we use hide to mean make something disappear? Someone asked me What if someone hides their instagram stories from you? I replied I'd hide them from my life. Is my sentence right Does hide mean to make disappear? If not What else could I have used here? Someone told me the object of preposition "from" is a person who is not supposed to see or find that which is hidden So what about this sentence? the magician hid(made her disappear) from the stage? Is it wrong? <Q> To hide <S> something does not mean to make it disappear. <S> To hide something means to conceal it so that it cannot be seen. <S> The heiress wanted to hide her jewels from the thieves. <S> Notice that the object of preposition from is the person who is not supposed to see or find that which is hidden. <A> I think your response is comprehensible as a joke, as long as it's delivered using the right intonation, body language, or emoji. <S> You don't "hide" someone unless you're concealing a fugitive, but as a nonstandard, poetic, jokey usage, this works for me. <S> A common expression in English that I think captures what you're trying to say is, "They're dead to me. <S> " It's often used hyperbolically. <A> Normally, you "hide something [from someone/something else]. <S> " You would not, for example "hide the assistant from the stage" but instead you'd say: The magician hid the assistant [from the audience]. <S> Your other example, to "hide [something] from my life" does not make sense either. <S> "To hide" does not mean "to remove" or "to erase," but instead means "to cover" or "to conceal." <S> You could, then, flip the sentence you suggested around: <S> I'd hide my life from them. <A> You should have said I'd hide my life from them. <S> The advice you had was correct. <S> The complement of the preposition "from" is the person or people that are unable to see the hidden object. <A> Assuming you meant that, if those people hide their stories from you, you would not want them to be a part of your life , then your sentence is actually correct and fairly clever. <S> While "hide" not really the right verb to use in this context, the point is to reuse the same verb and the same overall structure. <S> This kind of humor is common in English. <S> For example, this is something my father might have said to me when I was a kid: <S> Me. <S> Ow! <S> That tree branch poked me ! <S> Dad. <S> Well, then poke it back . <S> Obviously poking the branch in the same way it poked me isn't going to do any good, but the point of the joke was to make me laugh at the absurdity and take my mind off of any pain. <S> As others have pointed out, "to hide" <S> something does not mean to make it "disappear". <S> So the phrase I'd hide them from my life would be interpreted as <S> I would make it <S> so I could not see them. <S> meaning <S> I wouldn't want them to be my friends any more.
| Instead it means to conceal or cover it, or in some way make it so it can't be seen.
|
Do "three consecutive days" mean the same as "three straight days"? Are the two phrases equivalent? Example sentences: Mary had stayed in this hotel for five consecutive days. Mary had stayed in this hotel for five straight days. <Q> No, there is no difference between "consecutive" and "straight" in this context. <S> According to the Oxford Dictionary , consecutive means "Following each other continuously.", and straight means "In continuous succession. <S> " They are listed as synonyms of one another. <S> Edit: I would use "consecutive" for clarity, see @Davo's comment <A> I agree with Davo's comment to SirChregeli. <S> straight refers to a stretch of time as uninterrupted or unrelieved (e.g. by a respite) or unvaried (e.g. in routine) , whereas consecutive means one after the other . <S> She had to attend three consecutive two-hour meetings. <S> She was going to be tied up for six straight hours. <A> I think we have got seriously off track as a result of Davo's comment. <S> The original answer quoted the OED. <S> That is reliable authority. <S> " <S> "She stayed at that hotel for five consecutive days" and "she stayed at that hotel for five straight days" denote the same thing, and neither implies that she never left the hotel's premises throughout those five days. <S> "She stayed inside that hotel for five consecutive days" and "she stayed inside that hotel for five straight days" denote the same thing, and both explicitly state that she immured herself in a particular place for the same duration. <S> So in terms of teaching someone English, the denotative meanings of "five consecutive days" and "five straight days" are the same. <S> The potential ambiguity arises from the term "stay in the hotel," which may mean "stay inside the hotel" or "stay at the hotel." <S> So in terms of the nuances of the English language, the phrase "stay in a hotel" may mean one of two things because both "stay" and "in" have fairly broad meanings. <S> Why then did Davo perceive the ambiguity in one case and not the other? <S> The answer is that, although "consecutive" and "straight" denote the same continuity, they have slightly different connotations, with "consecutive" being invariably neutral and "straight" sometimes implying disapproval or surprise. <S> There is nothing surprising about being a guest at the same hotel for days on end, but it may be surprising to never leave the premises for days on end. <S> To avoid any possibility about whether "stay in the hotel" means "stay at the hotel" or "stay inside the hotel," the key word to fix is the preposition following "stay."
| Five consecutive days" and "five straight days" have the same denotative meaning.
|
"Such are his usual responses..." or "Such is his usual responses..."? I was confused by Grammarly which keeps saying that I have to use is instead of are in the example below. Such are his usual responses to every question he is being asked. Can someone clarify which form of to be I should use and why? <Q> Grammarly, in its limited way, is trying to make the verb agree with "such" without looking at the referent, "usual responses". <S> By itself, the number of "such" is ambiguous. <S> Both of the following statements are grammatically correct. <S> Such is his usual response to every question he is being asked. <S> and, Such are his usual responses to every question he is being asked. <S> When faced with an ambiguous pronoun like "such", "which", and "who", you have to rely on the referent to indicate number. <A> "Are" is correct because "responses" is plural. <A> In your example sentence, to be is referring to responses . <S> Therefore, because responses is plural, so is to be . <S> One way to look at this is by rephrasing the question. <S> In English, the grammar will rarely (if ever) change just by changing the structure of the sentence. <S> So if we rephrase this sentence, which is correct? <S> His usual responses [to every question he is being asked] is such OR <S> His usual responses [to every question he is being asked] are such <S> Now it's more intuitive that are <S> is the correct choice here.
| In your case, "usual responses" indicates that "such" is plural; in the added example I provided, "usual response" indicates that "such" is singular.
|
Which verb should I use with None: Singular or Plural verb? When none means "not one," it takes a singular verb, but it can also take plural. In that case, can I write the following sentence as it is, or should I change it to "remembers"? Are both options grammatically appropriate here? "You all got drunk, and none of you remember what happened that night?" asked the officer. <Q> none of you remember what happened that night. <S> To those who say plural agreement is wrong, consider this: <S> If there are N people, and none of them could remember what happened, that makes N altogether who could not remember what happened, so <S> the plural None of you remember what happened that night ” should be right. <A> Well, both are correct and possible. <S> However, in my opinion,the singular sounds better here. <S> The thing is that the officer is expecting at least one person to remember, but surely he wouldn't mind more of them to remember, but that " at least " is significant, in my opinion. <A> First of all your question is little confusing without a proper example. <S> Simply no. <S> You should use "none" according to context (singular/plural) and ask yourself whether "none" is used for single entity or for multiple entities. <S> for e.g. = <S> > <S> Here the person is talking to one person. <S> None of your notes is good enough to copy. <S> = <S> > <S> Here the person is talking to a bunch of people. <S> None of you want to play football. <S> This sentence answers your question very well. <S> "You all got drunk, and none of you remember what happened that night?" asked the officer. <S> For further analysis- <S> Go here <A> I would never use the singular in this construction (none of + noun) — in my variety of English, at least (I'm from the States), it sounds wrong. <S> 'None of your notes is good enough' sounds wrong to me. <S> It would have to be 'None of your notes are', even if you're referring to 'not one'. <S> So <S> I WOULD say 'Not a single ONE of them is present' or something like that, if it's split up into 'not' and 'one'.
| yeah, I would say 'none of you remember', even if I'm talking about 'not one'. When "none" is a subject it can occur freely with either singular or plural agreement.
|
2 for 5 (bucks) vs 5 (bucks) for 2 I heard a Burger King promotion on a radio, saying: Beautiful! 2 for 5! // It means 2 hamburgers, 5 bucks To me, '2 for 5' sounds like you pay 2 hamburgers to buy 5 bucks, which is illogical. I would think '5 for 2' makes more sense, meaning you pay 5 bucks for 2 hamburgers. Question: Any reason behind the usage of '2 for 5', instead of '5 for 2'? Can '5 for 2' make sense as well? Can we say "5 bucks for 2 hamburgers" or "5 for 2"? <Q> You seem to understand most of the implications, but the verb you are adding to the front leads to a different meaning than what was intended. <S> Specifically, you expand "2 for 5" as Pay 2 dollars for 5 hamburgers <S> When "X for Y" is used to describe a sale or deal that I've seen in the US, the meaning is "Get X in exchange for Y" in some fashion, with X being what you get not what you give . <A> It's all context based. <S> If BK is talking about whoppers and they say "2 for 5" <S> you can deduce two whoppers for five dollars. <S> That's because it is the reasonable idea. <S> It is not two dollars for five whoppers... <S> that's too cheap to make any sense. <S> If they were talking about individual chicken nuggets and they said "2 for 5" you would deduce two dollars for five nuggets. <S> That price would be reasonable, whereas 5 dollars for only two little chicken nuggets is not. <S> People will understand the phrase automatically in a way that makes sense. <A> Objectively, it doesn't actually matter what's being exchanged for what; if it's burgers for bucks, bananas for books, or cookies for crayons, "two for five" implies that two of something is being exchanged for five of something else. <S> In this case, Burger King is offering to exchange two burgers for five bucks. <S> Normally, in a case like this, one would think that the person with the bucks is buying burgers. <S> If it helps, think of it a little backwards - BK is buying bucks, and paying in burgers, so they're paying two burgers to buy five bucks - "two burgers for five bucks". <A> Consider it a (very) brief form of a construction like this: <S> (You can have one for three dollars, or) two for five. <S> That's just the use that has come to be idiomatic. <S> There's no real reason why one is more popular than the other. <A> One of the functions of money is that it acts as a common measure of market values as well as the typical medium of exchange. <S> In the US, the dollar is that common measure and typical medium. <S> Consequently, if money is involved in a retail transaction in the US, dollars need not be explicitly mentioned. <S> An exchange involves at least two different parties and at least two different items. <S> A phrase like "2 for 5" is an abbreviation for "2 A's in exchange for 5 B's," and what A and B are must be filled in by context. <S> In the Us, at least either A or B is very likely to be dollars. <S> With Burger King, which does not engage in barter but does sell hamburgers, A and B are likely to be hamburgers and dollars. <S> How do you know which is which? <S> You have to know that, at present, getting five hamburgers for two dollars is extremely unlikely. <S> Language does not exist in a social vacuum, and people who write ads try to take the common understandings of the time and place into account. <A> In English, it is idiomatic for the price to be second. <S> Consider: <S> Buy 2 for the price of 1 ... <S> is often abbreviated as... 2 for 1 ... <S> and, conventionally, most shorthand deals will follow that pattern. <S> The 'buy' prefix can be assumed and the 'for' can always be inferred to be shorthand for 'for the price of'. <S> As to why it is this way, I don't believe there is any strong reason for it past arbitrary convention. <S> Doing it the other way against the current consistency would cause confusion and quickly be corrected for being misleading. <A> The phrases "Buy 2 hamburgers for 5 dollars" and "Spend 2 dollars to get 5 hamburgers" could both be reasonably shortened to "2 for 5". <S> (As Danikov points out, "Buy 2 for the price of 1" is frequently shortened to "2 for 1", making "Buy 2 for the price of 5" an odd, but reasonable interpretation for the phrase as well.) <S> Burger King knows this, which is why they immediately clarify the ambiguity. <S> As to why "Buy 2 for 5 dollars" is preferred over "Spend 5 dollars to get 2", that comes down to psychology. <S> Typically the beginning of a sentence gets more attention than the middle, and Burger King wants listeners to be focused on what they are getting, not what they are spending. <A> For whatever reason, when using the "X for Y" idiom, the thing that you (as a consumer) gets is usually specified first. <S> I think it's because the longer form of the phrase would be something like "Get (or perhaps 'have') <S> X in exchange for Y". <S> In this case, "get 2 burgers in exchange for 5 dollars". <A> If you go back to market traders and speed talking trying to sell something. <S> Try saying it: one buck for fivenow say quickly: five for a buck <S> I don't know about you but <S> my brain processes the 2nd one faster. <S> A common tactic is to keep everything at the same price <S> so: Apples 5 for a buckpears 3 for a buckbananas 2 for a buck <S> You brain <S> just registers <S> I get 5 apples, 3 pears and don't need to hear the rest of the sentences. <S> Easier to communicate in a market square vocally and therefore carried on to mainstream sales.
| However, the intended meaning of the phrase is Buy 2 hamburgers for 5 dollars It's a more-or-less idiomatic construction declaring an exchange rate. There is no reason nor is there a rule.
|
Pitch a fit and throw a fit Is there any difference between throw a fit and pitch a fit? Which is used more often in the US? Pitch a fit (Merriam Webster): US, informal: to become very upset and angry in a loud and uncontrolled way, ex: He pitched a fit when she said she was going to be late again. Throw a fit (Webster) :to express extreme anger, Ex: Dad will throw a fit if he finds out. I had to provide definitions as the question was shut down as off-topic. What I can't get my head around is why this is necessary when it's all about something that couldn't be more intuitive for native speakers. It's pretty intuitive even for me, reading the definitions. What I need is a short confirmation, not someone drawing me a picture. Add to the equation the fact that this is the learners' stack exchange, why would anyone venture to answer my question if I throw in a definition, if they wouldn't without one? Because logic tells me, they're only using their intuition, inferring something obvious from the definition. Thank you very much, but that I'm able to do myself. <Q> Both mean more or less the same thing, but I couldn't say which is more common. <S> Both are very informal expressions that I would be reluctant to use outside of a casual context, like with friends, as they imply the subject <S> is out of control , overcome with a strong emotion, like a child throwing a tantrum . <S> I would not recommend you use either unless you understand the nuance, and how it might be received by the listener. <S> Many people might take offense. <A> I think "pitch a fit" is regional to the southern U.S. <S> I grew up in the midwest and in the past I would have said "throw a fit," but since living in Georgia for the last 17 years, I've heard "pitch a fit" and not "throw a fit." <S> The meaning is the exactly same. <A> I think the key word in the definition for understanding any nuance in difference is "uncontrolled. <S> " <S> The expression "pitch a fit" is more likely to imply the person is hysterical or that the fit is unjustified. <S> You could use "throw a fit" that way, too. <S> But the reverse isn't true. <S> You'd be unlikely to say, for example, "My dad will pitch a fit," if you are genuinely worried or anxious about his reaction.
| As Andrew mentioned, they do mean more or less the same thing.
|
An idiom or proverb for very easy to find but you are unable to see the object, which is very beside or close to you For example: A speaker said to a listener go in and bring me the chair. He went in and looked for it but couldn't find, then the speaker said, " Where were you looking for the chair? It is beside you bring it here! I'm also looking for a single word for a person who is unable to find <Q> I would use: It is right there. <S> If it was a snake it would have bit you. <S> or something similar, in the form of: <S> If it was (something obvious) it would have (done something bad to you). <S> The point being you should be more aware of your surroundings. <A> <A> The phrase I've most often heard is: <S> It's right under your nose! <S> This phrase stems from one's inability to see what is directly under their own nose, despite it being very close to them. <S> The listener might say: <S> "I finally found the chair! <S> It was right under my nose the whole time!" <A> You could use something like " to be blind as a bat " ( surrounding's awareness, as user3169 told you and also @smatterer " <S> if you do not see it, you do not see it" - to explain the sense of touch). <A> I cannot think of a single word that describes what you seem to be thinking of. <S> User3169 suggested "if it was a snake, it would have bit you," which is a folk saying that means to fail to find something very close to you. <S> That saying does not imply, however, that you fail to find it because you are too close to it. <S> The proverb implying that you fail to perceive because you are too close is "can't see the forest for the trees." <S> That proverb, however, is primarily about mental perception, not about finding physical objects. <A> A similar phrase would be: <S> It's right in front of you! <S> Also, to respond to your second request, <S> the adjective blind can be used in this context. <S> It is used as a figure of speech. <S> So in combination with the first phrase, you would say to someone, <S> Are you blind? <S> It's right in front of you!
| I think the expression you may be looking for is "can't see for looking".
|
Can we use might have for future possibility? I know that we use might have to show that something has possibly happened now or happened at some time in the past. But can we use it for future? For example: Just imagine there is a person who is 40 years old and he loves a girl who is 18 years old... For teasing him I say: "You are too old, when she will come to your age you might have died" Is it a correct sentence? I don't know...I'm a learner, please help. <Q> "She will come to your age" sounds a bit awkward. <S> Maybe something like "When she turns your age" or even "When she turns 40" would work better so that it doesn't sound ambiguous. <S> After that you could say "you may/might have already died" though I would prefer "you may/might already be dead". <S> So your full sentence could be: "When she turns 40, you may/might already be dead." <S> Other ways to say this same thing are: " <S> By the time she turns 40, you may already be dead." <S> or "You may be dead by the time she turns 40." <S> In essence, I think the "have" is awkward and there are better ways to get your intentions across. <S> Adding "already" helps buffer that. <S> I would have preferred to ask questions in the comments <S> but I don't have <S> the rep. <S> I'm by <S> no means an English expert - just your average native speaker - so take this with a grain of salt. <S> Looking @SovereignSun's answer will give you more technical reasoning that I couldn't give you. <A> " might have + past participle " is used only in the past and present: I might have said something bad. <S> I might have been given this letter <S> but I don't remember. <S> They might have come already. <S> In the future we can either use " might + present participle ": <S> Tomorrow I might be at home. <S> In an hour I might leave. <S> Or " might <S> + have to + present participle ": <S> In half an hour I might have to leave. <S> She might have to take her papers with her today. <S> Nothing like " will might " or " will might have to " is possible. <S> So your sentence can be: <S> You might be dead by the time time she turns 40. <A> "when she will come to your age" is incorrect. <S> When she gets to your age, when she is your age, are both acceptable, although in this context, for clarity, you might want to say, when she is the age you are now or when she get to the age you are now. <S> You are an age and you get to an age, but you don't come to it.
| I don't know of any instance in English where we would refer to age as something you come to, unless you are saying that someone comes of age, which is very different.
|
Antonym of "utmost" or "uttermost" I'm having trouble to find the appropriate antonym of " utmost " or " uttermost ". Dictionaries recommend " mild " and " moderate " but they sound awkward. She has the utmost chance of getting hired for the job while he has the _____ chance. I want to make a comparison. <Q> The antonym would be similar to those for "maximum" - minimum/minimal, least, smallest amount, least possible, lowest, nominal, token <S> She put only a nominal effort into completing the project, since it was very low priority. <S> They showed only a token interest in the artwork at the exhibition -- they were really only there for the free food and drink. <S> The new hire always does the least possible amount of work, just enough to avoid being fired. <S> I agree with the comments that "utmost chance" does not sound idiomatic. <S> Usually "utmost" is used with some kind of effort, opinion, or trait, and not opportunity or outcome. <S> Example: <S> I have the utmost faith that our client will complete the contract on schedule. <S> Antonyms of this would then be "least", or (as Mv Log says in comments) <S> merest, million-to-one, minimal, outside, remote, slender, slight, slim . <S> She has only the slimmest chance of getting the job, but that doesn't stop her from hoping for the best. <A> He has the remotest chance of being hired. <A> Taking your sentence as it is, I think that the best fit for an antonym would be to take Mv Log's suggestion of slight, but in its superlative form. <S> So: She has the utmost chance of getting hired for the job, while he has the slightest chance. <S> However, as it has been noted in the discussion, your use of utmost chance is not idiomatic. <S> I can think of at least two reasons for this. <S> Popular use of the word utmost has been steadily decreasing for the past 200 years. <S> When the phrase utmost chance is used, it is most commonly something being given to someone, and in that context, it means that every opportunity has been afforded to the individual in order to make something occur. <S> So in your sentence, it would be more idiomatic (but still uncommon) to say <S> : She has been given the utmost chance at getting hired for the job, while he has been given none. <S> This would actual mean that she has been given the best opportunity at landing the job, while he has been given very little opportunity (i.e. through privilege, discrimination, or other factors). <S> The idiomatic use does not have to do with the expected result given the factors, but the factors themselves. <S> Also note that none is being used hyperbolically in this case in order to contrast the states of the two individuals being compared. <S> In that light, if you are interested in replacing utmost in order to better capture the sense of likelihood for the two candidates receiving the job, I think that a simple best/worst comparison fits nicely in this situation. <S> She has the best chance of getting hired for the job while he has the worst chance. <S> Or to take it a step further and replace best chance with an idiom, She has the best shot at getting hired for the job, but he has the worst.
| If talking about chance, opportunity, or expected outcome, I would instead choose a word like "highest" rather than "utmost".
|
What's the function of "in" in "fishing in the lake"? In a sentence such as "Alice is fishing in the lake", what is the function of "in"? My impression is that "in" is used to indicate the target of "fishing". That is, Alice herself is not necessarily in the lake (she could be standing beside the lake, etc.). In that case, is it similar to sentences such as "Alice is writing in the book" or "Alice is looking in the mirror"? If my impression is incorrect, does "in" indicate that Alice is in fact within the boundaries of the lake (e.g. Alice is standing in the water, or is in a boat on the water)? <Q> Anyone who is fishing is at or upon a lake. <S> The expression "fishing in the lake" simply means that their fish hook is in the lake where the fish are invited to sample it. <S> "In the lake" is a prepositional expression that refers to one within its boundaries. <S> There is another prepositional expression "on the lake" which can refer to those who are in the home or pier adjacent to the lake. <S> This is distinct from those "on the water" who are floating or rafting on top of the lake. <S> One who is swimming is "in the water". <A> The sentence "Alice is fishing in the lake. <S> " doesn't imply that Alice is inside the lake although she could be. <S> It is different from "Alice is fishing at the lake." <S> or ".. beside the lake." <S> or " ... from the lake. <S> " only in that it emphasises the action (bait, hook, lure etc.) is inside the lake. <S> In this way it is similar to <S> "Alice is writing in the book." or "Alice is looking in the mirror." <S> Compare it to the sentence <S> "Alice is fishing in her handbag for change." <A> The short answer is this: " the action or process takes place inside the location " <S> This though doesn't explain whether Alice is in the lake or not.
| So, " Alice is fishing in the lake " means that the " fishing " takes place inside the lake.
|
“On my own way vs. “in my own way”? Which one is correct in or on own way? I usually help my closest friends on/in my own way. <Q> I can't think of a situation where I would use on my own way. <S> Now, in my way and on my way are both valid expressions. <S> You could say in my way instead of in my own way if you wanted to; the own just provides a bit of emphasis. <S> If I am on my way , I am proceeding to an expected destination. <S> One more thing: <S> You are in my way. <S> I am in my own way. <S> In this case, in my way means interfering or preventing me from doing something, most typically moving from one place to another. <S> If, for example, you are standing in a doorway <S> and I'm trying to go through it, you're in my way. <S> Now, if I am in my own way , it means that I'm creating difficulties for myself in accomplishing a task. <S> For example, if I'm trying to lose weight and won't stop eating, I am in my own way. <S> (In this case it would be more common to say I'm getting in my own way. ) <A> "In my way" refers to the definition of way as "preference", or "style", so it would be more appropriate here: <S> Frank Sinatra sang that he always did things in his own way . <S> "On my way" refers to the definition of way as "route" or "path". <S> On my way to school I saw my old friend Jim. <S> However, "in my way" can also refer to something obstructing your path: <S> The train was delayed because a herd of cows was in the way . <A> In your case, definitely "in my own way". <S> "in [my/your/her] own way" means "in a way that is special to that person". <S> The only time that "on" and "way" are used together (that I can think of) is in "on [my/your/her/the] way" which means you are in the process of coming somewhere <S> (e.g., "I am on my way to the store.").
| In my own way is the idiomatically correct expression.
|
I could hardly believe it but(when?) I found their tallest player was shorter than I I could hardly believe it but I found their tallest player was shorter than I. Generally in sentences with inversion the pair of conjunction with hardly is when e.g. Hardly had I arrived home when my phone rang. So going by this isn't the but in above sentence incorrect and its better to use when here or it's an exception here ? <Q> The word hardly is being used in a different sense in your two examples. <S> In the first, it qualifies your ability to believe something. <S> In the second, it states a fact, meaning "just as I arrived home, ..." Using when is correct <S> I could hardly believe it when I found their tallest player was shorter than I. <S> Although than I is formally correct, than me is more usual, so I would modify the sentence in steps: <S> I could hardly believe it when I found their tallest player was shorter than I am. <S> I could hardly believe it when I found their tallest player was shorter than me. <S> I could hardly believe it when I found I am taller than their tallest player. <S> Using shorter makes the sentence harder to understand, since it is about being tall, not being short. <S> Back to the question, but is used to contradict something, or give an opposing view. <S> There is none here to challenge. <S> Perhaps if you said I believed their players were very tall, but I found I am taller than their tallest player. <S> the <S> but would be well placed. <A> hardly , when it introduces a clause whose verb is in the present perfect or past perfect, refers to the completed state expressed by the perfect as being not-quite-complete . <S> There is inversion in the clause so introduced: Hardly <S> had <S> we come in the door... <S> when the phone rang. <S> Hardly had <S> we taken our seats when the curtain opened and the play began. <S> hardly , when it does not introduce the clause but appears in a normal adverbial position and modifies the verb, expresses the idea of not-quite . <S> I could hardly believe my eyes ... <S> I was taller than their tallest player. <A> If the sentence uses the word "when" then the second half of the sentence would be simply giving the situational context to the the first half of the sentence. <S> That is to say, it would be describing the situation in which you could hardly believe. <S> The situation was when you found out that their tallest player was shorter than you. <S> If the sentence uses the word "but" then the second half of the sentence becomes a contrast to the first half of the sentence. <S> The first half is saying that something was unbelievable, while the second half is saying that something is true. <S> Thus the complete sentence is saying that something is true despite the fact that it is unbelievable. <S> In this case it is unbelievable that their tallest player could be shorter than you, but it is still true as you have found out.
| The sentence could be correct with either the word "when" or the word "but", though the emphasis would be different depending on which word is used.
|
"to fart" in child language What is the appropriate word for "to fart" regarding babies? As "to fart" is declared as impolite in the most dictionaries there needs to be another word for it regarding babies? Like "pupsen" vs. "furzen" in German. <Q> In AmE, if you want another word to refer to a child farting, then you could use toot or poot . <S> I could not quickly find a reputable dictionary entry for this particular usage of toot , but it is simply an extension of its dictionary meaning (OALD): <S> toot <S> A short, sharp sound made by a horn, trumpet, or similar instrument. <S> There is an entry for poot in the OALD <S> US <S> informal <S> Break wind. <S> ‘somebody just pooted’ <S> There are two from Wiktionary: toot , poot <S> For context, there are many euphemisms for fart . <S> "Breaking wind" as used above is one. <S> Another is passing gas (TFD): pass gas Euph. <S> to release intestinal gas through the anus. <S> Someone on the bus had passed gas. <S> It smelled awful. <S> Something I ate at lunch made me pass gas all afternoon. <S> This can apply to any person. <S> Finally, the formal word is flatulence <S> (M-W): flatus expelled through the anus <A> In England a trump is wind that comes out of an arse (and has been for decades to my own personal knowledge so has not arisen from recent world events). <A> My favourite is from Blackadder: <S> NURSIE: <S> ... <S> and letting off such great and fruit-some flappy woof-woofs! <S> One can scarcely... <S> one can't believe one's tiny nosy! <S> -- <S> Blackadder 2 - "Beer" <S> Although, this is not a commonly used phrase, except by fans of Blackadder. <A> You could consider the verb to parp ( Collins ). <S> Its original and standard meaning is "a honking sound", like the sound made by an old rubber car or bicycle horn. <S> The word is onomatopoeic (it sounds like what it describes). <S> I believe it would also be acceptable to use the noun a parp although you might not find that in frequent use. <A> My child's nursery (in London) called them "windypops". <S> We still use it. <S> I'm not sure how common it is, but I think in context <S> it's fairly obvious to a native speaker. <A> My mother used 'blowing off' as a euphemism for fart. <A> In our family, they were called a 'scuse', because we had to say 'excuse me' after doing one (as young children, not as babies). <S> Dictionary.com records 'scuse' as a general abbreviation for 'excuse', <S> but I cannot find any reference to 'a scuse' anywhere on the internet (so far).
| But in the right context people will recognise that you are talking about the sound the baby made, or indeed the entire farting behaviour in which the baby engaged. The word itself is not considered impolite, although the topic still might not be considered tasteful in all forms of company.
|
Meaning of "may do and doat" in a poem by Elizabeth Browning " The First Time " by Elizabeth Browning: The first time that the sun rose on thine oath To love me, I looked forward to the moon To slacken all those bonds which seemed too soon And quickly tied to make a lasting troth. Quick-loving hearts, I thought, may quickly loathe; And, looking on myself, I seemed not one For such man's love!—more like an out-of-tune Worn viol, a good singer would be wroth To spoil his song with, and which, snatched in haste, Is laid down at the first ill-sounding note. I did not wrong myself so, but I placed A wrong on thee. For perfect strains may float 'Neath master-hands, from instruments defaced,— And great souls, at one stroke, may do and doat . I don't understand the meaning of "may do and doat". What exactly may great souls do? I understand that doat is an old form of dote (to love, to admire), but the overall meaning of the last line evades me. <Q> It's a line heavily fraught with ambiguity. <S> And the entire sonnet wavers in the object of its criticism—is it Elizabeth or Robert who is blamed for overhasty entry into a romantic relationship? <S> In the opening statement it seems at first to be Robert, whose oath provoked the declaration; but then both seem to included in "quick-loving hearts". <S> The second statement justifies, under the figure of the singer and his inadequate accompanying instrument, the likelihood of "loathing" as a consequence of Elizabeth's unworthiness; but lurking behind that figure is the fact that Elizabeth is herself a master-singer. <S> At the time of their courtship Elizabeth was far more widely known and highly regarded than Robert, and there is considerable reason to believe that she strenuously resisted being reduced to a mere 'instrument' in his hands. <S> So despite the apologetic surface of the final quatrain ("I placed a wrong on thee"), which seems to cast Robert as the "great soul" capable of producing music from an out-of-tune viol, do and doat calls that in question: is it Robert or Elizabeth who behaves foolishly and self-destructively in embracing this love in such haste? <A> It is a poem, and poems suggest meaning rather than define it. <S> So this is my interpretation. <S> First, "dote" has two meanings: (1) to think feebly, like a senile person, and (2) to love without proportion or sense. <S> It always has a sense of foolishness. <S> Second, the overall thrust of the poem is that the author mistrusted the initial outburst of love (falling in love is seldom a highly rational process) and worried that the love expressed was not serious and so would not be long-lasting. <S> Third, "do" can stand for an understood but unspecified verb. <S> As I interpret the poem, "do" here means "love seriously. <S> " <S> She is saying that the silly aspects of falling in love, the "doting," can, for at least some people, coexist with serious caring and affection, "loving seriously. <S> " <S> Why not say that? <S> It's a poem. <S> " <S> Love seriously and dote" has neither the meter nor consonance of "do and dote. <S> " <S> The problem here is that the "do" is so highly allusive that the meaning is obscure. <A> Just trying to understand what do means there. <S> I think I'm with StoneyB. <S> To doat is to love foolishly or unreasonably, either by loving too lavishly or by bestowing one's love upon one who is unworthy of that love. <S> The generic verb do need not refer anaphorically to a specific verb. <S> It can refer to an idea expressed earlier; the anaphora can be semantic. <S> For perfect strains may float ' <S> Neath master-hands, from instruments defaced, — And great souls, at one stroke, may do and doat. <S> Consider the parallels in the analogy, with the master's hands on the strings <S> echoed by "at one stroke": <S> Master musicians may bring forth perfect strains when playing an instrument unworthy of their skill. <S> And great souls may do (bring forth "perfect strains") when they are doating—bestowing their love on one who is not worthy of it.
| Doat/dote itself is ambiguous: yes, it means "love", but it also means "behave or feel foolishly", and the latter meaning is dominant.
|
Why is "mouthbreather" an insult? I've heard the word "mouthbreather" frequently used as an insult, which I find baffling. Why is this considered an insult, and where does it come from? Thank you. :-) <Q> With respect specifically to the term "Mouth-Breather," though this is not the only answer, a very compelling one is a genetic malady called Down Syndrome. <S> Take this fine gentleman in the picture: <S> As a sufferer of Down Syndrome, he and others like him have a tendency to suffer breathing problems. <S> These cause many sufferers to favor breathing with their mouth as opposed to their nose (you can read more about it here if you'd like). <S> You'd breathe with your mouth most of the time too if you had problems breathing through your nose. <S> Combine this with the sad fact that the malady reduces the average IQ from 100 to 50, and it becomes rather simple to draw the correlation of the term "mouth breather" being used as an insult. <S> Something to note: this malady has existed throughout human history. <S> There are references to it going back to at least the 16th century, including this painting (The Adoration of the Christ Child, of which there are several versions, this one painted in 1515 and believed to show numerous subjects with what is now known as Down Syndrome): <S> So the term "mouth-breather" has had centuries to build up its sordid reputation. <A> so always breathes (loudly) through his mouth. <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mouth-breather <S> As to why it's an insult, who can say? <S> Why is it that if you call someone "a dog" it's bad, but if you say "my dog" it's good? <S> "Pigheaded" means "unreasonably stubborn" but why? <S> Pigs are actually very easygoing animals, especially when compared with cats (who can be incredibly stubborn). <S> Sometimes a phrase means something simply because that's how it's been used. <S> Someone used it, it sounded appropriate, so others copied them. <S> Over time it becomes part of the language. <A> I think that it may be a person that nonstop talks about other people's business that had been wished to be kept a secret. <S> I assume that this is the reason because talking could also be assumed as breathing through the mouth because it is open on a regular basis. <S> Here is an example: <S> "My best friend is a mouthbreather because she told everybody who I have a crush on!" <S> I may be incorrect, but this is what I assume. <S> I have been told, however, that it is a term for someone with low intelligence, such an example would be: "the child in my class is a mouthbreather, he didn't know any of the answers on his test!" <S> since this is one of the terms for "idiot" or "stupid" <S> it would be fairly appreciated that no one is to be called this in your social or non-social life.
| "Mouth-breather" is used to imply someone of low intelligence, who perhaps isn't even smart enough to clear a blocked nose and
|
Understand 'callback' in computer programming I cannot interpret the jargon 'callback' in computer programming intuitively. The definition of 'callback' in Dictionary: In collins dictionary, Callback definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary A callback is an occasion when you are asked to return for a second interview for a job, or a second audition for a part in a show. In telecommunications Callback (telecommunications) - Wikipedia In telecommunications, a callback or call-back occurs when the originator of a call is immediately called back in a second call as a response. In conlusion, the keyword of 'callback' is 'second'. As to its usage in computer_programming,it's difficult to figure out what the 'second' references to. Quote from wikipedia In computer programming, a callback is any executable code that is passed as an argument to other code, which is expected to call back (execute) the argument at a given time. Amongst the sentence, 'call back (execute) the argument at a given time.' So the keyword 'second' refers to the 'argument'.Nevertheless,when executed, it's the first time of the argument being called. A trivial python code exmaple from Callback (computer programming) - Wikipedia >>> def my_square(val):... """ the callback """... return val ** 2...>>> def caller(val, func):... return func(val)>>> caller(2, my_square)>>> 2 Reference to arguement '2',it is called for one single time during the process instead of second return.How to understand the 'callback' then? <Q> a callback is any executable code that is passed as an argument to other code, which is expected to call back (execute) the argument at a given time. <S> Back when used phrasally can mean something like "doing this in response to something." <S> Given a traditional imperative programming paradigm, typically you are writing a list of instructions and using functions to execute steps in an algorithm, and these steps are perfomed one-by-one and in order, and the next step starts when the current one completes. <S> Callbacks reverse this and allow a more asynchronous model to exist - your instruction is doing something like "dispatching" a task to be actually called later, rather than representing an atomic task that will complete before the next one starts. <S> So you can think of it as similar to a dispatcher needing a field worker to do something, and he/she leaves a message on his/her phone. <S> The dispatcher then goes on to do other things while waiting for the call back . <S> When the field worker is ready, the worker will call the dispatcher back (returning the call). <S> I am not a programmer, so I suppose it may be in vogue to describe any function passed as a parameter or argument as a callback, even if things are working synchronously. <S> E.g. specifying a function to perform comparison in a sort routine. <S> Another example: when you borrow something, another way to express returning it is giving it back . <A> This is really more of a programming question than a language one, but the definition works <S> In this case, the first call is to the function caller() , which then makes the call to my_square <S> () in response. <S> That call to my_square <S> () is the second call. <A> Imagine that April and Winnie are talking (via telephone). <S> April asks Winnie to call her back. <S> She gives a telephone number to call back on. <S> This number is sometimes called a "callback number". <S> April: <S> Hello. <S> Winnie: <S> Hi, this is Winnie. <S> April: <S> How are things going for you? <S> Winnie: <S> Good, <S> but I'm kind of busy right now. <S> Can I give you a call back later? <S> April: <S> Sure. <S> My number is (234) 555-6789. <S> Give me a call when you get a chance. <S> Winnie: <S> Will do. <S> Have a great day! <S> Imagine that your application is making a request (call) to the Windows API: <S> Application: <S> Hi, this is Application ABCD. <S> I want to play a practical joke using one of the windows. <S> Please give a call back to this "practical joke" function in my program. <S> When you call back, give the handle of a window to the "practical joke" function. <S> The "practical joke" function will tell you if I have had enough fun, or if you should call back again with the handle of another window. <S> Windows: <S> Will do. <S> Windows: <S> Hi, practical joke. <S> Here's a window handle. <S> I hope you like it. <S> Practical joke: <S> Ha, ha!. <S> Give me another! <S> Windows: <S> Hi, practical joke. <S> Here's another window handle. <S> I hope you like it. <S> Practical joke: <S> Ha, ha, ha! <S> That's enough. <S> Windows: <S> Whoo! <S> I can do something else now. <S> You really can call the Windows API like this. <S> Your "function call" asks the EnumWindows function to call a function in your application. <S> In other words, the Windows API is calling you back. <S> You have to tell EnumWindows what function to call. <S> That function (the "practical joke" function in this example) is similar to the callback number ((234) 555-6789 in the telephone example). <S> It is often called a "callback function".
| In telecommunications, a callback or call-back occurs when the originator of a call is immediately called back in a second call as a response.
|
Wanted: an idiom to direct/point someone's attention to a specific point/location In German, there is an idiom " Hier spielt die Musik!" (with intonationally emphasized "hier"). Translated literally: " Here is the music playing!" It is used with an accompanying pointing gesture to direct/point someone's attention to oneself or to a specific point in space/location. It is mainly used to grab someone's attention, or to regrab her attention because the person had become distracted by something else. In plain words, you could say: "Look here/at me (again)!", "Listen to me (again)!", or more generally (but less correct): "Pay attention to here/me (again)!" Does an idiom with the same function exist in English? If you are a native speaker and not aware of such an idiom then an answer like "I am a native speaker and not aware of such an idiom" is absolutely fine and will be highly appreciated. <Q> I think I understand what you're trying to convey: if someone is distracted or ignoring you while you're speaking, a simple way to get their attention in English would be by simply saying "Hellooo?" <S> (focus on a inquisitive intonation) and/or "Over heeeree" (again, all in the intonation) accompanied with waving or snapping fingers, but be warned these are not very elegant approaches. <S> A politer way would be by simply saying "Excuse me?" to get their attention again. <S> Good luck! <A> "Earth to [someone]," comes to mind, as in: Earth to Min-Soo Pipefeet. <S> Come in Min-Soo Pipefeet. <S> Here's some more information on that phrase's origin and meaning, but to summarize, it was similar to the way people spoke in sci-fi movies in the latter part of the twentieth century. <S> If someone from a base on earth was hailing an astronaut, that phrase would be used. <S> So the connotation is that the someone being addressed is "spaced out. <S> " I haven't heard that in a while, but it was definitely something I heard as a kid (directed at other kids, of course, not me)... <A> In American English, two similar phrases which come to mind (but aren't figurative idioms) are: <S> Hey, Charlie, I'm talking to you. <S> and Charlie, I'm over here . <S> You can say these when someone seems not to be paying attention or when their eyes have wandered. <S> The second fits well if you're talking to someone <S> and they're gazing at another person. <S> (Unless you're a ventriloquist.) <S> Sometimes women complain that men look at their breasts, and they say: My face is up here . <S> The tone of emphasis, which I've denoted with italic, is important. <A> "Hey, Jim, take a gander at this thing over here!" <A> Not exactly equivalent, but English has some idioms that seem to be related: drum roll, please is used to introduce something or someone. <S> Ta da! <S> can be used to draw attention to an idea or an event, as an imitation of a fanfare <S> (it has other uses which are more common). <S> Another recent meme that can be used to introduce and create emphasis is wait for it... . <S> But it may not be understood by all English speakers.
| I think "take a gander" might work to get someone's attention.
|
the first generation of computers were or was invented? Do we say the first generation of computers were or was invented? if the answer is (were), then why do we say the room of my brothers was built? generation is one thing. <Q> It may become clearer if you rearrange the sentence. <S> Let's talk about generations of computers. <S> The first was invented ... <S> The first anything is a single item, and a unique single item at that, hence the use of "the" as the article. <S> Rearrange it again. <S> Let's talk about computers. <S> The first generation was invented ... <S> Generation might be used as a collective term, but it describes one thing. <S> There are multiple generations, so each generation is one example of a generation (singular). <S> Back to your sentence: the first generation of computers was invented ... <S> "of computers" doesn't change anything, it just identifies what we're talking about. <S> There are lots of computers (plural), but there was just one first generation of them. <S> If you want to talk about computers instead of generations: <S> Computers were invented ... <S> Computers is plural. <S> The first computer was invented ... <S> Computer is singular, and the first one is "even more singular". <S> (Is that like "extra virgin" olive oil?) <S> Now it gets interesting: <S> The first computers were invented ... <S> First is singular and computers is plural. <S> This is like the chameleon that exploded trying to hide in a box of crayons. <S> Since computers is plural, we're not talking about the very first individual one. <S> In this usage, we're really not even talking about one "first" computer, we're talking about many first computers. <S> These are the computers in the first generation. <S> We can include the word "generation" if we want to talk about the entire collection as a single class. <S> But what if we want to refer to the computers, themselves, rather than the class (the trees vs. the forest)? <S> That's the context of "the first computers". <S> So that usage is plural. <A> I think this is very similar to how we use the expression a number of something in English. <S> The following is a perfectly grammatical example: <S> There are a number of things that I'd like to discuss with you. <S> In daily English, there are many times is substituted with there is . <S> That pretty much has become the norm in spoken English. <S> But the idea here is that we think of the first generation of something and a number of something as notions representing something that's made up of more than one thing. <S> That's why, I think, you actually need a plural verb to go along with expressions like these. <A> We would say " The first generation of computers were invented ", because generation is a collective term and refers to multiple things, therefore we use the plural were . <S> If you didn't need to specify computers in the sentence, perhaps because it was in a preceding sentence, you would also say " The first generation were invented , ..." just as you would also say, " The first computers were invented " but would say " The first computer was invented, ... " <S> We would say " the room was built " because the room is singular. <A> 'Were' is the correct choice out of the two. <S> However, it seems awkward to me to use 'generation' in this context <S> A generation of computers is not invented in a group. <S> Each computer is invented by itself.
| It's much clearer to leave the word 'generation' out and just say, 'The first computers were invented.'
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.