source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is "NG" (no good) correct english? Living in a country with a lot of incorrect "english-like" expressions, I am in doubt. Is "NG" correct english? (meaning the opposite of "OK")If not, what is the opposite of "OK"? <Q> No, NG is not understandable in common American English – its common use is Japanese English. <S> I am a native speaker of American English, and first heard “NG” when learning Japanese. <S> Apparently it is used in technical contexts, especially film (“bad take”), but not in everyday American speech. <A> Never heard of NG to mean "No good". <S> As an antonym of OK, you can say: Bad/Wrong <S> /Not good/ <S> No good/Not correct. <S> Some people also say "Not OK". <A> I work in TV/Film/Commercial production in Taiwan(ASIA). <S> However, I've never hear anyone saying this out of 15 years of living in California. <A> I'm a California resident, and I use NG all the time...but only with my coworkers. <S> I work in consumer electronics engineering, and at work we use NG to refer to a defective part that failed a test, or more generally refer to any process that is unacceptable. <S> This is helpful when navigating language barriers with our suppliers. <S> But we also now use it to refer to anything that is not good or unacceptable. <S> "Don't get the noodles—they're NG." <S> "The situation in the lab is NG." <S> "How's it going?" <S> "NG...smh"
| People often say NG as NO GOOD or NOT GOOD.
|
What's the exact meaning of "Inspire on"? I'm reading a motivational book. The author often writes "Inspire on!", it's a kind of slogan. What I don't really understand is if it means more: "inspire other people" or: "be inspired when you're doing something", or both. <Q> It depends on the context of the book, but I can see two possible meanings for the phrase. <S> Continue to feel inspired , or Feel inspired Inspire [others] on! <S> However, since it is a motivational book, it is likely the first meaning. <A> I hear some people nowadays use "inspire" as a reflexive verb -- e.g. "I inspired myself with a nature walk" -- so perhaps the author did intend to use it in that sense. <S> However, whether it was meant that way or in a "inspire others on" sense, the slogan seems very awkward (perhaps to the point of being ungrammatical), because "inspire" is a transitive verb. <S> In just about any other example I can think of, when a verb is paired with "on" that way (e.g. "Shine on, harvest moon" from early 1900s song; "Roll on, thou deep and dark blue Ocean—roll!" <S> from Lord Byron's Childe Harold , Canto IV, stanza CLXXIX), the verb is an intransitive one. <A> Just because someone writes something in a book does not make it good English. <S> As has been pointed out, "inspire" is a transitive verb and requires an object. <S> I suspect the author meant "aspire."
| Without knowing more context, it is difficult to tell if the author is telling the reader to feel inspired, or to inspire others.
|
"There is to do something" natural? In the song " Everyday " by Phil Collins there's a lyric: Every way there is to cry, ourselves to sleep we will. Is the phrase " there Is to do something " valid and natural English? I'm striving hard to understand this whole part actually. <Q> It's not a common expression, but it is grammatically acceptable. <S> Another example would be "Any way there is to cheat on an exam, your students will find it." <S> However, the comma in the Phil Collins example is in the wrong place grammatically. <S> When viewed in the context of the rest of the lyrics, it's clearly being used to mark the end of the verse (in the poetic sense of the term), in the same way other lyrics might use a slash (/). <A> I'd rephrase this line as "There is every way to cry, and we will cry ourselves to sleep ". <S> There's something to do sounds more grammatical than <S> there is to do something --whether <S> the latter is valid and natural English <S> I very much doubt-- <S> but it is a song after all to dig deeper. <A> I read this line differently because the comma seems misplaced. <S> The sense seems to be "We will cry ourselves to sleep in every way possible." <S> Logically that is hard to parse because it makes no real difference whether we cry ourselves to sleep on the couch on our back or in our bed on our side. <S> But songs do not have to be logical to evoke emotions. <S> If my reading is correct, the comma is grammatically wrong. <S> Of course, the comma was not sung. <A> Firstly, in case it's causing any confusion, the punctuation should be "Every way there is to cry ourselves to sleep, we will. <S> " <S> You can't say "there is to do something" on its own and have it make sense, but what's happening is that the words "there is" are joined to the word "way" in a noun phrase. <S> The rules for "way" get extended to the "way there is" noun phrase as a whole, so since one can say "a way to do something," one can also say "a way there is to do something." <S> (One can also say "a way of doing something" -- see https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/149291/is-there-a-difference-between-way-of-doing-something-and-way-to-do-something .) <S> Consider: <S> Every way imaginable to climb the mountain, I tried. <S> Every imaginable way to climb the mountain, I tried. <S> i.e. <S> I tried every way imaginable to climb the mountain. <S> I tried every imaginable way to climb the mountain. <S> In this case, "imaginable" is modifying "way", instead of "there is." <S> (You couldn't say "every there is way to cry ourselves to sleep" but "every possible way to cry ourselves to sleep" is ok. <S> The reason the analogy is imperfect is that "there is" is not an adjective, but the "way there is" is acting as a noun phrase.) <S> However, in the Collins case, the "we will" doesn't (on its own) really match up to the pre-comma part; it's actually referring to just the "cry ourselves to sleep" part. <S> In other words, he actually meant "Using every way there is to cry ourselves to sleep, we will cry ourselves to sleep. <S> " It might be more correct (albeit less lyrical) for the lyrics to have been written as "Every way there is to cry ourselves to sleep, we will use." <S> Consider the saying "Where there's a will <S> , there's a way." <S> That saying, in a more expanded form, would be "Where there is a will to do something, there is a way to do something."
| I believe "there is to do something" is used only in the formulation, "any/every way there is to do something, he/she/they will".
|
I guess I think? A: Where do you stand on the nature-nurture controversy? B: Me? I guess I think family is the most important factor. A happy early childhoold makes a person cheerful for life. I heard an American say this in an interview. Why did she say 'I guess I think'? She could've said either by why both? I don't understand the meaning. <Q> You have to be careful about reading too much into grammar during verbal interviews. <S> People often say things they probably wouldn’t write if they had a chance to proofread their text and polish their prose. <S> You are right, the speaker could have used either phrase and probably doesn’t need both. <S> That said, the phrase is not ungrammatical. <S> Lead-ins like “I guess” or “I suppose” often indicate someone is giving their initial impression about something they may have not ever given much thought to previously. <S> Had the speaker said: I think family is the most important factor. <S> That sounds like a strong opinion with not much room for wavering. <S> The speaker may have also said: I guess family is the most important factor. <S> but that sounds like the speaker is unsure. <S> By saying: <S> I guess I think family is the most important factor. <S> the speaker is giving an opinion, but not being dogmatic about it. <S> I guess I’d say that the language sounds acceptably idiomatic to me. <A> "I think" could mean that she had thought about the question, and this was her considered opinion, or that she was only now considering it (it would usually be obvious from how she said it which of these was the case). <S> "I guess I think" strongly suggests that she was only now getting her thoughts in order. <S> In fact, I would argue that the "I guess" was mostly a filler, to give her time to think of the answer. <A> It indicates the undecidedness in the mind of the candidate. <S> It is possible that she doesn't have a clear opinion on the controversy, however feels that if she has to choose, she will go with the aforementioned opinion.
| I would guess that the phrase was uttered without much thought, as her mind was probably more focused on her answer to the question.
|
The best part of the movie 'is/are' the quirks - Singular or Plural? Though inclined toward the plural, I want to confirm whether the auxiliary verb here should be plural. The best part of the movie is/are the quirks -from smart flashbacks to character twists at the witty set-pieces. What does that verb refer to? '....the best part...' (and so singular ) or '....the quirks...' (and so plural )? Is is incorrect? How? <Q> What does that verb refer to? <S> Unless you are asking a question, the subject, or what the verb "refers" to you, is always in front of the verb. <S> The best part of the movie is the quirks. <S> The best part of the movie is the subject of is . <S> What comes after the verb (complements, objects) doesn't affect the form of the verb you use. <A> Happy is the man who finds wisdom. <S> Sometimes there is only one possible subject, which makes that subject easier to find. <S> As should be obvious from this example, the subject is not always in front of the verb. <S> The subject of the copula is the thing that possesses some state. <S> The complement of the subject is the thing that represents that state. <S> In the biblical example above, the adjective "happy" represents an emotional state. <S> It must be the complement, leaving "the man who finds wisdom" as the subject who possesses some happiness. <S> The best part of the movie are the quirks. <S> In this case, both the subject and the complement are noun phrases. <S> Grammatically, either phrase could play either role. <S> We need to look at the semantics. <S> Which one of these referents can more sensibly possess the other as a state? <S> The other arrangement is possible. <S> We could discuss several parts of the movie. <S> We might decide that the best part is the quirks, the worst part is the frequent bits of wooden dialogue, and one mediocre part is a long stretch of silent cinematography. <S> In a context like this, "the best part of the movie" is a more sensible subject. <S> This sentence offers another way to be sure that subject and verb agree: <S> let the subject and its complement both share grammatical number. <S> The best part s of the movie are the quirks. <S> Here, the verb agrees with both noun phrases. <A> As a native speaker, 'are' sounds more natural to me. <S> However, I'm sure the majority of people in the UK would find both versions perfectly acceptable.
| To my eye it seems more likely that the "quirks" possess a state and that "the best part" represents or characterizes that state.
|
I will be coming from tomorrow onwards! I will be coming from tomorrow onwards. Is this an accurate way or a phrase to tell someone about the planning and as a promise that from tomorrow onwards, I'll be there? <Q> If you speak of anything occurring from a specific time and onwards it can only really refer to something ongoing . <S> For example: The party is from 7pm onwards. <S> This means that the party begins at 7pm and continues . <S> Although that may seem obvious, the implication is that guests may arrive from that time (ie it is not imperitive that you are there exactly at 7pm). <S> Other events would not be advertised that way, for example a show at a theatre which may close the doors once a performance begins at a set time. <S> In your example: I will be coming from tomorrow onwards. <S> This could make sense in the correct context, if : "coming" means regularly attending something, such as a meeting <S> Your attendance begins tomorrow <S> You intend your attendance to continue regularly from tomorrow. <S> Other ways you could express the same: I will be attending regularly beginning tomorrow. <S> I will be attending from tomorrow. <S> I will attend beginning tomorrow. <S> I will begin attending after today. <A> If I understand what you are asking, these sentences would convey the meaning: I will come tomorrow and from then on. <S> I will be coming tomorrow and ever day thereafter. <S> I will be there from tomorrow on. <A> The sentence as it stands is unlikely idiomatic. <S> The way I see the sentence it means, " from tomorrow on 'I will be coming' ". <S> By saying " I will be coming " <S> I mean an everlasting action of ' coming '. <S> If by ' come ' you mean " attend " <S> then it's not an appropriate structure. <S> From what I've understood you want to say that " you will come tomorrow and every next day too ": <S> I will come to you every day starting tomorrow. <S> But suppose tomorrow is Friday and the next meeting will take Friday next week <S> and so on then: I will be attending the meeting every Friday starting tomorrow.
| For an established that you wish to be started tomorrow and continue, it is best to say: From tomorrow on I will be coming to him every day.
|
For or Since or Nothing Following situation is given:Sue has been in France for the last three weeks. I have to repeat this sentence using, "She went ...", I would say something like this: "She went to France three weeks ago." Is this correct? Another one: "Do you often go to the cinema?" "No, I haven´t gone to the cinema for a long time." I used for , because its a period of time, and I used present perfect, because there is a connection to the present. <Q> "She went to France three weeks ago." = went and three weeks ago are correct macthes. <S> Past Simple refers to a completed action in the past. <S> "No, I haven´t gone to the cinema for a long time." <S> = <S> For is the correct choice as you talk about a period which is Present Perfect. <S> And your verb "gone".. <S> it is not bad <S> but I would say "been" there. <A> ` I have been waiting since 8am. <S> I have been waiting since this morning. <S> ` Use for when your reference isn't particular to any definite point in time. <S> I have been waiting for ever/ month/ years/ ..... <S> since last saturday. <S> How long have you been waiting for ? <A> "has been in France for three weeks" does not at all mean the same thing as "went to France three weeks ago. <S> " <S> The former refers to something continuous and continuing. <S> The latter refers to a single event. <S> " <S> She went to France three weeks ago" could be true even if she was there for only a fraction of a second three weeks ago. " <S> She went to France for three weeks" is closer to "has been in France for three weeks", but still isn't the same thing, first because the former doesn't tell us when she went to France or that she's still there and second because it limits her stay in France to three weeks. <S> " <S> She spent the past three weeks in France" would be better. <S> But that's using "spent" not "went". <S> There's something else going on in this sentence. <S> If you're expecting someone to return, and you know how long the person will be away, then "has been" tells you how much longer. <S> If you're expecting someone to return, but you don't know when, then "has been" suggests uncertainty about how much longer. <S> If you're wondering why you haven't seen someone around, then "has been in France for the last three weeks" is the reason. <S> I don't see any way to express the same meaning with "she went" and without "has been". <S> If this is for an English course and you have an instructor who knows how to do this, I'd love to see your instructor's answer. <S> Of course, the point may be for you to learn that it isn't possible. <S> We have multiple tenses for good reason.
| Your time expression "three weeks ago" emphasizes that it is a "past" action. Use since , when making references in time that have a definite point of origin; including dates, ages, time ( clock ).
|
What does 'agreed' modify in the sentence? De Soto argues that, within many of the extralegal markets of the developing world, mutually agreed upon rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights already exist. I don't understand what 'agreed' modifies in the sentence, and what is the verb in the 'that' clause, which is the object of the verb 'argues'. <Q> You and I can agree upon something, for example, that I will pay you $10 if you can say the alphabet backwards perfectly, and that you will pay me $10 if you make a mistake when attempting to do so. <S> The price of $10 is agreed upon . <S> $10 is the agreed upon bet. <S> I bet you can't say the alphabet backwards! <S> I will pay you $10 if you can do it perfectly, and you pay me $10 if you make a mistake. <S> We could hyphenate it as agreed-upon to make it clearer that the two-word phrase is acting as a single adjectival unit, modifying the noun bet . <S> It was a mutually agreed upon bet. <S> The adverb mutually modifies the adjective. <S> We can do this with many verbs that have prepositions. <S> You can sit on a chair. <S> I was just sitting on one of these chairs. <S> Which of these two chairs is the sat-on chair? <S> Can you guess? <S> --I suppose it is the chair that has a warm seat-cushion. <A> Matrix clause Simple Subject: <S> "De Soto" Predicating Verb: "argues" Direct Object: the entire content clause starting with "that" Content clause Simple Subject: "rules" Predicating Verb: "exist" <S> De Soto argues that rules exist. <S> The rules in question are not random or abstract or all-inclusive. <S> De Soto proposes that a specific set of rules exists. <S> These rules have been mutually agreed upon . <S> As a matter of clear word choice, I would prefer to see "commonly agreed upon" to "mutually agreed upon". <S> I reserve "mutual" for reciprocal actions, and there's no suggestion of reciprocity in this sentence. <S> Another thing that these rules have in common is their purpose or their nature. <S> These are rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights . <S> De Soto argues that mutually-agreed-upon rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights exist. <S> I imagine that the author, if not De Soto himself, wants to emphasize the contrast between these actual rules and any hypothetical or potential rules that might replace them. <S> These rules already exist . <S> De Soto argues that mutually-agreed-upon rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights already exist. <S> These rules don't exist in all contexts and under all conditions. <S> Their existence has a limited scope. <S> They exist within many of the extralegal markets of the developing world . <S> De Soto argues that mutually-agreed-upon rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights already exist within many of the extralegal markets of the developing world. <S> The limits of this scope are important. <S> We can treat the adverbial prepositional phrase as a parenthetical or introductory phrase for its clause, granting it greater emphasis: De Soto argues that, within many of the extralegal markets of the developing world, mutually-agreed-upon rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights already exist. <S> With the roles of all these modifiers clearly identified, the remaining parts of the sentence have clear relationships: De Soto argues that , within many of the extralegal markets of the developing world, mutually-agreed-upon rules for distributing assets and recognizing property rights already exist . <A> As a general rule, I would vehemently argue to include a hyphen whenever using a "two-word phrase <S> [that] is acting as a single adjectival unit" (from Tᴚoɯɐuo's answer) <S> This would include the particular case of "mutually agreed-upon" The rationale for this is completely for coherence: As a reader, it is much easier to digest the sentence when the two-word phrase is syntactically linked. <S> This is especially true in the (common) case where the second word is prepositional ("upon"), which can cause a jarring break in comprehension (if not complete confusion) if left otherwise standing alone. <S> Source: <S> Am a native, fluent English speaker living in the Northeastern US my entire life and consider myself not only well-read but articulate. :)
| The past participle of the verb agree is used adjectivally, and the preposition accompanies it when forming the adjectival phrase.
|
Pull or push through Is the phrase push or pull through, interchangeable regarding the words push and pull? Is one word more grammatically correct than the other? <Q> Depends on the statement you are emphasizing on, 'push through' and 'pull through' are both phrasal verbs. <S> Note: <S> A phrasal verb is a phrase consisting of a verb and either or both of a preposition or adverb that has idiomatic meaning. <S> Such as your examples 'pull through' and 'push through'; 'push' is a verb and 'through' could be adverb or preposition. <S> It depends on the statement. <S> The president is trying to push through various tax reforms. <S> Meaning: "to cause a plan or suggestion to be officially accepted or put into use <S> " I'm glad he pulled through. <S> Meaning: "To survive something" <A> There is no grammatical difference between them, but they have different meanings. <S> As idioms, they have specific meanings that are not interchangeable: "push something through" means to work to get it accepted or approved, or voted on. <S> " <S> Pull through" (intransitive) means to survive an illness or injury. <A> are both a phrasal verb'Note: <S> A phrase consisting of a verb and either or both of a preposition or adverb, that has idiomatic meaning. <S> In your examples pull through and push through, push is a verb and through could be adverb or preposition. <S> It depends on the statement. <S> e.g <S> : The president is trying to push through various tax reforms. <S> Meaning:"To cause a plan or suggestion to be officially accepted or put into use:" <S> e.g: <S> I'm glad he pulled through. <S> Meaning: "To survive something". <S> You can check for more clarifications at these links: pull through push through push something through
| Depends on the statement you are emphasizing on, 'push through' and 'pull through When used literally, pushing is applying force from behind to press something through a gap; pulling is applying force from the front to draw it through. If you're using them figuratively, it is possible that they will both do in some context: it depends on the context.
|
Is it grammatical to say "according to the law" instead of "according the law"? Is it grammatical to say "according to the law" instead of "according the law"? If so, is there any difference in meaning? <Q> In the usual context of these words, as others have pointed out, one invariably says 'according to the law'. <S> However, you can use 'according the law', just not in the context you're referring to. <S> To illustrate: In areas of open lawlessness, according the law the respect it deserves can be difficult, if not impossible to achieve. <S> This obviously uses 'according' as a verb, not a preposition as in the example sentences. <S> I mention this usage as I don't think " <S> No, according the law is completely incorrect," or "Only “according to the law” is correct" are entirely correct. <S> Kevin notes: This usage is dated and seldom used anymore. <A> When an average person hears the words according and law , the first thing that probably comes to their mind is the expression according to the law . <S> according to something is actually a set phrase in English and you just can't leave the to out from it. <S> It's part of the expression and therefore it must be there. <S> Nor can you say according of the law . <S> Again, that's just incorrect grammar. <S> However, according the law would still be grammatically correct, but it would mean a completely different thing. <S> In this case, according is the present participle of the verb to accord which means to give or grant something to someone. <S> For example: Accord the law the necessary status in society is a task of the highest priority if we are to build a fair and just legal system. <A> " According to " is a set phrase in English to indicate where something is specified. <S> You can't just drop the "to" and expect it to have the same meaning. <S> The verb to accord has a number of meanings; the only sense in which it could abut a noun phrase like that is as a transitive verb; example: "I was according the law the respect it deserves". <S> That's unlikely to be the sense intended here. <A> “According the law” is ungrammatical. <S> Only “according to the law” is correct. <A> "According to" is certainly far more common in current usage. <S> I cannot imagine dropping the "to" except perhaps in some unusual, perhaps archaic, construction. <S> OED lists according as an adverb and notes that it's "usually" according to . <S> They also list a second sense as according as . <S> M-W and Macmillan list <S> according to as a preposition.
| You should always say according to the law . So, no, according the law is incorrect.
|
How do you call the "act" of saving information? There is a way of saying things with verbs like "Save data" or "clean room" or "Backup file". They have their counterparts like Clean room --> Room Cleaning Backup file --> File Backup Save Data ---> ????? What would be the counterpart for "save ...data" or "Save information"? (By counterpart I mean a noun that designate the process that is being carried out) <Q> I don't think there is an equivalent phrase for saving data other than simply saying saving . <S> However, in the world of databases, they often use the term <S> commit when talking about saving changes that have been made during the data modification process. <S> But that's probably not exactly what you're looking for. <A> Two common choices: <S> "Saving data" is a gerund. <S> " Data retention " is a noun phrase, with a technical (and legal) meaning. <A> Clean room -- <S> > Room Cleaning <S> Backup file -- <S> > <S> File Backup Save Data --- <S> > <S> Saved Data <S> If the context is programming/software development, "stored data" may be slightly better. <S> If you really mean "Save Data to File" (based on "Backup File" previously) then "Saved File" or just plain "File" would work.
| The only thing that comes to mind is data storage , but that typically pertains to methods used to store information or data in a persistent manner.
|
Is the letter "c" always silent in words which have the letters "sc"? In words which have the letters " sc " is the letter " c " always silent? (for example: Fa sc inate) <Q> " sc " is pronounced as " s " before letters Y , I and E in the beginning or middle of a word, or at the end of a word followed by E : <S> scene, descent, scythe, science, convalesce... <S> In most other cases it is pronounced as sk : <S> scanner, scope, scratch, scream, scum... <S> There are exceptions where " sc " is pronounced as " sh ": Crescendo, fascist, conscious... <A> No, "sc" does not always correspond to /s/. <S> As SovereignSun mentions, usually this pronunciation only shows up in the combinations "sce", "sci" and "scy". <S> A somewhat common exception to this in British English is the word "sceptic", which is pronounced with /sk/. <S> Sometimes this is due to palatalization in English, and sometimes it is due to influence from Italian. <S> In the combinations "sca", "sco" and "scu", we usually have /sk/. <S> The combination "scr" is usually pronounced /skr/. <S> The combination "scl" is rare. <S> It occurs at the start of some words from Greek like "sclera", "sclerosis", that are pronounced with /skl/ in educated speech (there many be other pronunciations in uneducated speech). <S> The word "muscle" is pronounced with /sl̩/. <S> The combination "sch" is very variable and may be pronounced as /sk/, /ʃ/, /stʃ/, or even /s/ <S> depending on various factors. <S> Related ELU question: What effect do <S> neighboring vowel-letters have on the pronunciation of the letters “sc” in a word? <A> No, it is not always silent. " <S> Scar" rhymes with "car, pronounced "kar." <S> English orthography is a mess. <S> Virtually any rule you care to make will have exceptions.
| The prounciation /ʃ/ shows up in a few words where "sc" is followed by "i" or "e". One reason for the frequency of exceptions is that English is happy to accept words from other languages, which have their own rules of orthography.
|
Are there words in which the letter D is pronounced like T (and they are not -ed)? Are there words in which the letter D is pronounced like T (and they are not those words which ending with the past tense suffix of -ed)? <Q> I think it's the reverse: <S> For example: Metal Butter Cattle <S> Keep in mind, it's not consistent, and the pronunciation might be different from word to word and from person to person. <S> But I can't think of any words where the D is pronounced T . <S> More info here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13980/why-is-t-sometimes-pronounced-like-d-in-american-english <A> Sometimes words spelled with medial 'dd' will be pronounced in some regional dialects closer to a /t/. <S> This happens where I live. <S> With this heavy rain, the track is sloppy, <S> so I'm putting my money on a mudder. <S> /mutr/ <S> Left full rudder! <S> /rutr/ <A> Depending on what you mean by "pronounced like T", certain words where /d/ comes after /s/ <S> or before coda /θ/ might count. <S> To my ear, disdain sounds like "distain", and breadth sounds like "bretth". <S> In English, the "voiced" plosive phonemes /d/ <S> , /b/ and /g/ are not always strongly voiced, and sometimes they may show partial assimilation when adjacent to voiceless obstruents. <S> A "devoiced" /d/ sounds quite similar to an unaspirated /t/ <S> (I don't know enough to say if an actual merger is possible).For example, I find it hard to hear a difference between the sound of "sd" /sd/ <S> in words like mi sd eed, mi sd emeanor, di sd <S> ain and the sound of "st" /st/ in words like mi st ake, mi st y, su st ain . <S> I also hear regressive assimilation of voicelessness in my pronunciation of the words width, breadth, hundredth : <S> the "dth" /dθ/ in these words sounds a lot like the /tθ/ in eighth. <S> When /d/ comes before a voiceless obstruent that is not in the same syllable, it may be phonetically devoiced, but the phonological opposition with /t/ <S> is generally still clearly marked by the length (or in some accents, quality) of the preceding vowel. <S> So a word like bloodthirsty does not sound like (a hypothetical word) "blutthirsty".
| T s are often pronounced like soft D s in American English when the consonant appears in the middle of the word and when the syllable is not stressed.
|
What do you call the attachment point of trailer to a truck? A dictionary isn't much help for me in this case as I don't even know if there is an equivalent in my native tongue, so I don't know what to look for. I have to describe what I mean: Consider a truck pulling a trailer that only has an axle (or axles) at the back of the trailer.The front of such a trailer rests on a horizontal mount-plate located above the back-axle(s) of the truck. This arrangement is also sometimes found on bigger model pickup-trucks to enable them to pull such trailers. I don't mean the hook found at the back off a regular car to which you can hitch a trailer or caravan. Or the heavy duty hitch arrangement to put a trailer (with axles front and back) after another trailer. (Also found sometimes at the back of lorries, tractors and some trucks.) Is there a proper word (or phrase) for this mount-plate in English? <Q> It is called a fifth-wheel coupling : <S> The fifth-wheel coupling provides the link between a semi-trailer and the towing truck, tractor unit, leading trailer or dolly. <S> Some camper trailers use a fifth-wheel configuration, requiring the coupling to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck as a towing vehicle, and "fifth wheel" is therefore sometimes used as a synonym for such campers in North America. <S> The term fifth wheel comes from a similar coupling used on four-wheel horse-drawn carriages and wagons. <S> The device allowed the front axle assembly to pivot in the horizontal plane, to facilitate turning. <S> Basically a wheel was placed on the rear frame section of the truck, which back then only had four wheels; this wheel that was placed on the frame was the "fifth wheel", hence the name. <S> The trailer needed to be raised so that the trailer's pin would be able to drop into the central hole of the fifth wheel. <S> Wikipedia: Fifth-wheel coupling <A> <A> The attachment point on the semi-trailer is also called a "king pin". <S> You'll sometimes see highway department signs limiting semi-trailer length to "x feet from king pin to rear axle." <A> Also look into goose-neck. <S> Very common and popular with pick-up trucks for hauling equipment trailers, house trailers, etc.
| The general term for the trailer attachment point would be the "trailer hitch", but that term is mostly reserved for trailers that are towed completely behind the truck.
|
Can I say "The place where she is now is closer than what you might think" Can I say " The place where she is now is closer than what you might think" In the example a father is telling his son about the place where his mother, no longer alive, may be. What bothers me is the reason why what I wrote in bold letters is not common. And I know it is not because I searched it on google in quotes and got very few results.Is it redundant to begin the sentence with "The place" ?Should I omit it and leave it implied by "where" ?How else could I write this sentence, without inverting the clauses?Thanks <Q> There is nothing wrong with the grammar in that sentence. <S> You're right that "the place ..." is slightly redundant and could be omitted <S> but it helps to emphasize that you are saying something about the place rather than about her. <S> I also think it makes the sentence easier to parse. <S> You could also say "She is now closer than you might think." or "She is now in a closer place than you might think." <A> Let's look at what can be eliminated. <S> The place. <S> Where she is now is closer than what you might think. <S> where she is now <S> She is closer than what you might think. <S> what you might think <S> She is closer than you think. <S> "might think" does mean something a little different than "think". <S> With "might think", the speaker means "what you probably think" or "what you are likely to think". <S> So we can put it back: <S> She is closer than you might think. <S> P.S. <S> If you wish to refer to where she is as a place <S> then there is reason for place to stay. <S> But in normal everyday conversation, if you're focusing on how far away or near she is, "the place where she is is closer <S> " would most likely be stated as "she is closer". <A> Your plan of Googling a phrase (with quotes around it) is good thinking, but a sentence like "The place where she is now is closer than what you might think" is too long and too specific to give an accurate representation of the phrase's commonality or correctness . <S> Breaking the sentence into smaller sections and removing words that are unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence (such as " what " or " might " in this case) will produce more results. <S> Also, experiment with Google's verbatim feature to return different search results. <S> It's #2 on this list of Google Search tips . <S> I use the feature constantly, especially with technical searches like coding questions. <S> Another Google tool that is informative and interesting is the Google Ngram Viewer, which search through millions of books (some written centuries ago) to see & compare word or phrase frequency over time. <S> Phrases don't use quotes; they are separated by commas. <S> Here is an example of Ngram, breaking up your example phrase into 2 parts. <S> Note the differences when you change the corpus ( <S> like British English versus American English ). <S> As for the phrase in question: The place where she is now is closer than what you might think <S> ...make sense, but sounds slightly unnatural to me. <S> I don't think what belongs in it, and personally I would add a comma. <S> I would write it: <S> The place she is now, is closer than you might think. <S> I suspect my comma placement is probably not "correct" but it makes sense to me (and besides, the very definition of "correct English" is rapidly changing). <S> As you can tell, I tend to write with lots of quotes, commas and italic, especially online like this, because I feel that it helps convey my "intended tone" by breaking up sentences with commas, and bringing attention to certain words. <S> Unless you're planning on becoming an English Teacher, perfect grammar is absolutely unnecessary. <S> The important part is that people know what you're trying to communicate (even if it's not the same way others would spell or phrase it). <S> The idiot president of the USA has terrible grammar and likes to make up words to suit his needs, but his bank account hasn't been negatively impacted. :)
| "The place where she is now is closer than what you might think" Perfectly grammatical, but verbose. The version with might is not as forceful or definite.
|
What "remain friends" mean? I'm trying to get this paragraph Remembering what it was like not to be who we are now is vital to our growth and integrity. The best professors remain friends with their past. They remember what it was like not to know about their special topic – and so don’t talk over the heads of their students. what "remain friends" means? their past = the best professors' past? The last sentence = They don't talk over their students' headbecause they remember the period they also did not know about many topics? <Q> Well, " remain friends " means that they keep on being friends. <S> " their past " refers to the life when they were young, when they were students. <S> You got the last sentence correctly. <S> It means that they remember their youth and how hard it was and so they, now having grown up, understand the young students. <A> Several good answers that I won't rehash, so let me just add one clarification in case you're confused on this point. <S> The writer talks about the professor "remaining friends" with "his past" as a metaphor. <S> Normally we talk about remaining friends with a person. " <S> Bob and I met in high school, and we have remained friends for 30 years. <S> " <S> But here he is talking about the professor being a friend to his own past. <S> The point is not that the professor is friends with the students. <S> He might or might not, that's not the point. <S> He is friends with his own past self and experiences. <A> Here as mentioned in answers above, remain friends means remembering how it was when they lacked the adept understanding of the topic. <S> In this context, the writer intends to convey that a good professor loves to assist and appreciates others to learn in the area of his expertise and does not demotivate if a concept is hard to grasp. <S> Often, if a student faces difficulty in a topic, professors act fed-up after explaining a couple of times and behave a little rudely while reiterating and also when the student asks complex counter-questions which kills the student's craving for the knowledge and understanding and the latter resort to cramming instead. <A> It's interesting how different people interpret it. <S> To me "remain friends" in the context just means comfortable with their past. <S> But in the next sentence you see the writer also means a condition where they can make use of their past.
| They are friends with this past: they remember, they respect, they care for their past, and they do what friends do with their past.
|
Which word to describe a person who agrees with anything? Like, in an old joke: Joe and Jack sue each other. Joe: Sir, Jack let his cows destroy my field. He has to pay me! Judge: You're right! Jack: Yes, but I have no other way since the only road had been blocked, I need to go across his land to have grass for my cows, or else my family could be hungry to death. Judge: You're right! Then a serving lady comes across and says: But they cannot be right at the same time! Judge: You're right too! Then judge is he who agrees with both ideas, even though they contradict to each other. In general, which word to describe a person who agrees with every opinion? Those who may agree with an opinion, then when hearing another opinion they also think it's right. This word should be of disapproving connotation. In Vietnamese, which is my mother tongue, there's at least one word to call them. The most common one is "ba phai", which is the same as "three rights", that's mean all of the opinions are right from their view. Please help me to find the word. Thank you. <Q> Yes-man is the word that's very common used for the person who agrees to anything someone says. <A> (see also yeasayer in Collins ), which the Urban Dictionary defines as The opposite of naysayer - in other words a person who habitually expresses positive views, says yes. <S> When you are looking for an adjective, you could say that such a person is very accommodating (although this sounds positive) or complaisant (which is rather old-fashioned). <S> For a negative adjective, you can use spineless . <A> There are a lot of nouns in English for this, some of which have slightly different meanings, but all of which can describe such a person. <S> I like all of the words listed by others here as well: yeasayer, yes man (f. yes woman), namby-pamby, milksop, milquetoast, sap, doormat, weakling, wuss, sycophant, lackey, toady, pantywaist, pansy, coward, sissy, toady, ass-kisser, fawner, truckler, groveller bootlicker, apple-polisher. <S> If he should be one who hesitates as to which opinion he wants to choose because he bounces back and forth from one opinion to the other opposite opinion and back again, he is known by a number of words, but these are the best words: ditherer, vacillator, shilly-shallier, hesitator / hesitater, waverer. <S> I hope that might have helped you out. <S> If I have not given you exactly what you had asked for, please let me know <S> and I shall try to accommodate. <S> Take care and good luck!
| The first word that comes to mind is yeasayer
|
the meaning of 'hard devout Christians that they were' here The following is from The African Queen by C. S. Forester Her very father and mother, hard devout Christians that they were , who had never spared the rod in the upbringing of the children deferred to him then, and heard his words with respect. Does the bold phrase mean ' even though they were hard devout Christians themselves' or ' because they were hard devout Christians themselves'? <Q> This kind of appositive construction gives an explanation for the actions or behaviour of the phrase or noun in apposition, for example: <S> Jonathan, the hard worker he is , kicked it up a notch and offered to fix the truck for a much cheaper rate than a mechanic Which could be rewritten as: Jonathan, being the hard worker he is , kicked it up a notch and offered to fix the truck for a much cheaper rate than a mechanic or even: <S> Because Jonathan is such a hard worker , he kicked it up a notch and offered to fix the truck for a much cheaper rate than a mechanic <S> It would seem that your example is missing a comma. <S> Consider rewriting it as: <S> Her very father and mother, hard devout Christians that they were, who had never spared the rod in the upbringing of the children, deferred to him then, and heard his words with respect. <A> The construction used here [descriptor] that they were is usually used in a parenthetical way such as this. <S> It is typically meant as an explanation of the previous or next clause. <S> So yes, in this case it should be interpreted as because they were hard devout Christians themselves. <A> Compare: Miss Crabapple, harpy that she was , descended upon the children's birthday party and absconded with the piñata. <S> It is a little more emphatic than "because". <S> The clause in question presents a fact that goes to the essence of the noun-phrase so described.
| The short answer is: it means "because they were hard devout Christians".
|
What is the function of ‘before clause’ in the sentence？ When I was reading the book The Giver， I read the following sentences. There was a time, actually—you’ll see this in the memories later—when flesh was many different colors. That was before we went to Sameness . Today flesh is all the same, and what you saw was the red tones. As for the bald sentence, I am not sure the function of the 'before clause'. The structure of the sentence, according to my understanding, is 'Subject+be+completment'. But when I'm googling， I found that before clause is used as adverbial clause. <Q> You're right. <S> The preposition phrase is a complement by virtue of being obligatory Adverbials (or adjuncts) are always optional. <S> There are also "obligatory adverbials" but the term is not used in modern grammar; they belong to the category of complement. <A> There was a time, actually—you’ll see this in the memories later—when flesh was many different colors. <S> That was before we went to Sameness. <S> Today flesh is all the same, and what you saw was the red tones. <S> That is a demonstrative pronoun that refers back to the aforementioned time, the time when flesh was multicolored. <S> That [time of multicolored flesh] was before [i.e. it predated the time when] we went to Sameness. <S> before is complemented there by the finite clause "we went...". <S> Such a clause, with its tensed verb, expresses the idea that an action takes place in time, and this makes it a valid complement for before , which expects a point in time reference of some kind (when it has its temporal meaning). <S> For example: She will arrive before {noon}. <S> He washed his hands before {he ate}. <S> But it need not be a tensed verb. <S> She visited her cousin before {going to the movies}. <S> P.S. <S> The temporal prepositional phrase resolves to a time-reference. <S> That [time of multicolored flesh] was {WHEN}. <A> A clause introduced by "before" can be used as an adverbial clause. <S> It doesn't have to be. <S> It can also be used as an adjectival clause . <S> In the example sentence, it is adjectival. <S> Consider this example: <S> The time when flesh was many different colors was a time before we went to Sameness. <S> Here, the function of "before we went to Sameness" is the same as the function of "when flesh was many different colors". <S> In the sentence above, they each directly modify an instance of the noun "time". <S> In the original example, it still modifies an instance of the word "time"*, but it does so indirectly, as licensed by the copula "was" and indicated by the demonstrative "that". <S> Yes, the structure of the sentence in question is subject / verb / complement. <S> More specifically, it's subject / copular (or linking) verb / predicative adjectival subject complement. <S> Different frameworks label things in different ways. <S> Traditional grammars are more likely to label this "before" as a subordinating conjunction . <S> Modern grammars are more likely to label this "before" in the same way as they label the "before" of "before noon" -- as a preposition . <S> Q: <S> Is "before we went to Sameness" a predicative complement in the example sentence? <S> A: <S> Yes, it is. <S> Q: <S> Is "before we went to Sameness" an adjectival complement in the example sentence? <S> A: <S> Yes, it is. <S> It acts as a modifier of the subject. <S> A nominative complement would act as a separate reference to the subject's referent. <S> Q: <S> Is "before we went to Sameness" a subject complement in the example sentence? <S> A: <S> Yes, it is. <S> The constituent that it modifies is a subject, not an object. <S> Specifically, it modifies "that". <S> Q: <S> Is "before we went to Sameness" a complement in the example sentence? <S> A: <S> Yes, it is. <S> We can identify the constituent that licenses this constituent. <S> In this case, "before we went to Sameness" is an argument of the verb "was". <S> We can also identify the constituent that this constituent complements. <S> In this case, "before we went to Sameness" complements the subject "that". <S> _______________ * If we wish, we can go a bit further down the rabbit hole: the adjectival clause modifies an already-modified instance of "time", since the demonstrative "that" refers to the entire content of "a time when flesh was many different colors". <A> There was a time, actually—you’ll see this in the memories later -- when flesh was many different colors. <S> That was before we went to Sameness . <S> Today flesh is all the same, and what you saw was the red tones . <S> The "before" expression is not a clause but a preposition phrase headed by the preposition "before" with the declarative content clause <S> "we went to Sameness" as its complement. <S> The PP is functioning as subject-oriented complement of "be". <S> The primary meaning of "before" is temporal; more specifically it heads an expression whose temporal location is prior or subsequent to that of some other situation(s). <S> The demonstrative determiner "that" has the entire preceding clause (excluding the parenthetical supplement) as antecedent. <S> Here, the function of the PP is complement of "be". <S> It’s not a predicative though since it doesn’t ascribe some property to the subject; rather, it locates the temporal situation of the embedded clause "we went to Sameness" as being subsequent to that described by the antecedent of "that".
| It acts as the argument of the predicating verb "was".
|
What is the correct use of 'Many a'? Which of the following sentences is correct? "Many a girls was appearing in the examination." "Many a girl was appearing in the examination." <Q> Many a/an... <S> The quick answer to the question is "Many a girl" is correct, and "Many a girls" is incorrect. <S> The fixed expression many a/an... is more formal than the single word many, and it is much less common. <S> Many a/an... is used mainly in literary writing and newspapers. <S> Like the adjective and pronoun <S> However, it takes a singular noun, which can be followed by a singular verb. <S> Here are some examples: <S> It remained a mystery for many a year. <S> [=for many years] <S> I've been there many a time. <S> [=many times] Many a politician has promised to make changes. <S> [=many politicians have] Source: <S> Merrian-Webster Learner's Dictionary . <A> Many a always uses a singular noun and is more formal than the word many . <S> It is not much common and is used usually in newspapers and famous writings. <S> Many a is used to indicate a large number of something. <A> If you want to say many a x, you need to use a singular noun. <S> So many a girl would be correct. <S> However, if you want, you could say many girls appeared / are appearing instead. <S> if you take out the "a / an", many becomes plural and you can then use plural nouns like "girls" or "cars". <A> The second sentence is correct. <S> Many a girl was appearing in the examination. <S> "Many a" is always followed by a singular noun/ pronoun/ verb.
| Many a girl or the second option is correct. many, many a/an... is used to indicate a large number of something.
|
The meaning of 'sobering' The following is from an article in the New York Times: What Congressmen Are Hiding It’s sobering to recall that the 1995 law was passed three years after another congressional scandal, in which House members of both parties were censured and prosecuted for abusing accounts with the House bank, in some cases writing checks for tens of thousands of dollars they didn’t have. The same environment of entitlement, secrecy and lax rules led to the current situation. Some dictionaries define 'sobering' 'making you think about things in a serious way' but after seeing the synonym of 'sobering' as 'depressing, discouraging, daunting, saddening, dispiriting, disheartening' I am not so sure of my understanding. I feel the definition seem to fit better, but I am not sure because the synonyms, especially 'saddening' or 'disheartening' seems to work in the context as well. The writer is disgusted that politicians made a bad law when they had a chance to make a better one. <Q> I see that some (e.g. Collins Thesaurus of the English Language 3rd Ed.) <S> dictionaries do cite depressing, discouraging, daunting, saddening, dispiriting, disheartening as synonyms of sobering . <S> In my (NNS) opinion, it's only a half of the answer. <S> The proper answer should include two sides of the meaning, as being sober or, moreover, getting sober implies being intoxicated (literally or figuratively) first. <S> So, my choice is disillusioning ( a very disillusioning\sobering experience , for example). <A> Basically it means to think about things in a more serious manner, to pay more attention to it- sort of a wake-up call. <A> another defines it 'depressing, discouraging, daunting, saddening, dispiriting, disheartening' <S> This is not a definition. <S> It's a list of potential synonyms. <S> You can see that it appears in the "thesaurus" part of the page, not the dictionary. <S> A thesaurus provides synonyms, not definitions. <S> The possible synonyms given by a thesaurus often don't have exactly the same meaning as the key word, and whether they can be used to replace the key word depends on the context where you're using them. <S> This is correct. <S> Some idea might be sobering because it is depressing, discouraging, or one of those other descriptions from the thesaurus. <S> That's why they are presented as possible synonyms. <S> Again, it will depend on context which if any of the thesaurus terms might be a valid replacement in a given situation. <A> Several answers have dictionary definitions provided. <S> I'd like to explain the etymology of the word. <S> When someone is inebriated their critical thinking is impaired. <S> For most people, this leads them to act in a more carefree way. <S> However, sometimes something can happen which causes the individual to suddenly begin thinking critically, despite the alcohol in their system. <S> Obviously they are not as good at critical thinking as they were when truly sober, but the feeling is sufficiently pronounced such that it feels as though one is "sobered up" by that sudden surprise. <S> This is, of course, the base principle behind the idea of slapping someone across the face to "sober them up." <S> You are trying to force their mind to begin thinking critically again by making their mind believe they are under attack. <S> This ends this "carefree" feeling. <S> As used in your quote, the idea is that before you recall the 1995 law, you're pretty carefree. <S> You could live life happily completely unconcerned or unaware that congress has been engaging in such questionable practices. <S> After you recall the law, you can't be so carefree. <S> You have to think very critically about how much you trust our government officials. <S> This effect has a similar feeling as the "sobering up" that occurs when an event forces you to think critically while inebriated, that we use the term as such. <A> The phrase it is sobering to recall is a collocation <S> whose meaning is not a precise one. <S> The recollection reminds us that we should not feel lighthearted. <S> A certain grimness of outlook is appropriate under the circumstances. <S> Gravity, not levity.
| Some dictionaries define 'sobering' 'making you think about things in a serious way'
|
A word/adjective that describe a "seems-to-be-an-ordinary” event: Is there a word which describes an event which seems to be ordinary and trivial at surface however it is of vital importance and have significant effects underneath? For example consider the falling of an apple from a tree. This seems to be very ordinary and not important; however, sir Issac Newton discovered the very important law of gravity out of it. Thanks in advance for any suggestions <Q> inappreciable - too small or insignificant to be valued or perceived . <S> This word might be the adjective you're looking for. <S> underappreciated - not appreciated or valued enough . <S> This word might also fit your idea. <S> superficial - concerned only with the obvious or apparent; presenting only an appearance without substance or significance; implies a concern only with surface aspects or obvious features. <S> This word is the closest I could find. <S> In other cases it is better to use the phrase: to seem insignificant at first sight/glance <A> Seemingly mundane but pivotal moment. <S> How about 'a pivotal moment'? <S> This expresses that the event caused an important event - that the moment is in fact a fulcrum on which the future, levers. <S> Example: the apple falling from the tree was a seemingly mundane but pivotal moment that caused Newton to discover gravity. <A> apparently unimportant event <S> seemingly unimportant event <S> seemingly uneventful event [could work at times] <S> Which points to an underlying importance of the event.
| If you want to say that such a moment was unacknowledged at the time, you could describe it as a 'seemingly mundane but pivotal moment'.
|
meaning in context in these sentences A chair. A table, a lamp. There's a window with white curtains, and the glass is shatterproof. But it isn't running away they're afraid of. A Handmaid wouldn't get far. It's those other escapes. The ones you can open in yourself given a cutting edge. Or a twisted sheet and a chandelier. I try not to think about those escapes. It's harder on ceremony days, but thinking can hurt your chances. My name is Offred. I had another name, but it's forbidden now. So many things are forbidden now. I'm watching The Handmaid's Tale S01 E01. Does the 'escape' mean a suicide? Why did she say "a twisted sheet and a chandelier"? And what does that mean "thinking can hurt your chances"? All in all, I'm in trouble to understand what she want to say. Please, help. <Q> You have many questions here. <S> The author does seem to be alluding to suicide when she uses the word "escape" - a literal escape from life. <S> Twisted sheet and chandelier can presumably be used by the Handmaids to hang themselves. <S> Not having read the book, I don't know what "ceremony days" are. <S> So, I can't really answer the part about hurting one's chances. <S> It likely means that thinking about suicide will hurt your chances on ceremony days. <S> You may want to read the book to get the more subtle meanings that screen adaptations can't convey. <A> In The Handmaid's Tale the American government has been overthrown by a religious fundamentalist group. <S> There is a crisis as most women have become infertile. <S> The few fertile women are forced to have sex with senior government men and are called "Handmaids". <S> These rapes are called "ceremonies" in the book. <S> The narrator is a Handmaid. <S> Being a Handmaid is a very bad position for a woman. <S> Some try to kill themselves using bits of glass or by hanging. <S> Suicide would be an escape from life as a handmaid. <S> The window is shatterproof to prevent suicide. <S> A twisted sheet could be used to hang oneself from a ceiling light. <S> Handmaids are expected to do what they are told. <S> Thinking leads to action. <S> And action could be punished violently. <S> The narrator says that she has learned to hide her thoughts, particularly suicidal thoughts, even though on the days that she is raped it is harder. <S> Thinking can make it harder for a Handmaid to survive in this world. <A> Yes. <S> In "it's those other escapes", the other escapes are forms of suicide. <S> We don't know this when we first encounter those words, but the following sentences offer suggestions of such escapes. <S> Given a cutting edge, a Handmaiden might slit her wrists. <S> Since "escapes" means "types of suicide", the next sentence implies "I try not to think about suicide". <S> One possible implication here is that she has intrusive thoughts about suicide. <S> She may even be having suicidal impulses. <S> "Thinking can hurt your chances" suggests that she does. <S> Thinking about suicide would make it harder for her to resist those impulses. <S> What is she saying overall? <S> Life for her and for many other Handmaidens is so bad, they frequently kill themselves.
| Or, she might hang herself with a sheet from a chandelier.
|
The origin of 'feed' in 'line feed' A line feed means moving one line forward. It's definition references feed . In summary,'feed' has three meanings Give food to. Supply with material or power. Cause to pass gradually and steadily, typically through a confined space. From which 'line feed' originate? <Q> Back in the old days, when the world was black and white (at least on TV), telephones had wires attached to them and "mail" involved a lenghty process of applying ink to paper as well as a delivery system involving boxes, mailmen and stamps, in those days there used to be machines that could transfer letters to a piece of paper by means of pressing a key. <S> These machines, know as typewriters <S> back then, were fed a sheet of paper, which was transported in the upper part of the machine, called a carriage . <S> When you reached the end of the line, you would return the carriage <S> so you could start typing again at the beginning (left side) of the paper. <S> Also, if you wanted to type on the next line, you also had to move the paper one line up, or feed a new line into the machine. <S> The handle on the left side of the typewriter usually did both those things at the same time, it returned the carriage and fed a line . <S> Apart from the line feed <S> we still use the carriage return in computers today <S> (ASCII code 13 is CR, or Carriage Return, while code 10 is LF, or Line Feed) and they are often used together at the end of a line (also seen sometimes as "\r\n" for return & newline) <S> Here's another typewriter, with a sheet of paper in it. <S> After every letter, the carriage with the paper would move to the left, so that the next letter would end up right next to the last one. <S> At the end of the line, the whole carriage would stick out on the left side, and using the handle, you could move it back to the right. <S> At the same time, the paper would move up one line: <A> Reading here about the history of the new line it seems that early teletype machines required the LF character in addition to the carriage return (CR) to give the machine enough time to position the print head at the beginning of a line. <A> To me it looks much more like the second definition. <S> It's from "feeding" paper into the place where it's actually printed: "Supply with material". <S> re definition 3, where "line feed" commands are involved <S> , paper is most definitely not fed through a traditional printer "gradually and steadily", but rather in discrete steps. <S> With e.g. a laser printer the paper does move steadily but "line feed" commands still move the printing position down the page only occasionally and in definite steps.
| To me it looks like the third of those definitions is where line feed (LF) originated from.
|
My leg got most tired I came across the following sentence in an exercise book for non-native students of English. I am not sure if the structure of the main clause is correct or at least common in English. If not, is there another way to rewrite it? As I ran, my leg got most tired. <Q> Strictly speaking there's nothing wrong grammatically with this. <S> What is unusual about it, and what makes it grate slightly to (at least this) native speaker, is that there is a clash of styles: "got" in this context is slightly informal (though entirely normal in conversation), whereas "most tired" is rather formal/old fashioned. <S> Either would be fine alone, in the right context, but putting the two together makes for a strange mix. <S> To fix it, while keeping the meaning the same: If you want to be formal, replacing "got" with "grew" is better than "became", which to me feels slightly clunky in this context. <S> If you want to go the other way use "very" in place of "most". <A> As jsheeran notes, this sentence is arguably grammatically correct. <S> But it does not sound natural to my (American) ear. <S> There are several ways that this sentence can be made more natural to a native speaker of English. <S> Many of these ways will not sound natural to many Japanese-speaking translators: <S> As jsheeran notes, "became" is more appropriate in this context than "got". <S> For example, "extremely tired". <S> Instead of saying "most tired" or "extremely tired", use a more intense adjective or past-participle. <S> For example, "exhausted", "sore", or "worn out". <S> When running, usually both legs become tired at a similar rate. <S> Perhaps "leg" should be changed to "legs". <S> This change would also require changing the verb conjugation to maintain subject-verb agreement. <S> Instead of using a general complaint like their "legs" being "tired", perhaps the person has a more specific complaint. <S> Perhaps their "knees" or "ankles" are "sore", or perhaps they suffer from " shin splints ". <S> Here are some alternative sentences with similar meanings to the original sentence. <S> The first sentences are closer in meaning; the later sentences diverge from the original sentence's meaning. <S> As I ran, my leg became extremely tired. <S> As I ran, my legs became increasingly tired. <S> As I ran, my legs got more and more tired. <S> As I ran, the muscles in my legs became very sore. <S> As I ran, my left knee started to ache. <S> As I ran, my shin splints became increasingly painful. <A> See the following example from Wiktionary : Adverb To a great extent or degree; highly <S> ; very. <S> This is a most unusual specimen . <S> I'd be inclined to use <S> became instead of got , though. <A> My leg... <S> became , grew very , extremely tired.
| It's correct, although perhaps not the most common way of phrasing it. Instead of using a superlative with a past-participle (such as "most tired"), use an adverb with an adjective or post participle.
|
A term for glass half wall What is this thing called ? Is it just a ‘Glass Half-wall’ or does it have another name? And what if it was outdoors ? <Q> I would call it a half-height glass separation or partition. <S> The pinterest image you showed was found using those keywords <S> Interestingly enough <S> so was Pony wall and Half wall <S> A pony wall is a short wall. <S> In different circumstances, it may refer to: a half wall that only extends partway from floor to ceiling, without supporting anything. <S> a stem wall, a concrete wall that extends from the foundation slab to the cripple wall or floor joists. <S> Wikipedia <A> I've seen the following two, though they may be technically wrong: <S> Glass Banister Glass Balustrade <S> (British English) <A> I would call it a "wood-framed glass railing". <S> If it were outdoors, I might call it a "wood-framed glass fence". <S> If the top edge of the railing/fence were glass (instead of wood), I would just call it a "glass railing". <A> Actually, this is simply a part of the glass railing system . <S> You can often see these in malls and supermarkets, and in office buildings. <S> My personal thoughts : People may mistakenly think it's a half wall or a partition wall <S> but it's not. <S> It doesn't split, separate or divide the room. <S> It doesn't enclose an area within a larger area. <S> Notice that it isn't standalone unlike half walls or partition walls, it is a combination of two guardrails creating a railing system. <S> What you see here is just a kind of a glass railing system with the handrail made of wood and with rather wide glass panels. <S> The guardrail on the staircase is also a part of the glass railing system. <S> You can google for " interior glass railing systems " and you'll find a lot of examples. <S> Here are a few examples of such interior glass railing systems:
| Basically, a glass guardrail .
|
Why can't we say snakes crawl? 1) Snakes crawl. According to Longman and Collins dictionary crawl means: "to move slowly, either by dragging the body along the ground or on the hands and knees" so in my point of view it's OK to say snakes crawl, but in one of the previous questions which was posted here, A comparison between "Creep", "Crawl" and "slither" , it was said that it sounds unnatural if we use the verb crawl for snakes and slither can be used alternatively. I was wondering wether this usage of crawl is really unnatural among both British people and Americans because while I was searching I've just come across two songs《 Snakes Crawl 》 by Bush Tetras and 《 Snakes Crawl at night 》by Charley Pride which led me in to confusion. <Q> I disagree with the poster's statement that "crawl sounds very strange to the native speaker. <S> " It's the term I'd be most likely to use, unless I wanted a bit of dramatic effect. <S> In that case I'd use "slither." <S> Here's an ngram comparison of all three. <S> As you can see, "the snake crept" is the most common in the 19th century, "the snake crawled" is the most common from the early 20th century until about 1980, and "the snake slithered" is now about twice as common as "the snake crawled." <A> You most certainly can say that a snake crawls : crawl <S> verb 1b: to move with the body close to or on the ground. <S> The soldiers crawled forward on their bellies. <S> The snake crawled into its hole. <S> Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary <S> Apparently, you don't need legs to crawl: <S> The Eagle <S> He clasps the crag with crooked hands; Close to the sun in lonely lands, Ring'd with the azure world, he stands. <S> The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls; He watches from his mountain walls, <S> And like a thunderbolt he falls. <S> Alfred, Lord Tennyson <A> I'm no linguist, but certain verbs are commonly used with certain nouns. <S> Slither is a verb that is most commonly applied to snakes, thus its seems natural to say slither. <S> Of course there are many different verbs for movement, some with additional meaning: -The snake meandered back to its hole. <S> (Just kinda wandered in that direction until it reached home; <S> no urgency) <S> -The snake darted back to its hole. <S> (Took a direct path; sense of urgency)etc. <S> It is almost always OK to add any verb to any noun as long as your sentence is clear. <S> Mountains can flow (across the skyline). <S> Fish can fly (through the water at tremendous speeds). <A> Thinking about it, I'm in the snakes don't crawl camp. <S> Remember meanings of words shift over the years, so any past results don't necessarily apply present; you need a continuous line of examples. <S> [Counterexample: "Stink" used to mean "(give off) smell" but is now since long strictly for bad smells; similarly "smell" is not neutral by now ("something smells here" <S> is negative, you're not thinking "ah, like lemon house cleaner, or mown grass, or something a priori neutral)]. <S> Specifically poetic usage cannot be used as an argument; so you need a line of normal, non-poetic prose usage examples. <S> And "crawling seas" rather clearly suggests an amorphous mass undirected by a head having grasping hands, so it's a bad/counter argument. <S> For present usage, I'd hazard (unsourced) that when using the verb "crawl" we get hands/legs in mind, from any "creepy crawlies" (=any relatively small non-fluffy animal that gives you goosebumps; person-dependent; <S> might contain snakes as it's an undefined term that appears in e.g. kids' animal programs and they'll fit in anything they have on hand), to "front crawl" in swimming (which is a "belly crawl" if you imagine the water being mud, like on an assault course, and your legs became disabled; sorry, time of the year, still thinking of Flanders' Fields). <S> Most sensible is in general to look at etymology but that seems unclear. <S> If it's related to the cited words, then fingered hands/feet are very much implied. <S> [Dutch kruipen seems cognate to creep to me, and it's what rug rats do before toddling; dutch <S> krabbelen is what pets scratching at doors to be let through do, etc.] <S> That's what makes it a good question. <S> Also, note several-times cited dictionary definition "crawl verb. <S> 1b: <S> to move with the body close to or on the ground. <S> " does not clearly apply to snakes: The propelling force is in hands/feet! <S> (A sidewinder snake propels itself "close to the ground" <S> but it's definitely not crawling.) <S> This definition is writing from the "normal" viewpoint of a body being well off the ground, so "crawling" is "with the body close or even on the ground". <A> Saying that snakes crawl isn't wrong, but it wouldn't generally sound right to me. <S> Following are words I might consider for describing the motion of a snake slither creep glide <S> swarm <S> crawl <S> move <S> Move is very unspecific, but it still fits. <S> Swarm & crawl are more likely to be confusing because they strike me as less associated with snakes, while also less general than move. <A> The most common verb is " slither ". <S> However, a lot of books and sources use the verbs " crawl " and " creep "; both refer to the rectilinear method. <S> The movement of some specific snakes is called " sidewinding ":
| I'd probably say a snake slithers, creeps or moves in most contexts.
|
Preposition ( made of vs made from ) Fill in the right word.Bread is usually made ______ wheat.1) of2) from3) with4) by <Q> 2) from would be the correct answer <S> Explain: <S> " Make of " means that the material is just changed its form For example: This shirt is made of cotton. <S> This house is made of bricks. <S> In this case, the material 'wheat' has gone through the process of baking - <S> > turn into bread. <A> The correct preposition in the sentence is "from", not "of". <S> When you make bread, the material wheat changes its form completely in such a way that it's no more wheat or, in other words, you cannot see it. <S> On the other hand, if the material used in making an object doesn't change its form completely or you can still recognize the material, you use the preposition "of". <S> For example: This table is made of wood. <A> -1 for not doing a research and not looking into official sources which can be found when googling. <S> Cambridge Grammar: <S> Made from - We often use made from when we talk about how something is manufactured Made of - We use made of when we talk about the basic material or qualities of something. <S> It has a meaning similar to ‘ composed of ’ Made out of - We usually use made out of when we talk about something that has been changed or transformed from one thing into another Made with - We use made with most often to talk about the ingredients of food and drink
| In this case you use the "from". " Make of " means that the material has gone through a process of changing.
|
How to interpret "up to at least"? So I'm reading a set of formal project specifications written by an American. Among the specifications of the cool device that I'll be making I have a requirement that says that my device needs to support really cool features. This is then followed by another requirement saying that it needs to support "up to at least" XX really cool features. Now, my interpretation of that is that up to part defines a maximum value and the at least part defines the minimum value. Therefore, I'd interpret the entire requirement as wanting exactly XX cool features, not XX-1 or XX+1. On the other hand, we've already used term "exactly XX" to mean that we really want XX and not XX+1, XX-1 and definitely not XX+2. So how would I normally interpret this? I know that in this particular case, I can always ask the guy, but I'm not sure if there's a standard interpretation for this phrase or not. <Q> behind (as in the past i believe for this statement) must be included. <S> This is the quantity part of the requirement. <S> The "at least" portion of that statement refers to the minimum starting point and is the quality part of the requirement. <A> This could have been written by someone who is used to talking about numerical ranges. <S> It makes perfect sense to me to see a requirement like: <S> The device must operate at frequencies up to at least 10 GHz. <S> This would mean that the device should operate at a range of frequencies, and the upper limit of that frequency range should be 10 GHz or higher (the lower limit is probably defined somewhere else in the requirements, perhaps with a "down to at least" limit). <S> So while the specification of "up to at least 25 cool features" does not sound like a natural usage to me, I'd interpret it the same way as "up to at least 10 GHz." <S> That is, implementing 27 cool features would still satisfy the "up to at least 25" specification, just as a device that operates at 11 GHz would satisfy the "up to at least 10 GHz" specification. <A> Was this written by a native English writer? <S> I ask because while there is no specific error, the wording is a bit clunky. <S> up to is unnecessary because "at least" covers the same concept. <S> It needs to support <S> at least XX really cool features. <S> is fine. <S> For the first part, Among the specifications of the cool device that I'll be making is a requirement that says that my device needs to support really cool features. <S> would be a more natural wording. <S> I wouldn't use "says that" in a formal context.
| The "up to" portion of the requirements means that everything from that point down/below/
|
Is it 'thing' or 'things'? Is it grammatically correct to say High standards are a very good thing? Or should it necessarily be ‘things’? <Q> The verb must agree with the subject of the sentence, not the predicate nominative. <S> In my AmE experience, the word "standards" isn't used as a collective noun. <S> Therefore, the grammatical way to refer to high standards, as a whole, must be " high standards are ." <S> The predicate nominative, which describes the subject, can be either singular or plural. <S> So grammatically, both "a good thing" and "good things" are acceptable. <S> However, there is a small difference between using "good things" or "a good thing": <S> High standards are a good thing. <S> This phrasing suggests that the high standards act more as a unit, and that the group (or presence of the group) is a good thing. <S> Like mentioned in mplungjan's answer , an alternative group-based phrasing is "Having high standards is a good thing." <S> High standards are good things. <S> This treats each standard a bit more independently, perhaps suggesting that each of the standards should be counted or considered separately. <S> This treats standards more like things that one could list, for example as used on a profile or résumé. <S> If all of this seems too particular, you could just settle with using a predicate adjective and say "High standards are good." <A> You can say it more idiomatically and avoid the problem <S> It is good to have high standards If you must use “good thing” then try <S> Having high standards is a good thing <S> High standards are a good thing to have Having high standards is an expression. <A> I've been analysing books on NGram, Google search, Grammar from Cambridge and Michael Swan all morning and here is what I have found: " thing " as singular in case of high standards, high expectations, high rates, etc. <S> forms an idea, a concept, or a goal (in some cases) . <S> " things " as plural in case of high standards, high expectations, high rates, etc. mentions each item of the union individually but as a part of a group. <S> If you take " high standards " as an example then the plural will speak about every high standard as a separate piece of a whole, however, still rendering them as a part of a union, not as separate items. <S> Based on various searches of " are good things " and " are a good thing " the latter is mostly used with a single entity whereas the former is more often used with a list of more than one: <S> High Expectations are a good thing. <S> Vegetables and fruits are good things for your health. <S> However, this is simply the choice of the author since there is no strict rule. <S> As for using " is " instead of " are " with " high standards ". <S> It's possible (when you are rendering them as a mass noun) <S> but I wouldn't recomend using it without a specific cause since standards is actually a plural noun. <S> I've also noticed that, indeed, " Having high standards/expecrations/rates/etc. <S> " is a very popular construction as some answers state here.
| It is a good thing to have high standards
|
"She's called me" - does the present perfect tense sound off? Does this use of the present perfect tense sound off to American and British ears? Should it be replaced with the simple past? "Lindsay's not answering. Maybe she left her phone at home." "Well, she's called me today, so I don't think that's the case." To clarify the context, the speaker wants to say that Lindsay called him an unspecified number of times (could be more than once) today and could still call. I'm primarily interested in American English, but answers from the UK are also welcome. Thanks! <Q> The present perfect doesn't sound off, but American speakers would be more likely to use the simple past in this context. <S> However, the simple past is slightly more likely to imply that she called only once. <S> The present perfect might be used to give it slightly more emphasis. <S> To specifically call out that she'd called more than once, we would usually say "she's been calling me today." <A> "Lindsay's not answering. <S> Maybe she has <S> left her phone at home." <S> (or she's left .) <S> "Well, she's called me today, so I don't think that's the case." <S> But I'd like to state that it is common for people to say it in the simple past as an informal way to say it; however, if one were writing a paper, it would probably not be written without being in the present perfect. <S> The reason for this is that many natives of any language like shortcuts; we don't want to say all of those words if we can convey the information in a simpler form. <S> Despite the past tense being simpler in common parlance, most people would ask the statements above in a question form this way: "Has she called you today?" <S> "Has she left her phone at home?" <S> The second example above may be commonly heard in the past simple (whereas the first one would probably not be heard as such), but, in that case, the speaker is usually omitting a clause that he deems implicit to the listener: <S> "Did she leave her phone at home ( when she left for work today )?" <S> The above construction, however, does not suggest how many times she has called you. <S> If you want to convey the meaning that she has called you a few times and may call again, I would write it and say it this way: " Has she been calling you all day?" <S> "She has been calling me all day today." <S> (or just all day ) <A> "She's called me today." implies the day is not yet over. <S> That is the implication if you use the present perfect here . <S> If you say: "She called me today.", the day is not over and it implies, even if it is not stated : earlier, at some time of the day, this morning, etc. <S> This would be true of AmE and BrE. <A> "has called me today" doesn't really address the dramatic scenario you've presented, where you want the statement to say that she has not left her phone at home. <S> She had her phone with her when she called me a short while ago.
| It sounds fine to my American ears although I would probably use the present perfect in the sentence prior as well: The past tense is idiomatic: She had her phone with her when she called me earlier today.
|
two year or two year's Suresh has joined a _____ course. Options: 1) two year's 2) two years 3) two year the answer is two year.but two year's sounds to me more logical.can you explain the nuance?thanks in advance. <Q> Other examples of compound adjectives are: a three day weekend. <S> a four metre rope. <S> a six cylinder engine. <S> a three year vacation. <S> Compound adjectives can be hyphenated or separated with spaces. <A> I do not know what you mean by "the answer is. <S> " This gets into the weeds of descriptive versus prescriptive grammar. <S> The first thing to realize is that "two years course," "two year's course," and "two years' course" sound exactly alike. <S> In terms of spoken English, you will hear that set of sounds frequently enough to consider it idiomatic. <S> You will also hear "two year course," which is indistinguishable from "two-year course," so that sound combination is idiomatic as well. <S> From a prescriptivist orientation, it is preferable to write "two-year course. <S> " <S> The noun phrase "two-year" is being used as an adjective to modify "course.", and adjectives in English do not form plurals or possessives. <A> As others have said, the idiomatic answer is that you form an adjective phrase "two-year" to describe something relating to a period of two years (the plural is always dropped in this sort of construction). <S> The hyphen ought to be used, though many people will write it without one. <S> See this table from the Chicago Manual of Style (which includes "fifty-year" on page 2). <S> However, sometimes you will see similar phrases with a possessive construction. <S> Some that spring to mind are "two weeks' notice" or "eight hours' sleep". <S> The difference from your example is that here the time is quantifying how much notice/sleep you get, and I don't think you will see this construction except where you would ask something like "How much XYZ do you have?" <S> (You wouldn't say "How much course has Suresh joined?") <S> No-one has yet pointed this out, but your option (1) would be wrong even for this construction because your apostrophe is in the wrong place: for the possessive of a plural ending in "s" like "years", put the apostrophe after the "s". <A> two year (or "two-year") describes the duration of something, and sounds natural when used to modify "course" as if "two year" was an adjective. <S> This means a course which lasts for two years; it's common enough to see modifiers like this used in an uninflected form (plain "year"), rather than an inflected form. <S> two year's refers to the end-point of something. <S> Side note, this is more properly written as two years' , since the "two" means that "years" needs to be plural. <S> This one isn't normally used with a noun like "course"; instead, it would much more common to hear it with "time". <S> e.g., "Suresh has joined a course which ends in two years' time". <S> The version with the apostrophe could in theory be used as a straightforward possessive, but I can't think of any idiomatic cases where we do that in English with time durations. <S> And lastly, two years refers to a duration on its own. <S> " <S> a course lasting two years", for instance. <A> You should know that the apostrophe in the first answer makes it into the genitive case. <S> Then it would mean "belonging to the two year", which does not make sense. <S> It is a common mistake these days, but it is still totally wrong. <S> It started with fruit sellers labelling their wares "apple's" and "pear's"; nobody knows why they suddenly started making this error. <S> So it is called "greengrocers' apostrophe". <S> Edit: corrected
| two year course is correct and is used as an adjective (known as a compound adjective) to describe the length of the course which in this case is two years long.
|
'Spoken English' Classes - is this title correct? In India, they are in thousands, like mushrooms in rains. I really wonder whether the title is justified. In India, we have... Spoken English classes These classes help non-natives speak English in a fluent way. Is it the right title? Even strange is someone advising students: Learn spoken English OR Join Spoken English classes. Spoken English? What do natives say about it? But when it is other than English, I see other variant: Spoken Spanish Classes Spanish Speaking Classes <Q> "Spoken English class" is perfectly acceptable, and that's what I would call a class that deals with how English is spoken. <A> Spoken English Course(s) <S> Spoken English Lesson(s) <S> Spoken English Class(es) <S> Spoken English Test(s) <S> Spoken English Material(s) <S> More than a million combinations are possible and all of most will be correct and valid. <S> Each will mean " concerning or relating to spoken English " English Speaking Class(es) <S> English Speaking Lesson(s) <S> English Speaking Course(s) <S> English Speaking Practice <S> English Speaking Skills <S> English Speaking Tips English Speaking Basics <S> These are actually synonyms of the above and act in the same way. <A> I think both Spoken and Speaking sound a little awkward in the course title. <S> Were I offering the course <S> , I’d probably name it: <S> Conversational English <S> There are plenty of courses that use some form of this, such as: Introduction to Conversational English <S> Conversation English Conversational English in the Workplace for the Non-Native Speaker <S> Note 1 <S> : This isn’t to say that Speaking English couldn’t be a course title; this is just a personal preference of mine. <S> Note 2 <S> : The links are provided as examples only. <S> Neither I nor ELL are endorsing those particular courses.
| "Learn spoken English" is a perfectly acceptable sentence (in the imperative mood).
|
What is the correct name for the meal for friends or extended family members? The only word I can think of is "extended family meal" or "friend meals", but since this is a common activity I think there should be a more general word. Most of the time it is home-cooked, and sometimes it's for a special event meaningful only to those people. In the Vietnamese language we don't have a generic word. We just say "eat at X's home." As an unrelated information, "family meal" seems like "nuclear family meal" to me, and in restaurant terminology , it means "a group meal that a restaurant serves its staff outside of peak business hours", aka staff meal. <Q> A get-together table might work. <S> Otherwise, I think there's no such word to mean what you wish to say. <S> P.s. <S> I've looked through various dictionaries, google searches, and even tried translating from my mother-tongue and searching for a Russian equivalent to translate into English. <A> Two terms come to mind. <S> Dinner Party Soirée <S> (the é gives away its etymology) <S> I'm deliberately omitting <S> Get Together as it's been mentioned in other answers. <S> Dinner parties were a thing in the U.K. back in the day (1950's onward). <S> They were seen as a means for social climbing, including impressing a boss (maybe an Americanism?). <S> They tended to have an element of formality (because you can invite people outside of your immediate or extended family <S> it was necessary to have some kind of "extra" formality than normal). <S> These days, everyone will still understand the term <S> but I don't think it's really associated with social climbing any more. <S> Dinner parties still happen but they are certainly more informal and <S> the "purpose" of the parties has definitely changed - they are much more to do with friends rather than family. <S> A trite example would be hosting a dinner party to introduce two friends as a blind-date. <S> If you were to host a dinner party in the U.K. for friends and family <S> I don't think anyone would be confused by the idea but it might be seen as an anachronism (everyone would definitely expect you to have big news, like a wedding or a baby for instance). <S> A Soirée is in layman's terms like a dinner party but with less food, and more booze! <S> They can also just "happen" as they require less of a plan. <S> We all met up with Julia and ended up going back to her place for a soirée! <A> Large gatherings are actually not so common. <S> Normally they would be associated with particular events. <S> Christmas and (in North America) <S> Thanksgiving are two times when extended families have a meal together. <S> You would call this "Christmas Dinner" There would nearly always be a reason for a gathering. <S> Whether it is Christmas, "Sunday gravy" or in my family "Nan's birthday". <S> In your picture it is Thanksgiving. <S> This suggests a fairly small number of friends (or extended family members) coming to eat dinner at someone's home in the evening. <S> At a dinner party home-cooked food is normally served. <S> It suggests a certain attempt at sophistication (the host might try to cook something special) and children might not be present. <S> The term "Lunch party" is also possible. <S> A beautiful dinner party is one of the warmest and most gracious gifts you can give to your friends and family. <S> And a dinner party is — or should be — more than just an assortment of foods and beverages. <S> An alternative would be to say "Eat at <S> *** <S> 's" For example: We're eating at the Stephenson's on Monday. <S> We're going round at 6:30, so we'll need a babysitter. <S> (Stephenson is a family surname) <A> The closest term I can think of is "dinner party". <S> This means a meal to which you invite a number of friends and/or family. <S> As the name implies, it's a "party" that is centered around eating "dinner". <S> A meal for the immediate family is often called "family dinner".
| One term you might find useful is " Dinner party ".
|
Which one can I use instead of the word ''proven'' In 1980 virus was ''proven'' to be the reason of disease.We can replace the word ''proven'' in this sentence with the word ''considered'' or ''shown''. <Q> I believe that the word " confirm " is what you are looking for. <S> In 1980 virus was confirmed to be the reason of disease. <S> Neither "considered" nor "shown" has the same meaning with "proven", which means that something has been put into a test or has been verified . <A> " <S> "Shown" means essentially the same thing as proven in this context but has weaker connotations. <S> If you said that something is "shown" I'd understand that to mean a high probability, but not the certainty that "proven" implies. <A> Used in the context of your sentence, demonstrated is an exact synonym, meaning logically proven. <S> In addition to the words Jay has given, other synonyms are confirmed and found . <S> These also have a bit weaker connotation than demonstrated or proven , both of which mean a conclusion arrived at through a rigorous logical process. <S> However, demonstrated has similar but different meanings in other contexts. <S> See this dictionary entry .
| "Proven" means that we are now certain that this is true. Considered" means that we thought about it as one of many possibilities, or think that it is the most likely possibility.
|
It's fancier to use ad-hoc? I am reading a sentence: Also, a tuple is always an ad-hoc structure: It’s difficult to ensure that two tuples have the same number of fields and the same properties stored on them. ad-hoc's explanation in Oxford Dictionaries Created or done for a particular purpose as necessary. Origin: Latin, literally ‘to this’. So the sentence could be rewritten as: a tuple is always such a structure: ... I have strong intention to write professional english or at least look like that way. Is it fancier to use 'ad hoc' instead of this or such ? <Q> Ad hoc in English is not a synonym of "this" or "such", so you'd be changing the meaning of the sentence if you used "such" and "ad hoc" interchangeably. <S> Look at the definition you quoted: "Created or done for a particular purpose as necessary." <S> If you wanted to rewrite this sentence without using the Latin phrase, but still preserving its meaning, you'd write something like: ... <S> a tuple is always a custom-built structure... <S> So, while using ad hoc is good professional English, make sure you're using it in its proper sense of "built as necessary for a particular purpose," not as a replacement for "such a [thing]. <S> " <S> Edited: <S> As @eques comments below, ad hoc has a slightly different connotation than custom-built . <S> Ad hoc implies that the thing is built on-the-fly without much careful planning, <S> while custom-built could mean something that is very deliberately planned and carefully designed. <S> Sometimes <S> ad <S> hoc can even have a negative meaning (as something that's slapped together quickly as a temporary solution, but is probably badly designed and should be replaced), but that isn't the case in this particular example. <S> Here's an example of ad <S> hoc <S> in the more negative sense: We cut a hole in the wall and put a fan in it as an ad hoc cooling system for the server room, but eventually management will have to replace the air conditioning unit with a more powerful one. <A> The two sentences are both grammatical but don't mean the same thing. <S> a tuple is always such a structure:... <S> This means that the tuple is a structure with characteristics that we've just been discussing or that we're about to discuss. <S> The part after the colon can then be the description that "such a" is referring to. <S> a tuple is always an ad hoc structure:... <S> This means that a tuple is designed in the moment to solve an immediate problem. <S> It's implied that it doesn't have some benefits that a carefully designed solution could have. <S> In this case the part after the colon provides some explanations of the disadvantages from using this ad hoc solution. <S> It isn't meant to and does not restate the meaning of the term ad hoc . <A> I believe the distinction your text may be making about a tuple with ad <S> hoc is that the tuple is either a "scratch" or ephemeral copy of a row from a persistent table, or a row instantiated as-needed without the underpinnings of a persistent table. <S> There being no tightly coupled table object to enforce sameness with respect to the number of columns or sameness of datatype of the column(s), comparing two tuples one against the other can be problematic. <S> Enforcement of sameness in respect to number and datatype requires metadata stored in a table definition. <S> A tuple has no such "baggage" to explain itself. <A> If you create an ad hoc report, for example, you are creating a "one-off" report, a report that you are only going to use in the particular circumstance in which you create it. <S> What your sentence is saying is that, since the number of members of a tuple is unknown as part of its definition, any structure conforming to it must evaluate the contents of the tuple at the time of its creation. <S> That means that it has to be created for that tuple only.
| Ad hoc is better understood as only applying to this in its English usage.
|
Do I have to use a comma after it in "We appreciate it when..." Given that online many people don't use many comma, I'm a bit unsure about how much have to be set. Is it correct to write "We appreciate it, when..." or "We appreciate it when..."? <Q> I'd say definitely no. <S> The main reason I'm saying that is because I read a lot in English and have never seen anyone place a comma in front of when like that, provided that we're talking about sentences that are structured in a similar manner to how you have structured your example sentence here. <S> Example: <S> We always appreciate it when people who visit us say thank you after they leave. <S> But that's not your case here. <S> Example: <S> I don't like being around people who make sexual innuendos and inappropriate remarks about you, especially when they're drunk. <A> The correct answer depends on the context. <S> A comma can be used here to introduce a parenthetical clause. <S> We appreciate it, when we catch a taxi, if the driver opens the door for us. <S> But if the words after it are integral to the meaning, and not simply parenthetical, then it's better to omit the comma. <S> We appreciate it when taxi drivers behave courteously. <A> Personally (as a native English speaker living in Berlin), if somebody were to write <S> "We appreciate it, when..." (with a comma) <S> I would automatically assume that the writer was a German native speaker. <S> In German commas are used much more than in English (for example, "I hope, that you had a good trip"/ "Ich hoffe, dass..." or "I think, that we should turn left here"/ "Ich glaube, dass..." ) <S> and this is one of those situations. <S> As an aside, the sentence might be better rendered as <S> "We would appreciate it if..." rather than <S> "We appreciate it when..." (for example, "We would appreciate it if you closed the door behind you" instead of <S> "We appreciate it when you close the door behind you" ). <S> The one exception as mentioned above would be a sentence along the lines of <S> "We appreciate it, when alighting from the train, if people [were to] stand to one side to let us off before boarding" - ie if the when introduces a subordinate clause. <A> Whether or not to use a comma between clauses depends on whether the second clause is dependent. <S> This construction would almost forcibly lead to a dependent clause, so you would not use a comma. <S> This article might help: http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm
| The only situation where a comma would be required is when the stuff that comes after it is extra information that can be left out without affecting the general meaning of the sentence.
|
"rounded the corner" phrase I met this phrase in Harry Potter book 1, " ...the train rounded the corner... " Could you tell me if it is the common way of saying what it means or maybe better " went round the corner " or " turned round the corner "? Is the usage of " round " as a verb common in this sense? To me it sounds like " make the corner rounded, smooth " <Q> It's not an unusual turn of phrase, meaning it doesn't draw any special attention. <S> It's not notably a "British" or an "American" expression either, nor is it a colloquialism or from any particular dialect. <S> It is slightly literary in that <S> (as a verb) it's something I would read but not say. <S> For example, if I was a policeman following someone I might yell: The suspect went around that corner ! <S> and not <S> The suspect rounded that corner ! <S> This is probably because "rounded the corner" describes the action of turning, and not the eventual destination. <S> There isn't any context where I would use it, outside of telling a story. <S> But in a story it's perfectly normal. <S> There is a related expression, "just round the corner" which can be spoken, either meaning literally "as you turn the corner of the next street" or figuratively "nearby". <S> There's a great deli just round the corner <S> where they make the best pastrami sandwiches. <A> You said: To me it sounds like 'make the corner rounded, smooth' <S> That might make sense if the sentence was: <S> The carpenter rounded the corners of the door <S> but I don't see how that would make any sense in the context of a train! <S> As for whether or not this is a common usage or a rare/unusual usage, I think @Andrew was right on track about that. <S> There's nothing unusual or jarring about it, especially in the context of a story. <S> It's found elsewhere in literature, as in this excerpt (from the Simon & Schuster Survivors series): <S> She saw her mother reach out to steady her father, then the wagon rounded the corner and was gone, hidden by the pines. <A> In some cases (non-literary) it's used as an abbreviated form of Around. <S> The song "She'll Be Comin' ' <S> Round the Mountain" is one example. <S> In the Southern US we tend to say we're "going 'round" to indicate we're visiting someone or stopping somewhere. <S> "I went 'round to all the neighbors' houses to collect money" or "Are ya'll comin' 'round this weekend to visit?" <S> In general terms, I've heard "he rounded the corner" rather often around my parts. <S> Funny enough as I think about it, I remember when I worked with the police constantly hearing "rounded the corner of ___" a lot.
| As what the phrase means, it could mean The train went around the corner in the case of a departing train, or The train came around the corner in the case of an inbound train.
|
"had" versus "had had" :if I "had had" money, I would have bought this car If I had had money, I would have bought this car. My book says that in place of "had had", only "had" should be there. But I am confused about it, please help. <Q> This is a classic example of the use of the past subjunctive (had) versus the past perfect subjunctive (had had) in English. <S> If you say, If I had had money, I would have bought this car. <S> both the protasis (if-part) and the apodosis (then-part) talk about events in the past that are counterfactual. <S> If you were to say, If I had money, I would have bought this car. <S> it would not make any sense since the protasis talks about a present counterfactual event whereas the apodosis talks about a past counterfactual event. <S> For example: If I had money (now), I would have bought this car (last year). <S> If I had had money (last year), I would have bought this car (last year). <S> If your grammar book says that only "had" should be there instead of "had had", then it's either a strange sentence syntagma or <S> it's absolutely wrong. <S> I hope that might have helped you out. <S> Take care and good luck. <A> Your sentence looks <S> absolutely okay to me! <S> The best source I can find on this is BBC . <S> It says that we use have as a main verb in many cases. <S> One of the examples quoted there is: have a (good) job/some work to do/ money /an <S> opportunity/a chance <S> It further describes while mentioning 'had had': <S> Note that past perfect forms are a feature of if-clauses in the third type of conditional sentence when we are explaining past actions or regretting past inaction. <S> Thus, had had is likely to appear in this construction: <S> The example you give suits this piece of instruction. <S> So, If I had had money, I would have bought this car. <S> ... <S> sounds fine. <A> "Had" or "had had" shows only 1 thing, and that is the timeline. <S> You need to have the money before you can buy anything! <S> So if you had had the money, then you would have bought this car. <S> The money comes first here in time, ie, before you make the decision to buy this car. <S> If you only use had, then it's unclear when you had the money. <S> It can be before or after you have the idea to buy that car, so <S> Had is unclear, thus wrong.
| had had is correct.
|
How serious is the comma rule between coordinate adjectives? I find the commas between coordinate adjectives unnecessary. For example, the followings seem to be both fine to me. It’s a bulky, heavy box. It’s a bulky heavy box. Is that so? <Q> I agree, both versions seem fine. <S> I parse them slightly differently, though. <S> It’s a bulky, heavy box. <S> This means the box is bulky, and the box is heavy. <S> It’s a bulky heavy box. <S> This means the heavy box is bulky. <S> Now, in most cases, this will actually mean exactly the same thing. <S> There are situations where there is an actual difference, though. <S> When you are talking about several heavy boxes, some of which are bulky, some of which are not, you would probably use the second version, whereas when you are talking about boxes with different properties, you would use the first: Lifting heavy boxes is not really difficult, as long as you know that a given box is heavy. <S> When you see a bulky heavy box, you can probably guess it's heavy. <S> The problem is with small heavy boxes. <S> If you try to pick up a shoe box containing lead, it is a lot heavier than you would expect it to be. <S> versus: <S> We managed to move all the boxes to the third floor, except for that one. <S> That is a really bulky, heavy box; we couldn't get it up the stairs. <A> [1] <S> It’s a bulky, heavy box. <S> [2] <S> It’s a bulky heavy box. <S> There is a difference. <S> The punctuation here distinguishes coordination from the stacking of modifers. <S> In [1] "box" is modified by a coordination of adjectives giving the meaning "box that is both bulky and heavy". <S> In [2], by contrast, there are two layers of modification: <S> "box" is modified by "heavy" to form the nominal "heavy box", and this is in turn modified by "bulky", giving the interpretation "box that is bulky by the standards applicable to heavy boxes". <S> Thus the syntax is different and there are two different shades of meaning, but for most practical purposes in this case it doesn't make a great deal of difference. <A> One aspect of commas which is less often touched on in grammatical rules is that they also set the phrasing with which the text is to be read. <S> How would you say that? <S> For myself, I'd probably have a small pause between "bulky" and "heavy", so I'd insert a comma. <S> On the other hand, I'd probably say "a huge steaming pile of manure" without any pauses, so I would tend not to insert a comma between "huge" and "steaming". <S> Grammatical rules primarily exist to guarantee successful communication - but (to paraphrase Jesus) <S> the rules are made for the good of the communication, not the communication for the good of the rules. <S> If you know why you're not following a rule, then you know enough to recognise whether the resulting text is better or worse at communicating the concept to your audience. <S> The reason for the rules existing in the first place is that many people aren't competent enough with language to recognise this. <A> As per the rule of punctuation, comma is needed between SIMILAR types of adjectives before the noun. <S> These are known as 'Coordinate adjectives :It's a bulky, heavy box. <S> [ opinion _ opinion ] <S> Here, 'bulky' is modifying 'box'. <S> 'Heavy' is modifying 'box''. <S> Similarly, The long, narrow path. <S> Some elegant, delicious food. <S> But no commas are needed between DIFFERENT types of adjectives before the noun. <S> These are known as 'Cumulative adjectives' :A big square blue box. <S> [ size _ shape _ colour ] <S> Here, 'blue' is modifying 'box'. <S> 'Square' is modifying 'blue box'. <S> 'Big' is modifying 'square blue box'. <S> Hope, it is now quite clear.
| If you write " It's a bulky heavy box", your sentence is incorrect in respect of the rules of punctuation.
|
How do I know which verb form suits the sentence? For example: How long will you have been studying** when you graduate ?** Will you have been studying - future perfect continuous graduate - simple present. The same sentence contains two different verb forms. I thought the same verb tense was carried throughout the sentence. <Q> Whether or not there is a canonical sequence of tenses in English is debatable. <S> What is not debatable is that the structure "If[when] time indicated by conditional verb, then future time relative to conditional verb" is idiomatic. <S> "If I get home early, we will go out to dinner." <S> "If I got home early, we would go out to dinner." <S> "If I had got home early, we would have gone out to dinner." <S> The idea that all the tenses in a sentence must refer to the same temporal frame is a gross over-simplification of English grammar. <A> Look at this sentence. <S> It contains an independent clause and dependent clause: <S> When I get home (dependent clause), I will call you (independent clause). <S> Many dependent clauses begin with words such as if , <S> when , before , after , as soon as , and until .When <S> a dependent clause talks about a future time, use the simple present in the dependent clause and the future with <S> will and be going to in the independent clause. <S> The simple present shows the future action, and the future shows the second future action. <S> For example: When we get to Italy, we'll rent a car. <S> I'll contact you as soon as I hear from her. <A> Different verb forms could go in a given sentence and the sentence still be valid. <S> You simply need to know exactly what you want to say and the variation in meaning between the different forms of the verb(s) <S> you're using. <S> In your sentence, and since you're taking about a future scenario, it's only natural that you will be using future tenses. <S> The perfect continuous is to ask about the accumulation/completion of some relatively previously started activity/state, studying in your sentence. <S> The conjunction when introduces the point up to which that activity is considered/measured. <S> For example, you could've also said: -How long will you have studied when you graduate? <S> -How long will you have studied when you have graduated?
| Both verbs are future in meaning.
|
Application of "Misunderstand" in the Past Continuous Tense I have doubt that whether the following sentence is correct or not: Anytime my teacher was teaching the lesson, I was misunderstanding some notable points. Actually, I want to use this sentence in a formal text. Is it the correct way to use "misunderstand" in a Past Continuous Tense form, given that I didn't see something like this. Besides, is "misunderstand" a suitable word for a formal text? <Q> Saying that you were 'misunderstanding' during the lesson implies that from the moment the lesson began to the moment it ended you were in a state of misunderstanding. <S> Actually you just 'misunderstood' some notable points. <S> Also, as 'anytime' sounds like it refers to multiple occasions <S> I would say that "taught a lesson" is correct, as " the lesson" refers to a specific lesson (unless your intention is to state that you attended the exact same lesson that was being repeated on multiple occasions). <S> I would therefore express this as: <S> Anytime my teacher taught a lesson I misunderstood <S> some notable points. <S> This shows that you regularly misunderstood some points during many lessons. <A> The sentence is grammatically correct but not idiomatic. <S> Firstly: Yes, misunderstand is perfectly acceptable in a formal text. <S> However, the use of the past continuous is very non-idiomatic here. <S> We normally use a continuous tense to mean something like "to be in the middle of performing an ongoing action ". <S> But "misunderstanding" is not really an action you can be in the middle of doing. <S> For example, this would be idiomatic: <S> Every time the teacher called on me, I was daydreaming about baseball. <S> "was daydreaming" makes sense because to daydream could be a lengthy action that you were in the middle of when the teacher called on you. <S> But "to misunderstand" is not something that you were in the middle of doing when the teacher was teaching the lesson. <S> So ... <S> I misunderstood <S> some notable points. <S> is much more fluent. <S> Actually, to be even more fluent, the beginning of the sentence should be Any time my teacher taught a lesson... <S> because we're talking about a recurring or regular action (your teacher teaches a lesson and you misunderstand) and not something that happened in the middle of your teacher being in the action of teaching. <A> You can either understand it or not understand it, but <S> you can't really be understanding it, as a continuous action. <S> In such cases we generally use a process verb of some kind to better explain what's going on: <S> I was trying to understand what he was doing. <S> I could see that she was failing to understand what I meant. <S> This also applies to similar words like comprehend, apprehend , discern , interpret , etc. <S> as well as its antonyms like misunderstand, misapprehend, misread , etc. <S> Note: <S> Don't confuse the continuous verb form with the noun <S> misunderstanding : <S> They fought for hours but eventually agreed it had all been just a misunderstanding .
| I don't feel that past continuous tense is needed for the word 'misunderstanding' because you already establish the tense by stating that this occurred "anytime my teacher was teaching", so you don't need to do it again. "Understand" is one of those verbs that doesn't work in the continuous.
|
Can "direction" have sides? I am trying to describe the positional relationship among objects A, B, and C with reference to direction X. The relationship may be described as follows when it is literally translated from my language to English: Object A is located on (located closest to) one side of direction X. Object B is located between objects A and C in direction X. Object C is located on (located closest to) the other side of direction X. I think the second is acceptable, but the first and third do not make sense. I would like to know how to describe the positional relationship with reference to direction? <Q> The direction is irrelevant when describing the relative locations. <S> The positional relationship can be described as The three objects A, B and C lie on a straight line. <S> B is between A and C. or The three objects A, B and C are colinear. <S> B is between A and C. <S> If you really want to include the direction: suppose direction <S> X is turned 90 degrees. <S> Then The three objects A, B and C are all the same distance in direction X. <A> Some directions have clear names. <S> So we can say A is "above", "below", "East" or "West" of B Or we can use relative directions "to the right of B" <S> If we want to talk about the direction of "A" relative to the direction of "C" we could say "C is on one side of B, and A is on the other side of B" <S> This only makes sense if you mention three objects. <S> You can't just say "A is located on the other side of direction X" without also mentioning object C <S> We don't add "of direction <S> X" or any similar phrase. <S> We can also just say "B is between A and C" <A> the object <S> The object B is between the objects <S> A and C. A is on the side of B, while C on the opposite direction of that. <S> the object C is on the other side of direction X, while A is the one side of that direction, and B is in the middle of them.
| A is on the left of the object B, while C on the right of that.
|
Why does "hulled" mean "devoid of hulls" rather than "having hulls"? I was studying the nutritional profile of sunflower seeds here when I came across the word hulled, referencing the seeds. I had only known about the noun hull , and the adjective form was a first-time encounter. My first impression was that hulled meant "having hulls" since a hull is the shell of the seed, but to my surprise it means "having had the hulls removed". So I thought what if there was the word dehull , wouldn't that mean "remove the hulls of" and so the adjective "dehulled" could be derived? so I looked up the word dehull and it does exist with the same meaning as I predicted. Therefore, hulled and dehulled are interchangeable. So isn't it weird that hulled is used to mean devoid of hulls? <Q> In English, a lot of verbs that are formed from nouns mean "remove the thing the noun refers to." <S> Some examples are hull, shell, husk, pit, and skin. <S> Don't use "dehull. <S> " <S> Your source may say it's a word, but not many people will recognize it. <S> Note that when I buy sunflower seeds, they are usually packaged as "shelled" rather than "hulled." <A> It gets a little weirder, actually. <S> Hulled as the past participle of the verb to hull means with a hull removed. <S> However, hulled can also be an adjective meaning with a hull , for example a wooden-hulled ship is a ship with a wooden hull. <S> Using hull to mean remove a hull may stem from the maritime term: if a ship is hulled <S> it means that her hull has been breached. <S> It appears that the word originates in OE hulu , meaning a husk or shell. <S> It got the specialized meaning as it pertains to a ship in ME, whence came also the meaning of rupturing a ship's hull. <S> I wouldn't be surprised to find that this meaning then got generalized to include the rupturing of any sort of hull; I don't find evidence of this usage (although admittedly I haven't looked very hard) prior to ME. <A>
| "Hulled" is a past participle of the verb "hull," which means to remove hulls.
|
What is this mop-like tool called in English? What this pictured object is called in English? I was googling for mop and squeegee and got confused since based on the pictures in google images the most mops and squeegees look different. Then what is the accurate name for that? <Q> I expect most Americans, when seeing this, would call it a Swiffer , even if it is not actually a Swiffer brand product. <S> It’s similar to how many Americans call any kind of facial tissue a Kleenex . <S> After doing a web search for "dust mop", I agree with Corvus B that the generic term for this product seems to be dust mop . <A> Either plain mop or dust mop , depending on how it's used. <S> A dust mop is used dry to pick up dust. <S> It is not used with water or soap. <S> Your pictured mop looks different than a traditional dust mop, but it would probably work as one. <S> If it's used with water, it is not a dust mop. <S> Some mops of this style have sprayers that squirt soap ahead of the mop. <S> If that's the case, I would just call it a mop. <S> They're essentially the same principle as a traditional mop, just implemented a bit differently to make cleaning them easier. <S> It's not different enough to need a distinct name. <S> If you do need to differentiate it from a traditional mop, I would focus on the specific thing you need to differentiate. <S> If someone wants to know where your mop bucket is, you could say something like, "I don't have one; I have a mop with an attached sprayer. <S> " If you're trying to find replacement heads in the store, and you don't see the style you need, then you'd say, "where are your flat/microfiber/Swiffer mop heads?" <S> (Pick the descriptor that best matches your particular mop.) <S> If you are trying to find a similar mop on Google or Amazon <S> so you can buy one, then my testing shows that "microfiber mop" or "flat mop" both work well, although I've never heard anyone actually use those terms. <S> If you're asking an employee in a physical store, you can simply call it a mop, because all mop types will be together. <S> It is definitely not a squeegee or sponge mop, because it doesn't have a sponge head that is squeezed with a mechanism on the mop handle. <A> How about flat mop ? <S> I had only heard such mops referred to as "mops" before, but the Wikipedia page on mops seems to be calling them in general "flat mops" (with other more specific terms based on their features or intended uses). <S> I would immediately understand the term, as it's a mop <S> and it's flat, and a web search for "flat mop" brings up similar results. <A> In my place of work we use mops similar to this to dry floors after moping with a regular mop, so as to reduce the risk of people slipping. <S> We call these dry mops. <S> I work in UK. <A> It's a sweeper floor mop , both a sweeping and a mopping tool. <S> There are many different models and shapes. <S> As Todd answered, Swiffer company and many others make such mops. <A> Norwex makes this one we have, they call it a mop. <S> https://www.amazon.com/Norwex-Mop-Starter-Package/dp/B003H4NCQ0 <S> That being said, my wife and I call it the swiffer-- <S> and yes, every time I know I am being wrong and/or lazy. <A> In line with the US "Swiffer" (brand; which I've also seen in Holland), I think in the UK the same market position is held by "e-cloth"; and "e-cloth mop" gives sponsored/shopping results on Google from competing brands, so they use it as a keyword. <S> More generically it would be "microfibre mop" as that's the type of cloth without brand name.
| It looks like a dry mop to me, Dry mop is listed in Merriam-Webster dictionary online as "a long-handled mop for dusting floors".
|
What is the positive form of "stalk"? What I want is the verb that has the meaning of "stalk", as in a person following someone he or she likes, but which doesn't have any negative meaning like "stalk". For example, She asked him, "Why don't you ask me out? You're always just verb me all the time." Stalking is obviously illegal and considered a crime, but I want to know a verb that indicates a guy just following/chasing a girl he likes since he truly loves her. No bad connotation. And for the verbs "follow" or "chase", I wasn't sure either if I could use these or not. <Q> (...now that I re-read the question!) <S> I think most people would agree that the word implies at least a somewhat negative undertone. <S> Although some would disagree . <S> In that article it says: <S> The online world, in particular social networks, has meant the term ‘stalking’ has taken on a significantly different meaning. <S> There are a whole range of activities that could be classified as ‘stalking’ which effectively water down the creepiness typically associated with closely following the activities of another person. <S> Somehow it’s become ok to follow someone closely online, in a way that peeking through their windows at home will never be. <A> I don't think there is a term that is a positive synonym for stalking . <S> The concept connotes prey of some kind. <S> Witness, from Merriam-Webster (and much the same for other the sources I consulted): stalk (verb) <S> Definition of stalk (intransitive verb) 1: to pursue quarry or prey <S> stealthily 2: to walk stiffly or haughtily (transitive verb) 1: to pursue by stalking 2: to go through (an area) in search of prey or quarry stalk the woods for deer 3: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment Consider something like: <S> She asked him, "Why don't you ask me out? <S> You're almost always hanging around ." <S> That still doesn't come across as entirely welcoming, but I sense some exasperation from the speaker. <S> (That's certainly what my response would be. <S> Then, from the answer, I would have the opportunity to send him on his way. <S> Or not.) <A> Well, usually when a man loves a woman and follows her around <S> he actually tails after her . <S> I'm not sure if they are common but <S> here are some of the phrases I heard: to tail after - to follow someone or something to follow someone around/about - to follow someone wherever they go <S> (I would stick to this expression in your context) to hound someone = to follow someone in a determined way in order to get something from them <S> Here's is what I suggest: <S> She asked him, "Why don't you ask me out? <S> You're following me around like a puppy all the time." <S> She asked him, "Why don't you ask me out? <S> You're tailing after me like a duckling all the time."
| I don't think there are any positive-sounding ways that the word stalking could be used.
|
Why do we reverse the order in one sentence but not the other? 1a) “What is it?” b) “What do you think it is?” (is it reversed) 2a) “What would be a good way to go about this?” b) “What do you think would be a good way to go about this?” 2b apparently does not get reversed,maybe the awkward sounding “What do you think a good way to go about this would be?” is still grammatically correct but not used for the reason that it sounds bad.Or there is a difference between sentence 1 and 2 that has one reversed but not the other. <Q> Questions formed by "what + be" usually ask for the subject complement of the sentence (or for the subject complement of the embedded clause): 1a) <S> What is it? - <S> > <S> It's an animal . <S> 1b) <S> What do you think it is? <S> -> <S> I think it's an animal . <S> 2a) <S> What would be a good way to go about this? <S> - <S> > <S> A good way to go about this would be to examine it thoroughly . <S> 2b) <S> What do you think would be a good way to go about this? <S> -> <S> I think a good way to go about this would be to examine it thoroughly . <S> Now, notice that in (1) "it" cannot be the subject complement. <S> We cannot say: * <S> An animal is it. <S> However, in (2) subject and subject complement are interchangeable. <S> We can in fact say: To examine it thoroughly would be a good way to go about this. <S> When the speaker is faced, as in (2b), with a relatively long phrase next to the verb "be", he can seize the opportunity that the long phrase can be interpreted as either subject or subject complement and place it in end position (as a subject complement) to avoid a relatively long subject before the copulative verb in the embedded question, which would make the sentence sound awkward: ? <S> What do you think a good way to go about this would be? <A> Thus, the question represents a misunderstanding, rather than a difference. <S> Question 1.a: <S> the question is being asked of the general audience, which would include the speaker. <S> Question 1.b: is being asked in a more directed fashion, with the object being "you". <S> When you look at the phrasing this way, it becomes apparent that, in question 2, precisely the same thing happens. <S> In 2.a, anyone in the speaker's audience, including the speaker, can answer the question. <S> In 2.b, the question is directed specifically to "you" . <S> It is not asked in the question, but it may be helpful to realize that "you" may be singular or plural, one or many. <S> Also, the first style, where the speaker asks the question so that they can also provide an answer, is frequently used as a rhetorical device. <S> In that case, the speaker knows the answer, or believes they do, and is seeking to make a point, or to direct the audience's thoughts. <A> Let's make them apples, instead of apples and oranges. <S> The two sentences are not related as written . <S> I am not analyzing the second sentence as written because I think if you read what I say below, you will see there is in fact a reversal, when you compare two comparable sentences : <S> Based on 1a, you have a normal question: " <S> What is it? " <S> In " What do you think||it is ?" <S> , the interrogative regards <S> the verb think: what do you think , and not it is . <S> In order for the two questions to have parallel structure, sentence 2a would have to be: <S> " What would it be "? <S> And the interrogative form with think then becomes: <S> " What do you think it would be ? <S> " There you can see that What would it be reverses to it would be if you add a question with think. <S> The reason is the same as for the first question: The question form concerns think and not "would be". <S> Now, both sentences in both forms have parallel structure. <S> The straight question (reversed be verb) and then interrogative form with the verb think where the verb to be in second clause is not reversed. <S> Both your examples now work the same way.
| I believe you are misinterpreting the meaning of the sentences.
|
Meaning of the phrase "as is the case for" Here is the context it was used in: As is the case for many countries still suffering wounds from old wars, it may take a long time for these two to settle their differences. <Q> First of all, I would suggest that you think of this phrase as a fixed expression or an idiom even though I think no dictionary out there actually has an entry for this expression in its database. <S> It still bets me why not. <S> This syntactical construction seems to be very popular in English and probably deserves at least some mention in those dictionaries. <S> And as for the meaning, it simply means typical or usual (or typically or usually, depending on the context). <S> Consider the following example: <S> As is the case with many technological advancements, they can be used for the good or the bad of society. <S> Now, let's paraphrase this example using simpler language: <S> It is typical for many technological advancements that they can be used for the good or the bad of society. <A> The first part of the sentence is discussed in the previous question <S> “As is the case for” vs. “As is the case with” . <S> However the first part says "many countries" and the second part says "two countries". <S> Also "took" is the wrong part of speech, so I suggest <S> As is the case for many countries still suffering wounds from old wars, it may take a long time to settle their differences. <A> You could express the same meaning by "History shows by many examples that it may take a long time to settle differences between countries if they are still suffering wounds from old wars.
| "As is the case for" is a formula used to introduce a state of affairs that is typical.
|
Capable of being proven or proved? Someone has posted somewhere that an Egyptian man had been arrested and jailed in USA around 1996. At the time, a crime took place in New York, and the criminal ran by him, telling him to run. Out of fright, he ran while not knowing what was going on. He was caught instead of the real criminal. He was later found not guilty and set free. The woman then reports the guy has been suffering a psychological trauma ever since and wanted to know if it was possible to seek compensation. I posted the following in reply: The man will probably not be entitled to any compensation because there is no legislation requiring states to compensate a defendant who has been found not guilty. States in the US have prosecutorial immunity against such claims. However, compensation might be possible if there had been a serious breach or misconduct on the part of the judge, prosecuter or police. Examples of such misconduct would be holding the defendant in custody for an excessively long period of time, forced confession, battery or any other blatantly illegal practices. So unless the said psychological trauma that the man experienced was the direct result of misconduct capable of being proven , he won't be able to win a lawsuit against the city of NY, neither will he manage to "mobilize" public opinion or excite media outlets. When I read my reply again, I felt proved might actually be just as good or even better. But I'm not sure. <Q> You could say was demonstrably the direct result of misconduct instead of "was the direct result of misconduct capable of being proven". <A> Except as an attributive adjective (where "proven" is preferred), "proved" is the more traditional choice. <S> However, "proven" is equally acceptable nowadays. <S> From Oxford : Both are correct and can be used more or less interchangeably (this hasn't been proved yet; this hasn't been proven yet). <S> From Merriam-Webster : <S> [ Proven ] was disapproved by 19th century grammarians, one of whom included it in a list of "words that are not words." <S> Surveys made some 50 or 60 years ago indicated that proved was about four times as frequent as proven . <S> But our evidence from the last 30 or 35 years shows this no longer to be the case. <S> As a past participle proven is now about as frequent as proved in all contexts. <A> From Garner's Modern American Usage 3rd Ed. <S> proved; proven . <S> Proved has long been the preferred past participle of prove. <S> But proven often ill-advisedly appears. <S> In AmE, proven, like stricken, properly exists only as an adjective. <S> Proven has survived as a past participle in legal usage in two phrases: first, in the phrase innocent until proven guilty ; second, in the verdict Not proven , a jury answer no longer widely used except in Scots law. <S> As for Not proven , one writer has defined this verdict as meaning, “ Not guilty, but don’t do it again. ” <S> From American Heritage <S> Dictionary 4th Ed. <S> Prove has two past participles: proved and proven . <S> Proved is the older form. <S> Proven is a variant. <S> Proven was originally used in Scottish legal contexts, such as <S> The jury ruled that the charges were not proven . <S> In the 20th century, proven has made inroads into the territory once dominated by proved, so that now the two forms compete on equal footing as participles. <S> However, when used as an adjective before a noun, proven is now the more common word: a proven talent.
| In British English proved is more common, with the exception that proven is always used when the word is an adjective coming before the noun: a proven talent, not a proved talent.
|
What is the best verb for "undertaking an IPO"? There are many verbs to use here that I thought of as follows: A company has an IPO conducts an IPO undertakes an IPO offers an IPO (redundant?) does an IPO initiates an IPO (sounds like it might not carry through) carries out an IPO etc. So far I thought that "undertakes an IPO" was best, but I am currently writing (translating) an article and it would be good to have more verbs for this than just "undertakes," and some of these verbs sound weird. Can anyone say what they think the best verb would be for this? Thanks. <Q> My suggestion is: A company submits an IPO. <S> The idea is that the company submits its offer to the consideration of any potential stockholders. <S> A google search shows around 18,300 hits for "submit an IPO". <A> Ngram suggests the five most common variations are: do an IPO <S> make an IPO. <S> but I am sure many other verbs are also fine, since something like "carry out" is essentially synonymous with "do". <S> The only one I would not use is "offer" because, as you say, "to offer an initial public offering" is redundant. <S> Of course that doesn't stop people from saying things like <S> "PIN number" and "ATM machine" -- <S> but you should do what you can, globally, to stamp out and eradicate redundancy in the world. <A> 1) To issue an ICO, issue is used with IPO's and can be used for coins: <S> See this Bloomberg article: iCO issue An IPO issuer or issue, by analogy, an ICO issue [noun] and issuer [company] issuing the coin offering. <S> "To avoid running afoul of the law, ICO issuers can try to establish a clear link between the rights attached to a token and its usage and performance on the blockchain platform." <S> 2) <S> To launch an ICO, alternatively, one can launch an ICO: " <S> Over the course of the last two weeks I have had over 10 companies directly contact me to help them launch an Initial Coin Offering “ICO”. <S> Typically I ask: when do you want to launch? <S> The most ridiculous answer <S> I’ve received was: “next week”. <S> launch an ICO
| have an IPO call an IPO plan an IPO
|
What is the brown cardboard covering coffee cups called in English? I recently got into an awkward situation when I wasn't able to ask for a 'warmth protector thingy' in Starbucks, and wasn't accurately able to describe it, so could someone tell me what you would call the brown paper thing covering the plastic cup of coffee? I struggle to find it anywhere because it's hard to describe, hence why the title is badly phrased. edit: would zarf be socially acceptable to use in a casual environment? <Q> It is called a "sleeve." <S> Although the primary meaning refers to that part of clothing which covers the wearer's arms in part or in whole, by analogy it has come to mean a tightly fitting, tubular protective covering. <S> See Merriam-Webster for a more detailed definition. <A> A historic term for a coffee cup sleeve would be zarf -- it traditionally refers to nondisposable Turkish metal sleeves but has also been used to refer to the disposable paper ones. <S> (Disclaimer: I've only once heard a sleeve actually being referred to as a zarf at a coffeeshop, and it was a "hey did you know" kind of thing from the barista) <A> coffee sleeves <S> Grip cup sleeves Coffee <S> clutches Coffee cozies (refers mainly to those that they're for multiple use) <S> Hot cup <S> jackets Paper <S> zarfs Coffee collars Hot cup <S> holders ( Source ) Searching these names on internet stores prove that the most of them are in use in the market. <S> By clicking on the links you will see the results in Google images, and there you will find a lot stores which use these names. <A> I've certainly heard these corrugated cup-coverings casually called coffee condoms by college kids around campus (with the occasional “ribbed for her pleasure” snickers). <S> As might be expected of a coinage like this, Urban Dictionary offers the most baldfaced definition of this bit of street slang: <S> Coffee Condom <S> The name for the sleeve that goes around your handle-less paper coffee cup to insulate the drinker's hands from hot coffee. <S> Similar to how a latex condom is designed to protect you from sexually transmitted diseases the "coffee condom" is designed to protect your hand from the hot cup of coffee. <S> Java Jacket Smithsonian Magazine from 2013-08-13 had an article on “ <S> How the Coffee Cup Sleeve Was Invented” containing a more detailed history of this device, including this small bit: <S> Jay Sorensen invented the Java Jacket in 1991 as a solution to a common problem—hot coffee burns fingers. <S> The idea emerged in 1989 when he was pulling out of a coffee shop drive-through on the way to his daughter’s school and a coffee spill burned his fingers, forcing him to release a scalding cup of coffee onto his lap. <S> At the time, he was struggling as a realtor in the years since closing his family-owned service station in Portland, Oregon. <S> While the coffee accident was unfortunate, it gave him the germ of an innovative idea: there had to be a better way to drink coffee on the go. <S> Sorensen ended up patenting his Java Jacket idea, and he sells a billion (B-I-L-L <S> -I-O-N) of these a year. <S> But the one you get at Starbucks is ever so lightly different enough that they got their own patent after Sorenson got his. <S> An earlier patent for such a device was granted back in 1964: <S> And there have been many others besides that one. <S> The Smithsonian article also mentions one called a portable coaster back in 1947. <A> On the the more technically accurate side, the complete term would be coffee cup sleeve . <S> It's surprising that no one here actually mentioned that it even has got its own Wikipedia page. <S> Follow this link for the details. <A> A “warmth protector thingy” can also be called an insulator , but sleeve , coffee sleeve , or even cardboard sleeve are all acceptable. <S> Coffee condom should be used very selectively.
| It is called " Coffee cup sleeve ", and it is known also in the following names:
|
Is there difference between bedding, bedclothes and linen or are consider synonym? Is there difference between bedding , bedclothes and linen or are consider synonym for the following context? I want to refer to all of the covers that belong to the bed and its accompanying such as pillows, blanket etc. Are these 3 words that I mentioned above can meet my need? <Q> Bedclothes is literary and/on a general term for everything on a bed. <S> It is rather literary or journalistic. <S> Typically, hotels provide fresh linens daily. <S> [they change the sheets/pillowcases and put out clean towels]. <S> Linens can also include linen tablecloths, for example. <S> Bedding refers to the actual stuff a bed is made of and more commonly is used to describe the straw put in barns etc. <S> for an animal to sleep. <S> A dog can also have bedding, made of blankets, for example. <S> It can also refer to the materials mattresses are made up: foam bedding. <S> But it is not used to refer to what one's has in one's linen cupboard for use on beds. <S> Bed linens is also a term, which I just remembered. <S> It is usual, elegant and to the point. <A> Indeed bedding and bedclothes are synonyms, as indicated by Dictionary.com .I found a lot more advertisements selling these items in a web search for "bedding" than "bedclothes," but that may just indicate that "bedclothes" is more common in commerce. <S> The other term you may be looking for is bed linen .Again from Dictionary.com , bed linen sheets and pillowcases. <S> As noted by Merriam-Webster , the term is sometimes bed linens (plural). <S> According to the definitions given in those sources, however, bed linen does not include blankets or comforters. <A> Yes, any of those three words would work. <S> I would suggest using 'bedding' since 'bedclothes' is a little old fashioned sounding to me. ' <S> Linens' can refer to sheets, blankets, pillowcases, and also towels. <S> The other two words do not include towels.
| Linens is all the sheets and pillow cases and towels.
|
Which is more appropriate to use in sentences like these, you or your? I remember your talking about how your father died. I remember you talking about how your father died. Are both these sentences grammatically correct?What's the difference in their meaning? <Q> In the first example, "I remember your talking about how your father died." <S> "talking" is a gerund or verbal noun. <S> (The talking about the subject becomes the import portion of the sentence.) <S> In the second example "I remember you talking about how your father died." <S> "talking" is a present participle. <S> (What is remembered is the important part of the sentence.) <A> The word, ' your ' is used for possessions . <S> You can see the actual definition here; "belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing " Both work either way, but for natural speaking and to keep the sentence flowing, you should stick with ' you ' for socializing, as pronouns are for referring to most general things. <A> 1 - I remember|your talking| about how your father died . <S> Your talking is a pronoun + a noun gerund and the phrase functions like a quasi-direct object. <S> You can extract the noun and use it elsewhere and it becomes a subject. <S> |Your talking| about how your father died| reminded me of sad times. <S> In English, nouns gerunds are used all the time.|My playing| [of a musical instrument] was annoying to my family. <S> They do not remember |my playing| fondly. <S> 2) <S> I remember |you talking| about how your father died .|You <S> talking| about that subject upset me. <S> This is just more colloquial. <S> And traditionally talking would be considered a participle though I would say it is a direct object. <S> However, you can also use it as a noun.[You or Your or no pronoun] <S> Talking too much can be a problem . <S> The sentences are semantically equivalent . <S> There is no difference in meaning. <S> They both convey the same information and the noun gerund or participle (depending on how you look at it) can be used as a subject. <S> Verbs that take ING in this group are forget, remember, stop and try because they can be followed by ING or TO, but do change meaning. <S> Please also bear in mind that pronoun + gerund can be used with all the possessive pronouns (formal) and object pronouns (colloquially) : your talking, his leaving, her grieving, my arriving, their disagreeing, our shouting are all further examples of a pronoun+gerund and can all be used as subjects. <S> Also please note that the her can only be her . <S> The other pronouns remain the same. <S> I remember your/you talking about x. <S> I remember his/him talking about x. <S> I remember her talking about x.[no pronoun change: possessive is the same as the object pronoun] <S> I remember their/them talking about x. <S> I remember our/us talking about x. <S> I remember my,me talking about x. <S> To show that the use of you is more colloquial, look at the first person pronoun in the sentence: there is no doubt that I remember me talking about <S> x is more colloquial than <S> I remember my talking about x . <S> And sorry <S> but the only reference I have is in my head. <S> Me talking about that <S> is important is used and heard but if you were getting your Phd in English, you would want to say: My talking about that is important . <A> Your is more precise and should be used in formal writing. <S> It is more precise because it is the talking that is being remembered, not you . <S> You is more colloquial and might be more appropriate for everyday dialogue. <S> Still, I would prefer to say your instead of you . <S> There's nothing wrong with being precise in colloquial English. <S> Say what you mean, not what makes you "fit in." <A> Briefly speaking ... <S> (" you " - objective, " your " - possessive) <S> Both are accepted with either the objective or the possessive. <S> The possessive is considered more formal whereas the objective is considered informal. <S> When the gerund is the subject, the possessive is often preferred - " Your talking much about your father's death bothers me." <S> If you are doing an English test it's wiser to avoid using the objective and use the possessive instead <S> = <S> I didn't like your (not you ) talking to my sister. <S> Grammatically speaking ... <S> ( Get It Write ) <S> Using the objective instead of the possessive can often lead to ambiguity (see p.4. <S> above)
| The possessive focuses on the action whereas the objective focuses on the person . Both sentences are correct. The gerund phrase " talking about how your father died " functions as a noun and thus we must use the possessive case of nouns that modify it.
|
The Z of A and B: plural or singular This question is similar to this one , but it does not help me, so I am asking it by myself. I want to know which one is appropriate: The number of coins in bottle A and bottle B is compared. The numbers of coins in bottle A and bottle B are compared. Here what I want to say is "The number of coins in bottle A and the number of coins in bottle B are compared." I want to know the general rule for this kind of situations (this specific example is not important). In case, the example is strange, I give another one. The weight of bottle A and bottle B is compared. The weights bottle A and bottle B are compared. <Q> Let's look at it without the center section: <S> The number is compared. <S> The numbers are compared. <S> The weight is compared. <S> The weights are compared. <S> For me, the answer is obvious. <S> The plural is required here. <S> So, when we add more information, the plural should be retained: <S> The numbers of coins are compared. <S> The weights of bottles are compared. <S> And this, too makes more sense than the singular. <S> With the singular, I end up asking "to what???"... <S> The number of coins is compared... to what? <S> So, again, the plural is correct. <S> There are two weights and two numbers. <S> I also note that you don't have to repeat the nouns: <S> The numbers of coins in bottles A and B are compared. <S> The weights of bottles A and B are compared. <S> And I'd say that here, the plural is better sounding, now that you obviously have bottle s - plural. <S> When you use the singular, I'm prepared for a single number/weight, so the second half of the sentence becomes confusing. <S> The number of coins in bottle A and bottle B is 484. <S> The weight of bottle A and bottle B [together] is 1.3 kilos. <A> In your specific examples, you'd best stick to the singular. <S> There is one number that accounts for the coins in each bottle. <S> Bottle A has a single number of coins, as does bottle B. Bottle A has a weight, not weights, and the same is true of bottle B. However, you could write that the weights of bottle A and bottle B are compared, as the plural will then refer to the weights of both bottle A and bottle B, but you can also write that Bottle A's weight is compared to that of Bottle B. <S> So, Bottle A has a number of coins. <S> Bottle A has a weight. <S> Bottle B has a number of coins and a weight. <S> Bottle A and B each has a number of coins. <S> They have numbers of coins, in the plural, unless you wish to refer to the coins collectively, in which case they are a number of coins distributed into two bottles. <S> The same is true of the weights. <S> Comparing the two weights can lead to use of the plural, but collectively measuring the weight of the two bottles together will use the singular. <A> As you have stated, what you want to say is: <S> The number of coins in bottle A and the number of coins in bottle B are compared. <S> This is grammatically correct. <S> In asking which of these is correct: <S> The number of coins in bottle A and bottle B is compared. <S> The numbers of coins in bottle A and bottle B are compared. <S> from your extended question you can construct the contraction by omitting the repetition, thus: <S> The number of coins in bottle A and [the number of coins in] <S> bottle B are compared. <S> The number of coins in bottle A and bottle B are compared. <S> * <S> This is both correct and would be understood to mean that you have compared the number of coins in each bottle (and found that the number of coins differs or is the same). <S> And you have quantity (s) of objects (pl) in objects (pl) , which becomes cumbersome if it were plural-plural-plural. <S> The weight of bottle A and bottle B is compared. <S> is not correct; the case is slightly different here. <S> The weight of bottle A is compared with the weight of bottle B. , when rearranged, becomes The weight of bottle A and the weight of bottle B are compared. <S> The weights [of] bottle A and bottle B are compared. <S> Whether you say weight (s) or weights (pl) can be open to interpretation, but in either case it will be are compared . <S> Also, using the passive voice is often less clear than using the active voice. <S> * <S> The numbers of coins in bottle A and bottle B are compared is also correct.
| Because the number(s) of coins are properties of the bottles, and the bottles are named separately; the number of coins in bottle A where number (referring to quantity) is singular because there is only one bottle, and are compared is the plural form because there are two bottles. You should use the plural. You can't compare a single thing with itself without getting equivalence.
|
Can I say "Look, the bus comes" to mean "Look, here comes the bus"? I know if I add the word "here" at the end as "Look, the bus comes here", it won't sound right, but what if I simply say "Look, the bus comes"? Does it mean the same as "Look, here comes the bus"? Does it sound natural? <Q> The way you are using the simple present tense to describe a current event <S> Look, the bus comes. <S> is probably the most obvious giveaway that you are not a native speaker of English . <S> Languages like German Der Bus kommt. <S> or Spanish El autobús viene. <S> commonly use simple present to express that an event is happening right now , but in English we do that with the present continuous: <S> The bus is coming. <S> Moreover, if you use the simple present you are likely to suggest that the event is durable and general. <S> For example Geese fly. <S> means that the act of flying is a property of geese, while Geese are flying. <S> means you should look up in the sky right now if you want to see some geese. <A> Short answer, you should rephrase it to; "... <S> Look, the bus is coming ." <S> This works due to talking in the present tense . <S> Both are casual and used socially . <S> The alternate way <S> you provided sounds awkward and unnatural <S> , I would stick to the sample I provided, although it is clear that you mean it the same way. <A> I agree with the other answers that The bus is coming is the most natural way to express its imminent arrival. <S> However, it is possible to use the simple present in an ironic way as if to express some kind of special or momentous event. <S> This is because of the now-archaic third-person singular simple present indicative form of the verb, "cometh", now only commonly seen in texts like The Bible: <S> I am the living bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. <S> If you want to be appropriately melodramatic, you could say something like: <S> Lo ! <S> The bus cometh ! <S> but it is acceptable to shift this to the modern conjugation, and say (with appropriately dramatic tone) <S> There! <S> The bus comes! <S> Again, this particular use is dramatic, archaic, and can be satirical -- but it may be helpful to be familiar with it, in case you see it in a movie. <S> For example: <S> The birds! <S> The birds! <S> He rises! <S> Moby Dick (1956)
| The sentence means exactly the same as "Look, here comes the bus".
|
What noun describes the state of an accident survivor? Infirmity, or weakness? I cannot think of a proper noun to describe the physical state of someone who survived an encounter with a bear. He is walking with a severe limp, and has wounds in his back, and his calf. Therefore, could his condition be named an infirmity or rather weakness , decrepitude , feebleness ? I know that these are mainly used to refer to long time illing people or elders who only stay in bed. I appreciate any suggestions! <Q> I would say the mauling victim was maimed and partially crippled if these injuries are permanent. <A> A person walking with a severe limp with wounds (or injuries to) on his back and calf would be called an invalid (as Andrew said) or disabled. <S> [verb] He has a disability caused by them. <S> [noun] <S> He is physically impaired or has physical impairments. <S> [verb and noun] disable impair <A> I would call this person an invalid : <S> Invalid (n): <S> A person made weak or disabled by illness or injury. <S> After her terrible accident, she spent the rest of her life as an invalid . <S> Note the difference in pronunciation between this word and the adjective invalid (meaning "not valid"). <S> Here the accent is on the first syllable. <A> You could use the word, ' frailness or 'fragile '? <S> This gives the impression that he looks poor , wounded and given the bear, associates with ripped clothing as the homeless. <S> Could also add ' ragged ' but I'm not sure this will fit with the sentence provided. <S> "... <S> Physically weak or delicate: an invalid's frail body; in frail health .
| He has been or is disabled by his injuries.
|
Is done by me vs has done by me The majority of the work is done by me. The majority of the work has done by me. In general conversation if I want to say someone that I did the major work in the project. Which of the above sentence would be correct? and what is the difference in the meaning if I say "is done by me." or "has done by me." <Q> The correct verb to use here is "is", however , the form you've given isn't the correct tense - it should be something like " was ", " is being ", or " will be ", depending on when the work occurs. <S> If the work is completed (which I suspect you want, since you're comparing it to "has"), you would use the past tense, " was done by me". <S> (other types of past tense would be acceptable, such as "has been done by me" - but note that the main verb is still "is", inflected as "been"!) <S> If the work is ongoing, you could use the present progressive, " is being done by me". <S> If you're talking about future work, you would use the future tense, " will be done by me". <S> In the simple present tense, as you've given, it sounds unnatural in this sentence - a little bit like you're stating a simple teamwork decision as a profound mathematical fact. <S> There are cases where you might do this, but it would require a larger context to sound natural. <A> [right, present tense] <S> Most of the work has done by me. <S> [wrong] Most of the work was done by me. <S> [simple past, the work is finished]OR Most of the work has been done by me. <S> [present perfect, you started to do the work in the past and continue to do it now] <S> Trick, just for you: the simple past and present prefect are basically the same idea in Spanish. <S> :) <S> Please note: <S> The majority of is used for people. <S> For work, we would say most of the work . <A> You are mixing up how the auxiliary verbs "be" and "have" work. <S> A formation involving some form of "be" plus the past participle of a verb (or some form of "have" plus "been" plus the past participle of a verb) puts the verb in the passive voice. <S> That means the subject of the sentence is acted upon by the verb rather than performing the act. <S> So "The majority of the work is done by me" is perfectly correct and means exactly the same thing as "I do the majority of the work." <S> A formation involving some form of "have" and just the past participle of a verb leaves the verb in the active voice (but changes the aspect of the verb). <S> "The majority of the work has done by me" is grammatical in form, but means that the work did something to me, which is not at all what you mean. <S> In fact, it is nonsense. <S> So it is incorrect. <S> At the risk of some over-simplification, if and only if some form of "be" is in the verb phrase along with a past participle, you are dealing with a passive construction.
| The passive of the verb to do : Most of the work is done by me.
|
Formal alternatives for "to be justifiable" I am writing an academic paper in economics, and I am trying replace is justifiable with some other expression, but I am missing the right word. Current text: The objective of loss minimization is only justifiable when loss coincides with cost. Replace with: The objective of loss minimization ... when loss coincides with cost. I need a formal word or phrase, something like makes sense , but the latter is too informal. (The example is partly made up, so please do not focus on whether cost and loss are related in a meaningful way.) <Q> Worthwhile. <S> Warranted <S> The objective of loss minimisation is only worthwhile when loss coincides with cost <S> 'Worthwhile' means that the time involved is equal or greater to what one gets back from the activity and is similar to 'justified'. <S> https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=worthwhile+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-sg&client=safari <S> Warranted <S> The objective of loss minimisatiobn is only warranted when loss coincides with cost <S> Warranted means 'justified', 'reasonable'. <S> https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=warranted+meaning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-sg&client=safari <S> To make a more active sentence how about something like: 'The goal of minimising loss warrants balancing (or offsetting) costs against losses'. <S> (It's a bit difficult to do a proper example because we don't have the real words). <S> Some other words for 'warrants' are: validates or legitimises. <A> The difficulty I'm having with coming up with a formal, active verb is that I can't think of any intransitive verbs with the meaning you want, and the verb has to be intransitive to fit grammatically. <S> If you used a dummy "it" as subject, there are any number of transitive verbs that could work, including just "justify": <S> It justifies the objective of loss minimization when loss coincides with cost. <S> If you leave the sentence as-is, I think you may be stuck with a two-word solution like "is justifiable," although you could choose any number of synonyms for "justifiable." <S> From what you've said in comments, a synonym that might work is defensible . <A> I can't see a reason to transform your sentence into the active, whereupon I actually see it as an active construction (perceived as the passive) . <S> Turning this into a somewhat-active voice could create a very difficult sentence, non-idiomatic and hard to read. <S> Here " is " could be the copula in the sentence (like in: <S> The base is situated on hill or <S> "She i) . <S> " justifiable " is an adjective here that modifies the first clause and not an action verb, which is actually " coincides ". <S> I, in fact, recommend you leave the sentence as is. <S> I find it idiomatic and good <S> English <S> whereas a change to it may spoil that. <S> Notice that the passive would actually look like this: The objective of loss minimization is only justifiable when cost is coincided with loss .
| In this context, other verbs that could work might include "rationalize" and "excuse."
|
Is "bicycle born human" correct in this context? Context: Person X likes to ride his bicycle. The context is a morning in a normal road, with a commonplace setting in a simple town locality. Some are riding bicycles, while others are riding scooters. I want to write: While he doesn’t let go of scooters without a race, he makes it a point to not let any bicycle born human overtake him, and if they do so, he would overtake them back again within a minute. By "While he doesn’t let go of scooters without a race", I mean to say that he does try to challenge scooters for a race, and evidently looses since he himself is on a bicycle. However, he does not let any other bicyclist overtake him. And if by chance any bicyclist overtakes him, he'll make it a point to overtake them back. Question: Is "bicycle born human" a correct usage? I am avoiding the term "biker" or "bicyclist" because this is a simple setting, so there are people like the milkman, the breadman, the newspaperman, etc. who are just riding a simple bicycle to commute from one place to another. I am worried that those two words refer to a rather exclusive set of adventurous cyclists with helmets on their heads. PS: I hope it's obvious but, through that phrase, I want to refer to a human riding a bicycle, not a human "born" on a bicycle :P <Q> Honestly speaking, I don't think that's a correct usage of the adjective borne (and please pay attention to the spelling). <S> An airborne disease is one that's transfered from person to person through the air. <S> Waterborne diseases are diseases that are spread through water. <S> The idea here is that the first word (for example, air in airborne ) in an expression <S> so formed <S> tells you what medium is used to carry the disease. <S> I think, the most common usage of borne <S> (there are some other less common ones) <S> you typically hear is when people are talking about diseases and bacteria that cause them. <S> I don't know why, but borne <S> just doesn't seem to work for humans. <S> You could say, however, airborne troops , but that's rather a technicality. <S> It seems to me that this word is only applicable to things that are not human and have no intellectual capacity to make decisions on their own. <S> That's probably why we can say airborne troops . <S> The reason, I think, is because soldiers can't give orders, they must follow them instead. <S> So, I would suggest that you look for an alternative way to describe a person who likes to ride bikes. <S> In your situation, you could simply say any bicyclist . <S> Though not as fancy-sounding, at least a lot more comprehensible. <S> bicycle borne human would literally mean a person who is carried by means of bicycles, but that's just not idiomatic and sounds like awfully awkward English. <S> It gives the impression that they have no choice in whether they want to be transfered by bicycles or not just like waterborne bacteria have no ability to decide where to go. <S> They go where the media takes them. <S> Could you please tell us some more about your sentence and what idea exactly you want to express with it because as it stands right now, the sentence is not the most intelligible one. <S> The only thing that I can discern is that you're talking about a person who can give others a run for their money when it comes to bicycle racing. <S> And if you do tell us more about your sentence, hopefully we will be able to fix it together. <S> It's very difficult to come up with the right descriptives when the exact context is unclear or vague. <A> He doesn't let anyone on a bicycle overtake him. <S> With respect to "let go of". <S> The desired meaning is not clear to me in OP's while construction: <S> While he doesn’t let go of scooters without a race, he makes it a point to not let any bicycle born human overtake him, and if they do so, he would overtake them back again within a minute. <S> The expected structure is "While (although) he does not do X, he does do Y". <S> But "doesn’t let go of [sic] scooters without a race" does not have that meaning. <S> I think OP means to use this construction: "let {someone} go without {something}": <S> He lets people on scooters go without a race... <S> That is, he does not bother to race people on scooters. <S> With respect to "back again", "back" is incorrect. <S> back = restored to an original place <S> Here is what you want to say: .. <S> He would overtake them again in a minute. <S> A runner, say, or race-car driver, who is in the lead, if he is overtaken, can get the lead position back or get the lead position back again . <S> I will lend you this book. <S> I would like it back again. <A> No, 'bicycle born human' is not the correct term for refering to somebody riding a bicycle, because this person is not born on or from a bicycle. <S> They are simply called a cyclist or biker . <S> If you really want to avoid using those terms, you could always use person riding a bicycle . <S> While bicycle borne human is not incorrect, it does look rather awkward in everyday usage and could be downright confusing. <A> You can, however, use the phrasing " born to ride a bicycle " or call them a " (bi) cyclist ".
| You could also call such a person a " biker " but it could either mean " a person riding a bicycle " or " a person riding a motorcycle ". Absolutely not, " bicycle born human " is ridiculous. Since he does wish to prevent anyone on a bicycle from overtaking him, the contrary of that would be "he ignores people on scooters".
|
What is the small room in the entrance of the flat called? Where I live, many apartments are build in a way that after you open the door of an apartment, then you have a small room "entrance room" in which people can put their shoes or other things, and from there there are another rooms (such as kitchen and bedroom or living room etc.). This room is variable in its size, but I'm asking about 6*2M room. Now we call it corridor, and when I translate this word to English it is called also corridor... Now the issue is that the definition in Cambridge dictionary for the word corridor is: Corridor : a long passage in a building or train, especially with rooms on either side. It seems that corridor in my language and corridor in English is not the same, and in English people call this place in a different name. What is this name for our corridor? The following illustration demonstrates this area by the number 4. <Q> Not one hundred percent sure, <S> but I think it's called an entrance hallway . <S> It definitely can't be just a hallway because hallways are typically long, spacious corridors that connect apartments on the same floor. <A> The word that comes immediately to mind is vestibule , though it feels fairly formal, often describing the architecture of churches or large buildings such as the White House. <S> ves·ti·bule <S> ˈvestəˌbyo͞ol/ <S> noun <S> 1. <S> an antechamber, hall, or lobby next to the outer door of a building. <S> synonyms: <S> entrance hall, hall, hallway, entrance, porch, portico, foyer, lobby, anteroom, narthex, antechamber, waiting room <S> "brochures are available in the vestibule" on Amazon in the UK <S> I found a sign saying "please take shoes off" advertised as a "Home Vestibule Boot Room Sign". <S> (As with many shopping sites, item titles are optimized to match as many search terms as possible rather than for grammatical correctness.) <S> A site talking about Japanese architecture said "The vestibule just inside the main entrance to a Japanese home is called a genkan." and went on to describe the formal etiquette of taking off shoes, waiting for admission to the house proper, etc. <A> Most people in Britain and commonwealth regions would call it the entrance hall or simply the hall (without any risk of its being misunderstood as a church, school or concert kind of hall). <S> Likewise, the hall mirror, hall carpet, etc. <S> In these areas, (entrance) hall is the term used on building plans by council officials, architects, etc. <S> It would be regarded as peculiar or pretentious to call it a foyer or a lobby, both terms being used for those large, airy and rather wasteful functional areas at the entrance to office buildings, theatres and so on. <A> foyer I think is the word you're looking for. <S> The foyer to a home is usually a sort of greeting before entering the rest of the abode. <S> At the same time the dimensions of a foyer aren't exactly standard. <A> It can be a ' lobby ' depending on the purpose of the flat and the size of the room. <S> It could be an " entrance room " or an " entry room ". <S> It could be a " foyer " - an entrance hall or other open area in a building used by the public, especially a hotel or theatre. <S> (an entrance hall in a house or flat. " <S> North America") . <A> You could call it an entryway . <A> This kind of thing is very localized and is usually handled via vernacular. <S> Most of the suggestions provided here will work. <S> It just depends on where you are. <S> If you choose one of the provided answers, you will most likely be understood. <S> The locals will correct you if you are too far off base. <A> I believe anteroom sounds more fitting. <S> We rented an old mansion in Connecticut. <S> When entering the home there was a very small room about 5’x 5’ <S> Then, A second door that opened into the grand foyer. <S> I believe the purpose of the small room was to prevent the cold air from entering the home and also To prevent losing the warm air from inside the home. <S> Also, my father was an ice cream manufacturer. <S> He had a large room he would put a gallon of ice cream in to freeze once it had been made. <S> Before entering the large freezer room there was a smaller room he referred to as the anteroom. <S> I would think it would serve the same purpose to prevent the freezing air from escaping and to keep the warm air out of the freezer
| It could be an " entry hallway " or an " entrance hallway ", also " entry hall " or " entrance hall ".
|
Why do we say "little damage," and could the word "little" be substituted for a synonym? For example, let's take the following sentence: It wasn't a bad crash and little damage was done to my car. It's a question from Cambridge test. I made a mistake here; I put "small damage." My guess is as follows: we should probably use "little" and not "small" because 'damage' is an uncountable noun. I did not realize it at first. But it's only an assumption. Am I right? And can we somehow substitute the adjective "little", e. g. can we say "slight damage"? <Q> Yes, this is the common, uncountable, abstract sense of "damage". <S> Since there is nothing that we can count, there is nothing to which we can assign individual sizes . <S> There are no individuals to size. <S> The large/small distinction simply doesn't make sense here. <S> Other distinctions do make sense. <S> The much/little distinction represents degree in the same manner that large/small represents size. <S> Severity can be represented by pairs like minor/major and gradations like slight/moderate/severe. <S> There are, of course, many other polarities and spectra that make sense with uncountable abstracts, as do many absolute attributes. <S> Damage was done. <S> Much damage was done. <S> Little damage was done. <S> Major damage was done. <S> Minor damage was done. <S> Slight damage was done. <S> Moderate damage was done. <S> Severe damage was done. <S> Physical damage was done. <S> Emotional damage was done. <S> Legal damage was done. <S> Indescribable damage was done. <S> Like any language, English has quirks. <S> One of those quirks is the word "little". <S> It has several senses. <S> For example: much/little -- degree big/little -- size <S> a lot of / a little of -- relative portion <S> We don't want to dismiss the word "little" simply because we've dismissed scales of size and portion. <A> Even with countable nouns, you would use "few" instead if you want to say that there were not very many, because when "small" is used with plural nouns, it implies that all of the individual items in the group are small. <S> For example, "small children" doesn't mean "not very many children," it means "a group of children who are all small." <A> The most important part is the lack of the article a <S> So <S> It wasn't a bad crash; a little damage was done to my car. <S> It wasn't a bad crash; little damage was done to my car. <S> The first means there was damage, the second almost no damage to the car. <S> When you use "small" in this case, you mean there was damage to the car and "only small" could be used to tell there was damage but not important. <S> "little damage" is almost no damage at all. <S> The "little X" is an idiomatic expression. <S> There is little hope (almost no hope) <S> vs there is a little hope <S> (we are hopeful)
| It is true that "small" is not used with uncountable nouns.
|
Distinction between “bend” and “bow” The nursery rhyme “London Bridge is Falling Down” includes a line Iron and steel will bend and bow To me as a non-native speaker, both “bend” and “bow” evoke essentially the same kind of mental image in this context. Is there a difference which can be put into words? Or are they fully synonymous here, and just combined for the sake of the rhyme? Writing this I realized that while apparently both words work for iron and steel (perhaps with some artistic liberty?), I'd only bow to a king and bend rays of light using a lens, not the other way round. But I don't know why , except that I'm copying phrases I have read in these contexts. So perhaps an explanation of situations where just one word is appropriate can help point out distinguishing nuances for situations where both are possible. <Q> Bend is a much more common word than Bow. <S> There are several related words written "bow" <S> There is is /bau/ rhyming with cow (noun, verb) which is a lowering your body to show humility, for example before a King. <S> There is /bau/ <S> (noun) <S> The front part of a boat. <S> There is /bou/ rhyming with know (noun) a knot made with loops of string, for example to tie up a shoes or a gift. <S> There is /bou/ <S> (noun) Used to shoot an arrow, or play a violin <S> There is /bou/ <S> (verb) meaning "bend". <S> This is quite rare, as it can nearly always be replaced by the word "bend". <S> The verb "bow", meaning "bend", is normally used without an object: <S> The beams holding up the roof are bowing Bend can be used both with or without an object: <S> The robot bent the steel bar with ease. <S> The beams holding up the roof are bending. <S> (Transitive use of "bow" is possible, but even rarer) <S> They are used for the alliteration. <S> Using redundant words like this is technically called "pleonasm". <S> For example if I say "You will get a free gift. <S> " The word "gift" implies "free", but I might choose to use the redundant word for style or emphasis. <A> Not bow ! <S> Bow ! <S> You are being caught by a homograph. <S> The Bridge does not bow (rhymes with "cow"); it bows (rhymes with "lows"). <S> It bends under tension, like an archer's bow. <S> A bend could be a sharp bend, a graceful bend, <S> a zig-zag bend, anything. <S> It could be natural to the bent item, or it could have been caused by impact, heat, gravity, anything. <S> It might be permanent. <S> If an object is bowed , it is a graceful distortion over its entire length, caused by a force acting on the ends, and when the force is removed, the object will snap back to its original shape. <S> If you think of the behavior of Robin Hood's bow or Pablo Casal's bow under the tension of strings, you'll understand. <A> The Shaker song Simple Gifts <S> contains a similar pair of words: <S> When true simplicity is gained To bow and to bend we shan’t be ashamed <S> I believe this phrase refers to bowing at the waist and kneeling (or bending the knee ) <S> both physical symbols of submission. <S> I believe that by using both bend and bow together, London Bridge is referring to both physically warping materials, and also metaphorically to submission in the social/human sense. <S> In any case, both words have several different meanings as you can tell from the other answers.
| Some slight difference is that "bowing" suggests gentle curving, whereas "bend" might suggest an angular bend, or a fold. In the rhyme, they are nearly fully synonymous.
|
What is the root word of "Refactoring"? "Code refactoring" is an expression widely used in programming communities and is used to describe the work of changing or rewriting the program code without changing the code results. What is the root word of "Refactoring"? Does it come from the word "factor", like "doing the factor" again or "factory", like "refabricating"? <Q> If you use a dictionary with etymologies, you will see that the English word "factor" and similar words like "factory" and "manufacture" derive ultimately from the Latin verb "facere," which has a very broad field of meaning but mainly means to "do" or to "make." <S> The root of the past participle of "facere" is "fact-. <S> " <S> All of this is basic Latin that can be found in any Latin dictionary. <S> According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "fact-" was then turned into a Latin noun, "factor" meaning "doer" or "maker." <S> (Personally I do not remember this word, but I studied Latin a very long time ago.) <S> Thence, the word passed into Old French as "facteur" meaning "doer," "author," or "creator." <S> So the usage that you have given of "re-factoring" seems to fit quite well with the Latin root meaning of "re-doing." <S> Julius Caesar would have understood it once you explained to him what a computer and computer code are. <A> Early uses of "refactor" found by searching in google books show that it has a different meaning in the early 1990s and before. <S> Before the 1970s (apart from misspellings of "refractor" or "refactory") <S> its very rare appearances are associated with "finding the factors of factors 45 = (9)(5) = <S> (3)(3)(5) since the factor 9 was not prime it was necessary to refactor it. <S> — <S> ( source ) <S> However this does not seem to be related to the current meaning in computer science. <S> For that you should look to its meaning in iterative processes. <S> Particularly in the matrix form of Newton's method. <S> In this method, a matrix is calculated and at each step of the method a new matrix needs to be calculated. <S> If the partial derivatives are known exactly then this is quick, but if the partial derivatives have be evaluated numerically, then finding the iteration matrix takes a long time. <S> The process of finding a new iteration matrix was called "refactoring the matrix", and various computer science texts discuss how this slow refactoring can be avoided, or discuss the consequences of not refactoring the iteration matrix from what I understand in your method, you don't refactor the stiffness matrix and in the modified Newton Raphson method you have to refactor the stiffness matrix every once in awhile. <S> —( source ) <S> The meaning of "improve code" was linked to the object-oriented programming movement, and early books on Smalltalk discuss programming as being an "iteration" of design-write-test-refactor <S> As with every facet of object-oriented application development, several iterations are required until we find the optimum distribution design. <S> [...] <S> Because designs tend to change during the implementation, it is necessary to refactor and optimize after the infrastructure is complete. <S> —( source ) <S> It is reasonable to suppose the word was coined from Latin roots (factor = make) to describe the process of building a new iteration matrix, and then was adopted for an iterative approach to writing code. <A> Forth programmers used the word factoring meaning "turning common functionality into a function" - for example in "Thinking Forth" book, first published in 1984. <S> This could be created as an analogy to algebraic "factoring out" expressions, as in 2*4 + 3*4 <S> = (2+3) <S> * 4 . <A> The closest we can get to a definitive answer is the rather indefinite note on the matter by Martin Fowler, who had access to the first people to use the term in this way: <S> When I asked around the creators of refactoring, the common answer was that they had no idea. <S> The term had been around for a while and they don't know where it came from. <S> The one definite answer I got was from Bill Opdyke, who did the first thesis on refactoring. <S> He remembered a conversation during a walk with Ralph Johnson. <S> They were discussing the notion of Software Factory, which was then in vogue. <S> They surmised that since software development was more like design than like manufacturing, it would be better to call it a Software Refactory. <S> Refactory has gone on to be the name for the consulting organization that Ralph and his colleagues use. <S> However the metaphor of factoring a program was also part of the Forth community. <S> Bill Wake dug out the first known printed mention of the word "refactoring" in a Thinking Forth, a 1984 book by Leo Brodie. <S> We're pretty sure that this usage didn't pass from the Forth community to the Smalltalk community, but developed independently. <S> "EtymologyOfRefactoring", Martin Fowler
| The foundations of what we refer to these days as refactoring comes from the Smalltalk communities.
|
“Four types of gases” or “four type of gases”? Shall we use type or types after a number. For example: 'four types of gases' or 'four type of gases'. Which of these is correct? <Q> The word type must be plural (with an 's') as you are referring to a total of four, which is not a singular amount. <S> A shorter alternative to this would be to state, 'four gas types': "There are four gas types that must be included in your summary." <S> The word type could be used when you are referring to each gas as a separate, singular item: <S> "Each different type of gas must be accounted for in your summary." <A> We are referring to more than one type, so we use the plural; but these are all members of the single class 'gas', so that is in the singular. <A> The plural is needed, because the number "four" shows that there is more than one. <S> The plural of "type" is "types". <S> So, "four types of gases" is correct. <S> (Funnily, in the title of the question, the correct form was posted twice :-)
| We would normally say "Four types of gas".
|
Weighing scale or scales? When referring to Weighing scale/s that for weighing things or people in gym for example, then what's correct? scale or scales or both correct? I am asking it right after looking at the entry in Cambridge dictionary and I got confused because it is not clear there. <Q> Both names are used today, but I think scale has become more popular. <S> I tend to use scales, but I've hear younger people saying scale. <S> I think scales probably came about because in past days these devices had two pans (scales). <S> In one pan you would place a known weight (2Kg for example) and then you would add a substance like sugar until the pans/scales balanced. <S> From this you would know that you had measured out the correct amount of sugar desired i.e. 2 kg. <S> Today most devices have one pan /scale hence the singular form. <A> I agree that this usage is very confusing. <S> Here is a sloppy collage I made to try and explain the difference. <S> All of the pictures here could be called "a scale" in a general sense. <S> For example, if I said, "Weigh it on a scale!" <S> any of these tools would be appropriate. <S> However, the top row here depicts some scales or a set of scales <S> If the weighing tool has two or more parts to balance (like the top row), you can refer to it as the scales or a scale . <S> The middle image is the plural form of scales, while the scales in the first image could be considered a noun with no singular form . <S> The bottom row depicts a specific scale .If <S> you're in the gym, the more common usage is the version without the -s, scale : "Step on the scale in the corner." <S> For context, I am a young, Midwestern American. <S> Older folks or other countries might use scales instead. <A> Of the top 10 digital kitchen scales on Amazon UK today, 5 describe themselves as "scales", 1 describes itself as "scale", and 4 hedge their bets and use both terms. <S> The numbers are exactly the same for the top 10 bathroom scales. <S> Anecdotally, I would say that the UK is undergoing a shift from scales to scale, partly generational. " <S> Scale" sounds odd to my British English ears, but it is increasingly heard and read. <S> Neither is wrong in British English usage, but using "scales" in the UK is still safer in that hardly anyone (yet) will regard it as wrong whereas the reverse isn't the case. <A> According to the Global Corpus of Web-based English, both forms are used in North America and Australia, with "scale" being slightly preferred; but "scales" is strongly preferred in the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand. <S> Looking for "scale (noun)" near a form of "weigh", I get US: 36; CA: 28; GB: 15; IE: 8; <S> AU: 10; NZ: 1. <S> but for "scales (noun)" near a form of "weigh", I get: US: 32; CA: 21; GB: 50; <S> IE: 21; <S> AU: 10; NZ: 10. <S> Certainly I (BrE speaker) would always say "scales" (and use a plural verb and pronouns). <A> My daughter and I have just had the same argument. <S> It may have a generational element to it as well as regional. <S> Scissors, shears, and pliers fall in this category. <S> So do pants, trousers, slacks, even culottes and shorts. <S> We even speak of them as plural: a pair of pants when we are referring to a single garment. <S> Interestingly, when they are used as adjectives, they become singular: a pant suit; a scissor cut.
| Scales are in the category of nouns that, because of having, or originally having, two parts, took on plural usage.
|
What's the difference between "rough" and "tough"? "I had a rough day." vs " I had a tough day. " I know they express almost the same idea. But is there a slight difference between them? If there is, when should I use "rough" and when "tough"? <Q> The same question was asked here <S> but I shall offer my own interpretation on the difference in meanings. <S> According to the Oxford dictionary of ‘rough’, it means 1. <S> Having an uneven or irregular surface; not smooth or level. <S> I would imagine it to be like rough waves just cascading onto you, making you feel very worn out. <S> On the other hand, if your day is described as a tough one, it would be pointing towards definition 2.2 of ‘tough’ in the Oxford dictionary, meaning difficult. <S> A tough day would be one that’s <S> full of obstacles or things that made you feel upset. <S> Both tough and rough days would have you feel exhausted at the end of the day due to how emotionally taxing they are. <A> Rough could describe having a up and down day, hence the day balance. <S> While tough is giving the impression of a hard and rigid day, not a moment that mitigate the pressure just hard/difficult right through. <A> I might be slightly more inclined to use "rough" if the day were hard because of lots of different things, and "tough" if the day were hard because of one big thing. <S> But that's a very slight preference, and no one would be thrown or confused if they were used the other way round.
| When ‘rough’ is used figuratively to describe your day, it could give the impression that your day is very turbulent and is full of tribulations.
|
What is the filling of the stapler called in English? (picture attached) What is the filling of the stapler called in English? (you can see it in red circle in the attached picture). I looked for this word in my native dictionary but I didn't find this word. <Q> I'd just call them "staples". <S> A set of staples joined together like <S> this can be referred to as a "staple strip" or a "strip of staples", as in Eran's answer, but English speakers don't use this term very often. <S> Instead, most speakers simply refer to them as "staples" in normal speech. <S> That doesn't mean you can't talk about strips of staples. <S> You can talk about whether a stapler takes half strips or full strips, for example – the shorter ones take half strips. <S> But in common speech, it's usually most natural to just say "staples". <A> By the previous answers here, I found the following things: In Wikipedia <S> they're called paper staples . <S> In Cambridge dictionary they're called simply staples . <S> Checking in google images shows that the boxes that contains them, call them simply staples . <S> ( See here for example) Staple strips , by googling <S> I found mainly as a term that can refer to paper staples, but not as name of product title for them but just generally referring to what it is called. <S> I found also that " staple strips " as a product title name refers mainly to the staples that are not for papers, but for example for thicker things than paper or fences etc. <S> For "paper staples strips" there are only 5 results in google. <S> Stapler needles is a name that less common in English speaking countries (for example, by googling I found 972 results , in which 46 results in the UK or 774 results in the US for "stapler needles"). <S> I think it can tell everything about this usage. <A> Definition from Merriam Webster dictionary here <A> In our office we call them staple sticks or staple cartridges . <S> But usually when you ask someone to give you those, you never mean to ask for singles, so even if you ask for just "staples", I'm sure you'll get a stick of them. <A> I have always said "a row of staples" for the actual staples stuck together that you put into a stapler. <S> In the US, Swingline is the most known brand of stapler and here is the usage for row of staples <A> They're staples <S> Just wanted to point out that one of the world's largest office supplies companies based its name on these little things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staples_Inc . <S> From a marketing perspective, it has a dual meaning - a "staple" <S> is typically a basic ingredient or material so widely used or consumed that it's considered essential to an everyday process. <S> For example, rice and potatoes are staple foods in many parts of the world, cotton is a staple element of clothing. <S> By labelling themselves Staples, the office supplies company acquires the linguistic side effect of describing themselves as essential/being sellers of essential things <A> In India, I have heard them called "stapler pins" most often. <S> See, for example, listings on various shopping sites: eBay India <S> Stationery Hut (seems to be an Indian site) <S> Flipkart (Indian site) <S> Or various news articles: <S> FSSAI bans stapler pins in tea bags from January 2018 - The Hindu Business Line , July 24 2017. <S> ‘Indecent obsessions’: <S> A peek into life as a kleptomaniac, compulsive liar - The Hindustan Times , August 20, 2017 <S> (emphasis mine): Pencils, erasers, sharpeners, notepads, paper clips, even stapler pins – over the next nine years <S> , Dandekar would stockpile stationery <S> he never really wanted, and certainly did not need. <S> 29 stapler pins removed from 10-month-old baby's oral cavity - Daily News & Analysis , May 6, 2015. <A> a "bolt" of staples is what you call the attached line of staples. <A> As already answered, most people would just say they were "staples": <S> I need to put some more staples in my stapler. <S> It may also be called " a block of staples " as they are stuck together. <S> Another alternative is that they may be referred to as a cartridge . <S> Usually, a "cartridge" is a container with something inside, but the fact that the staples are sort of stuck together with a very fine adhesive makes them more than just "some staples". <S> It is a single, collective object designed to be put into a stapler, and for that reason, I think "cartridge" is acceptible. <A> They are called: Stapler Needles or Staple strips .
| They are called staples.
|
What do you call Obama's face expression "not bad"? How to desribe a person reacting with this face? Alternatively, I'd appreciate if you suggested me a word to describe this kind of compassionate frowning: <Q> Funnily enough (given that it's quite a distinct expression that has a meaning of its own) <S> I don't think there's a commonly accepted word in English to describe it. <S> I would go with @Eran's 'Sturgeon Face'. <S> (To clarify, a sturgeon is a fish that looks like it has that facial expression.) <S> Even though the definition that @Eran quoted calls it an 'excessive frown', a frown is generally thought to involve the eyebrows more than the mouth. <S> This just demonstrates the paucity of vocabulary in English when it comes to talking about such expressions. <S> For the second photo, I would call that a furrowed brow . <S> That doesn't necessarily imply that it's compassionate, but it does imply worry. <S> You could say a brow furrowed with compassion . <A> The first is what I would call a grimace to make an expression of pain, strong dislike , etc. <S> in which the face twists in an ugly way: <S> Either the verb or noun, scowl , would be appropriate too to look at someone or something with a very annoyed expression <S> The second picture showing Bernie Sanders is simply a frown , or you could call the furrows in his forehead, worry lines to bring your eyebrows together so that there are lines on your face above your eyes to show that you are annoyed or worried <A> Although this isn't a word for it per se , most books I read express this emotion by saying "X looked impressed". <S> Although the "looked impressed" may be vague, this sort of expression is usually associated with looking impressed. <S> Here are some google image search results when searching for "impressive meme" and "impressed expression" <S> This expression is very similar to a shrug (minus the hand gesture), but a shrug expresses an entirely opposite reaction, usually indifference. <S> The second one is best described as a frown , as people have already pointed out. <A> Google search yielded the term "Sturgeon Face". <S> Sturgeon Face is a participatory photo meme that involves turning down one's corners of mouth so that it forms an excessive frown <S> (From Know Your Meme ) <A> I would say that first reaction falls under Impressed . <S> Impressed - The feeling of amazement which arises when it is difficult for a person to imagine something that he or she has encountered being any better than it is.
| Given the severity of the expression, maybe very impressed .
|
What is the difference between "in" and "at"? While I know very well the difference between " on " and " in ", or even between " on " and " above ", I didn't get what the difference between " in " and " at " is, that many specific things strictly get just one of them (such as "at the university", "in the building", "in / at the morning".). Is there a clear rule where to use this one (at) and where to use the second one (in)? <Q> The prepositions in and at can have many different functions. <S> Sometimes there is no logical reason related to why we use one preposition and not another. <S> Practice and experience will help you. <S> E.g. I will meet him at 2pm. <S> ** ** = <S> the time stated is very exact or specific <S> **. <S> ** <S> E.g. I will meet you at the library. <S> = <S> the exact place you will meet. <S> You can also use at to describe where two lines cross or intersect such as two roads that cross or a corner. <S> E.g. I will meet you at highway 1. <S> and Corfield St. = <S> where these two roads cross each other. <S> E.g. Meet me at the corner of Corfied road and Murray <S> St.= where these two streets connect or join at a corner. <S> We can also use in to talk about time and place. <S> E.g. I will see him in January. <S> E.g. I will see him in the new year .(or in 2018). <S> E.g. <S> Put the piano in the corner. <S> = used to show a specific location within a house. <S> E.g. Please meet me in the library. <S> = <S> in refers to inside the library and at <S> generally refers to meeting outside at the entrance (although English speakers can use both to mean the inside). <S> As you can see, some of these functions are logical while others have to be committed to memory. <S> These are only a few uses and examples. <S> Also remember that some prepositions form part of a phrasal verb structure and don't function on their own and this confuses learners. <S> E.g. <S> Please drop in when you have time. <S> drop in = please visit <A> John's at home right now playing with his children outside . <S> The preposition at is used to describe the fact of a person or thing being at a geographical location but does not describe the person or thing actually being inside of the structure or place. <S> John is at home <S> but he is not in(side) <S> his house. <S> He's in the garden at the moment. <S> When people are at home <S> they are either inside their house or apartment but could be on the porch or veranda or in the garden . <S> If a person or thing therefore is at a place , they can also be inside some structure there : in the building, in the house, in the store, in the garden, in the park (considered to be a structure, semantically). <S> Bear in mind also that to be "in(side) <S> a place or location" does not mean the place or location has to be covered : to be in the garden (gardens are generally open air), to be in the parking lot, to be in the woods. <S> These places are considered to be places you can be in. <S> Finally, there are also idiomatic uses of in which means to be attending: to be in school or class (studying at a college or university); to be in church; to be in court <S> These usages mean: to be attending school or church or court. <S> Also, or to be institutionalized is: to be in hospital (BrE) and to be in the hospital (AmE). <S> To be in the loony bin. <S> :) <S> This should get you started but will not, by any means, cover every case. <A> AT <S> *AT describes position at a specific point. <S> It's very cold at the bottom of the ocean. <S> * <S> AT is also used with a larger place (a store, bank, airport etc)Let's meet at the bank <S> *AT is used before the names of group activities at a party, at a meeting, at a play, at a parade IN * <S> are in my bag. <S> He is not in his office. <S> The car is in the garage
| Generally speaking at is used to describe an exact location or time. IN refers to position within large areas or in spaces that surround something on all sidesMy keys The main difference between "in" and "at" in everyday speech and locating people or things geographically is this: if a person or thing is at some place, it does not mean they are necessarily in it .
|
An idiom or phrase that includes "white" and means optimism In Arabic, we have a phrase for optimism that literally translates as: white look And look means outlook or attitude towards life. So someone who is optimistic is said to have a white look. Is there any similar saying or phrase in English? <Q> It doesn't include the word "white", but there is a connection between "bright" and "white". <S> It is a verb phrase, and can be used as an imperative: <S> Look on the bright side! <S> The company lost less money than last year. <S> or descriptively: <S> He always looks on the bright side of life. <S> Even when he lost his job he treated it like an opportunity to set up a business. <S> It was famously used by Monty Python <S> Always look on the bright side of life . <S> Another possibility is "He has a sunny outlook (on life)". <S> You should be careful of the risk of cliché. <S> Expressions that are overused become tired and boring. <S> It is hard to use "look on the bright side of life" without bringing the song to mind. <S> Most of the use of "sunny outlook" in writing is when there is a literal use (talking about how the sun can actually change our mood). <S> Writers avoid the cliché when there is no justification for it. <A> An idiom in English that specifically relates optimism, perhaps unrealistic optimism, and a specific color is "to look through rose colored glasses. <S> " <S> Similarly, "He has a rosy outlook on life. <S> " There may be similar usages in English involving "rose," "rose colored," or "rosy" in the same sense. <S> There are related expressions in French like "la vie en rose." <A> A very common expression in English is glass half full . <S> It's sometimes used as an adjective: <S> Tony is a glass-half-full kind of guy. <S> The expression is derived from a maxim: <S> The pessimist sees the glass as half-empty; the optimist sees the glass as half-full. <S> When I type glass half full into Google, it links to a Wikipedia article , and shows this excerpt: <S> "Is the glass half empty or half full?" is a common expression, a proverbial phrase, generally used rhetorically to indicate that a particular situation could be a cause for optimism (half full) or pessimism (half empty), or as a general litmus test to simply determine an individual's worldview. <S> One <S> blogger used this expression to refer to herself: <S> As I have previously shared with you, I'm a glass-half-full person. <S> I also have the most fun writing when I can add humor or share a funny personal experience. <S> Another advice column opined: <S> If you know you're going to be alone during the holidays, see it as a time for solitude, rest and relaxation, and just a break from everything and everyone. <S> In short, change your perspective and take the glass half-full approach.
| One can say "look on the bright side (of life)".
|
Past tense substitute for "current" or "actual" How writing in the past could I refer to the current wife of a man who had been married twice? Could I simply use current , because it's understandable that I am not referring to the date of the writer but the date of the character...? Should I use "latter" , the antonym for "former" , instead? E.g. Jim had been married twice. His former wife was a school teacher, and the latter was a nurse. Does it sound right? <Q> You have a couple of issues. <S> You're calling the nurse a "current" wife when you don't really know if that's the case. <S> In that case, you wouldn't write the sentence in the past tense at all: <S> Jim has been married twice. <S> His former wife was a school teacher and his current one <S> is/was a nurse. <S> When you say "had been" it implies that he is not currently married at all. <S> The more common choice here, since there is no "current" spouse, is to use numbers: <S> Jim had been married twice. <S> His first wife was a school teacher and his second was a nurse. <A> Catija has done a good job answering your question; however, I feel like someone should elaborate on how you aren't using former and latter in the standard way: <S> Jim had been married twice. <S> His former wife was a school teacher, and the latter was a nurse. <S> You imply two previous spouses when you say "twice," but they aren't listed or named. <S> Catija fixed that by changing latter to current , but it might be worth pointing out how the sentences could be restructured such that you could use former and latter . <S> For example, you could say something like this: <S> Jim has two ex-wives, Jane and Linda. <S> The former was a schoolteacher and the latter is a nurse. <S> In that example, former refers to the first of two in a list (Jane), while latter refers to the second (Linda). <S> These don't always need to refer to people; I could say something like: <S> I have two hobbies, skydiving and stamp collecting. <S> The former is much more dangerous than the latter. <S> But I wouldn't (or shouldn't) say: <S> I have two hobbies; the former is much more dangerous than the latter. <S> because the hobbies haven't been explicitly named, so there is nothing for <S> former and latter to point back to. <A> We interviewed him in the 1990s. <S> His first wife was a high school teacher and his then current wife was the mayor of San Antonio. <S> The word <S> then can be used adverbially to modify (temporally situate) <S> adjective current : " at-that-time <S> current". <S> You can also say "his wife at the time", as other answers have said. <A> Generally to refer to 'current' in the past you could use "at the time" . <S> This also makes clear whether Jim is/was still married. <S> Compare Jim had been married twice. <S> His wife at the time was a nurse, while his former wife had been a school teacher. <S> with Jim had been married twice. <S> His former wife was a school teacher, the latter was a nurse, but he was now single again. <A> I like to keep things simple : Jim had been married twice. <S> First to a schoolteacher then to a nurse.
| Someone who is "currently" a spouse to someone means that they are still married. Normally, former and latter refers to two previously-named items.
|
What is the positive word for "not forgetful"? I want to say about someone that he is "not forgetful" or probably "easy to remember things, hard to forget". But I feel like it's too mouthful, and English probably has the term for this, but I don't know how to search for things like this. Can you help me what is the term for "not forgetful"? Thanks. <Q> The most common ways to say that someone is good at remembering things include: <S> She has an excellent memory. <S> Adjectives such as "mindful" are rarely good substitutes. <S> "Mindful" means keeping something in mind, and is almost always followed by a description of the thing: <S> He is mindful of his obligations. <S> (= <S> He is aware of his obliations.) <S> "Attentive" means either that someone listens well (for example, in class) or that they pay attention to particular things <S> : She is attentive to the nuances of what people say. <S> "Retentive" most often describes memory rather than a person ("she has a retentive memory"), but ODO also gives this example: She's very retentive of any facts about the culture, especially about the language. <A> Some common antonyms to forgetful include mindful, retentive, and attentive. <S> Why an elephant? <S> Because an old expression goes: <S> An elephant never forgets. <S> Though if you decide to call someone an elephant, be prepared to explain this, as without context, someone might think you were calling them fat. <S> ;) <A> One way you could say this is that someone has a photographic memory . <S> However, before you introduce this into your vocabulary, you should know: you'd be using this in a figurative and not literal sense. <S> Wikipedia says that photographic memory refers to "the ability to recall pages of text or numbers, or similar, in great detail" and also mentions that "true photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist." <S> So, I might say, "Linda has a photographic memory," <S> but I'd most likely not be referring to the clinical phenomenon; rather, I'd mean that Linda is not forgetful but good at remembering things. <S> One way writers might distinguish between the two is to use near or almost . <S> Collins has an example usage from the Sunday Times which reads: <S> I was to discover that he had an almost photographic memory. <S> I've seen other instances where the more figurative use of this term is employed with a dash of hyperbole, such as when Bruce Benderson wrote in his autobiographical work : If I brought up this episode, she could recall every syllable of it. <S> My mother has a photographic memory. <A> As a matter of fact, the adjective "memorious" sounds pleasant for a person having a good memory, but, unfortunately, it is too obsolete to be used in modern English. <S> The phrases that are very common and idiomatic are "a good memory" and "a photographic memory". <S> The former is more common than the latter. <S> He has a good memory. <S> He has a photographic memory. <S> You can also say "He has an amazing memory".
| He has a good memory. But I find the most colorful way to describe someone who never forgets is to call them an elephant.
|
go easy on... and go overboard with I'm looking for synonymous and antonymous expressions of "go easy on spices" and "go overboard with spices." Can you think of others? <Q> Go easy on spices use spices sparingly keeping it mild/bland <S> Go overboard with spices season it heavily <S> spice it up <S> go mad with the spices spice the hell out of it spice it liberally <A> To mplungjan's list I would add Don't go hog-wild with the(m) spices. <S> and They like it hot. <S> Spice it up to beat the band. <A> There are so many synonyms for “don't overdo ...” and “be generous with ...” that it's impossible to list them all (now someone will try). <S> For salt and sugar, “go easy on” is probably just about the most universally understood expression to use. <S> No need to try too hard <S> :o) <S> For practical examples, I'd suggest perhaps checking out some TV chefs / recipe books for what's considered normal (by them). <S> Just don't treat Lloyd Grossman as an authority, he talks very oddly. <S> Being British, I'm thinking of Nigella, Delia Smith, Anthony Worrall Thompson, Ainsley Harriott, ...
| I'd suggest simply don't over-season , versus ... and don't skimp on the seasoning .
|
Why can't HOPE take any direct object? Even if HOPE can take THAT clause like this, "I hope that you're okay", why can't it take any direct object?, but only used with FOR like this, "We are hoping for good weather on Sunday." For what reason, can't hope take any direct object like this?, "We are hoping good weather on Sunday." In my opinion, it is acceptable because the aim of their hope is the good weather. If you can explain it logically or semantically. Help me to understand it. <Q> The meaning of hope is a wish or want that something will happen. <S> When you talk about something happening, some type of action is going to be part of that. <S> So a verb is required. <S> Objects (nouns) don't do anything on their own in a sentence, they need a verb to express an activity. <S> So that's why any complement to hope will need to be a phrase with a verb and not just an object. <S> Interestingly you can use an infinitive as a complement or object to hope : <S> I hope to walk someday. <A> In the example you give - “We are hoping for good weather on Sunday” - the hope isn't causing the weather, or having any impact on it. <S> A direct object is generally, well, the recipient of some action. <S> Similarly if you replace hope with think or wish . <S> To put it another way: what is the hope acting on? <S> There is some thing (a situation, or an event or action), and you could write that on its own, e.g. the weather will be good on Sunday . <S> It may not actually exist yet; but you can describe it. <S> Then, to say "I hope that ..." is like pointing to that thing and saying "I want that". <S> The "that" is like the verbal equivalent of pointing with your finger "over there". <A> Hmm, I think the real answer to this question is simply, "Because that's not how the word is used. <S> " It's like asking, "Why can't I use the word 'llama' as a verb?" or "Why can't I use the word 'red' to mean a tall building?" One could research the origins and history of the word and how it has been used over time, but simply, some verbs take direct objects and some don't. <S> In some cases this may sound reasonable to you, in other cases it won't. <S> Unless you find yourself unable to express an idea that you want to express, or you are interested in studying the history of word usage and grammar, I don't see much point worrying about it. <A> Verbs can take arguments, such as objects and complements. <S> Verbs can also take adjuncts, such as adverbial modifiers. <S> We are hoping for good weather. <S> Here, "are hoping" is intransitive. <S> There is no object and no complement. <S> There is the subject "we", the verb "are hoping" and the prepositional phrase "for good weather". <S> This prepositional phrase acts like an adverbial modifier. <S> They are hoping that it rains. <S> Again, we can divide the clause into three obvious pieces. <S> There is the subject "they", the verb "are hoping" and the subordinate clause "that it rains". <S> This "are hoping" also has no object and no complement. <S> We know that subordinate clauses like "that it rains" can be objects, but we also know that they can be modifiers . <S> Consider these two noun phrases: "our hope for good weather" and "their hope that it rains". <S> In these examples, the prepositional phrase and the subordinate clause each modify the noun "hope". <S> If we consider them both to be modifiers <S> when they appear in the noun phrases, why wouldn't we consider them both to be modifiers when they appear in the related full sentences? <S> That's it. <S> It can't take the noun phrase "good weather" as an object. <S> It can't take the prepositional phrase "for good weather" as an object. <S> It can't take the subordinate clause "that it rains" as an object. <S> When the verb "to hope" takes anything at all, it takes modifiers . <S> In sentences like "I hope that you're okay" and "They are hoping that it rains", the subordinate clause is not some special kind of direct object. <S> It's not any kind of object. <S> It's an adjunct . <S> It's a modifier. <S> It's doing the same kind of job that an adverb typically does.
| The verb "to hope" can't take any direct object.
|
What is the difference between "note" and "notice"? Can I say something like: Please note that the ocean is pink. Please notice that the elephant is small. Which is the correct one? Or are both correct? Or wrong? <Q> To notice X is to acknowledge that X is in your sight, hearing, etc. <S> To note <S> X means that X is important and you should remember it. <S> If you have a physical notebook it can mean to actually write X down. <S> You may be expected to specifically recall something you noted or that someone asked you to note, whereas notice is more used to just "keep something in mind. <S> " <S> If something is really important, a speaker or writer may use note over notice for emphasis and vice versa. <A> Note comes (indirectly) from Latin meaning “mark” (as in write down), and notice also from Latin meaning something like “know this”. <S> The latter came to mean something printed in the 19th century. <S> Modern usage often conflates the two; the meanings are closely connected, the chief difference being that a “note” is a physical record of something, but “knowing” relates to awareness of that thing. <S> Think “words” versus “information”. <A> "Please notice X" is used to draw someone's immediate attention to something which is often a sensory or perceptual effect. <S> You are guiding the viewer's perception to something in particular. <S> A tour guide might say "Please notice the design of this building", inviting the viewers' gaze to the building so that he might point out something of interest about it. <S> It is less to do with immediate sensory/perceptual information and more to do with committing something to memory (for whatever reason). <A> They are synonyms. <S> " Please note " is more common. <A> In the context of giving some useful advice or recommendation, to me, to note something is to notice and remember it as something important.
| "Please note X" is used to tell somebody that they should make a conscious effort to remember the piece of information X because it is somehow important. These two terms are incorrectly used interchangeably when there is actually a significant difference between them.
|
Diference between "can" and "may"? Imagine this situation, I want to ask a question to a group of people. Should I say: Can you give me the information? May you give me the information? Which is the best/correct one? Thank you all,Regards, <Q> #1 is correct. <S> You could say either of these interchangeably: <S> Can you give me the information? <S> or May I have the information? <S> I don't know the technical reason why , but that's how it is. <S> Your question made me think of a correction I made to my son's grammar today. <S> He said, " I put off my shirt. " <S> I explained to him that we say: I put on my shirt. <S> or I take off my shirt. <S> We do not "put off clothing" or "take on clothing". <S> I also didn't have a reason <S> why that one is correct! <S> Sometimes English rules seem completely random ! <A> It's used to ask for permission. <S> When " may " is used with second or third person it mostly expresses a wish or a desire - " May he live forever! ". <S> In your sentence it's appropriate to use " can " or " could ". <S> You could also rephrase it to " May I ask you to give me the information? " <S> You may find this question on ELU interesting - <S> May you please explain this? . <A> May X refers to permission to do X. <S> Can you X is often used as a polite way to request X and as such as often used in place of May X . <S> Keep in mind that modals are often misused to communicate politeness or deference to authority. <S> The actual meaning and intended meaning are often different with modals. <S> Also: <S> may you ( <S> may + third person pronuns too) is not completely interchangeable with <S> can you . <S> May you strongly implies that the person you are talking to is under control of someone else and cannot act without permission. <S> This could be a bad thing to imply in some situations, or sound really awkward when it's obvious that such control or permission does not exist. <S> May you come over to my house? <S> (If you say this to a married adult male for example, it can sound like you think he can't do anything without his wife's permission. <S> This may be the case, but typically not something you want to imply.) <S> Can you come over to my house? <S> (Since can refers to ability, even if the person has an overbearing wife, we leave open the possibility for him to say he can't come over due to some other reason, such as broken car, etc.) <S> In your question you definitely want to use can . <A> It is extremely frustrating for me that the word "may" is used so frequently. <S> It is ambiguous; it can have either one of two possible meanings. <S> For example: He may vote. <S> That can either mean that he might vote or that he can vote. <S> Those are different. <S> It would be better to say either that he can vote or that he might vote. <S> The meaning of " May you give me the information? " is probably the same as " Can you give me the information? " <S> but could mean " Will you give me the information? ". <S> The word "may" should be used much less than it is.
| Can X refers to ability to do X. " may " is typically only used in the first person.
|
How would you call someone who puts all their effort into their job When people in interviews sometimes they ask you to describe yourself in 3 words.If you want to say that you really do what you do well, and put all your time and efforts into it, you would be a _____ person. <Q> The kind of person you're talking about is generally called a diligent person. <S> If you're diligent in what you do, you do it with great care and effort. <S> For example: He never slacks off at work because he's a diligent and hardworking guy. <S> Another similar word that you might find interesting would be industrious . <S> This word is just a synonym for hardworking . <A> A very straightforward way of describing these kind of people would be hard-working . <A> There's the noun " eager beaver " ( Urban Dictionary ), <S> As an adjective you can use " hard-working ", " diligent ", " industrious ", " assiduous ", and " committed " all of which work in similar way. <S> In your example I would definitely use " diligent ".
| Surely, the most common term is " hard worker " (or " hard-worker ") - one who is industrious and diligent in carrying out tasks or duties .
|
What does "can't but" in this sentence means? I was reading a novel titled "Spice & Wolf" when I found this sentence. In other words, he thinks he can't but loose an arrow without hitting a deer. You can see the context here. What does it mean? As far as I know, 'can't but' means 'it's inevitable' or 'doesn't have any other choice' but then the meaning of the sentence will become, "It's inevitable that he'll miss the deer," and I'm not quite sure about it. And then, about the next paragraph, While the hardships of retainers who had to hunt with the duke would be hidden, it would mean good work for the hunters in the region who hunted and killed the duke's prey ahead of time. I fail to understand what it means. Can someone explain it to me? <Q> When he shoots an arrow it can't do anything else other than hit a deer. <S> It's worth noting that this phrase is not common in modern English. <A> It is an idiomatic expression: <S> Cannot but : <S> You use <S> cannot but, could <S> not but, and cannot help <S> but, when you want to emphasize that you believe something must be true and that there is no possibility of anything else being the case. <S> [formal, emphasis]: <S> The pistol was positioned where I couldn't help but see it. <S> She could not but congratulate him. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <A> I think there is a mixture of two idiomatic usages here, which causes the confusion: He can't loose an arrow without hitting a deer. <S> This means every time he shoots, he will hit a deer. <S> When he looses an arow, he can't but hit a deer. <S> This practically means the same thing. <S> The mixture of "can't but" and "without" in the text is sort of a double negation, and is arguably bad phrasing. <S> Since this is quoted speech, the meaning may be understood from the context. <S> The author may have had some intention of using casual speech, or was just mistaken. <S> Anyway, your confusion is understandable.
| "Can't but" is used here to say that this is a sure and definite thing. It means that the duke believes his skill with a bow is so high that he hits a deer every time he shoots ('looses') an arrow.
|
"it" or "he/she" for animals can i use it for animals in the following sentece? 1- I have a dog named Don. It is a very good dog. I know most people would use "he" instead of "it" in the following context and my grammar book says when we want to personified an animal we can use "he" or "they". But my question is, if I used "it" in the above, would that be grammatical? <Q> The linguistic usages associated with household pets have been well covered in other answers, but they do not exhaust the topic. <S> In many cases, the sex of an animal (other than a pet) either is not known or is irrelevant. <S> In those cases, it is idiomatic to use "it" as a pronoun. <S> If the sex of the animal is known and relevant, then the pronoun appropriate to the animal's sex is idiomatic. <S> " <S> The kittens' mother was very attentive. <S> It was continually bathing them with its tongue" is far less likely than "The kittens' mother was very attentive. <S> She was continuously bathing them with her tongue." <S> Furthermore, if the animal has been specified by a noun that specifies sex, the pronoun should agree. <S> For example, it is not idiomatic to refer to a "bull" or a "boar" as "she," nor is it idiomatic to refer to a "ewe," or a "lioness" as "he." <A> I have a dog named Don. <S> It's a very good dog. <S> You normally use he <S> /she if you are referring to your or somebody else's pet animal. <A> I don't think it's technically wrong, but it's awkward enough to make people pause. <S> If you give a dog a name -- especially a human name like "Don" -- it's a little strange to call the dog it immediately afterward. <S> Calling a household pet by name suggests a human-like familiarity that would be extended to its sex. <S> This would be true for cats and dogs and large animals. <S> Smaller animals like rabbits, guinea pigs, birds, and fish are more commonly referred to as it , but it really depends on how tight the bond is between owner and pet. <S> Interestingly, lower life forms like reptiles and insects are often assumed to be male. <A> Animals that people are emotionally attached to can be referred to with <S> he or she . <S> As @Ringo says, if the dog has a name, someone is emotionally attached to it. <S> If no emotional attachment exists, it is used. <S> For a family dog that's been part of a family for several years, the family would use he or she to refer to the dog. <S> Someone who hates dogs and sees one on the street unexpectedly may use it to refer to the dog. <S> Animals not commonly kept as pets or taken care of are frequently referred to using it .
| Yes, the use of it for a pet animal as in the sentence, though not much common or idiomatic, is grammatical.
|
Error in : "This would encourage us to come up with more such content as these." If you like our content and appreciate our efforts please press the G+ button and recommend us. This would encourage us to come up with more such content as these. "This would encourage us to come up with more such content as these." Is there any grammatical mistake in the above sentence? Is the sentence structure correct? Should it be rephrased in any other way to make it better? <Q> Your sentence <S> This would encourage us to come up with more such content as these. <S> could be improved <S> This would encourage us to come up with more content like this. <S> Note that "content" is singular, but you use "these". <S> I also rephrased your "more such". <A> There's an issue with agreement. <S> Content is singular, but "these" is plural. <S> There's also a problem with syntax. <S> You can say either of the following: More such content. <S> More content such as this. <S> That is, such can modify content all by itself, but if you put "as this" at the end, then such needs to introduce it, because such as is idiomatic. <S> Note that it would also be more natural to use the future tense "will encourage" in that sentence. <A> Also the overuse of "such" reveals that you are not a native speaker, even though it probably isn't grammatically wrong. <S> A close rewrite would be If you like our content and appreciate our efforts, please press the G+ button and recommend us. <S> This would encourage us to come up with more of this type of content. <S> Probably better to write the last sentence more directly, though. <S> If you like our content and appreciate our efforts, please press the G+ button and recommend us. <S> This encourages us to create more of this type of content. <S> The use of "encourage" here is just a little odd, though it's perfectly correct. <S> Usually encouragement is something a little more verbal than clicking a button. <S> At the moment I'm not thinking of a better verb, though.
| The grammar of your suggested sentence is pretty much fine except that you have referred to "content" as if it is plural by using the word "these."
|
Is re-meet a correct way to say meet again I haven’t really hear someone said remeet and ive never use it so is it an actual word or what other ways are there to say meet again. <Q> Although it makes sense, "re-meet" is not an idiomatic English phrase. <S> I hope we see each other again soon! <S> You can, however, get reacquainted with someone who you previously knew, but haven't seen for a while. <S> After he got back, he spent some time getting reacquainted with his neighbors, who he hadn't spoken to since before he went off to war. <A> No, "re-meet" is not idiomatic English. <S> If the intended meaning of "meet" is not "encounter for the first time", but the equally common "have a meeting with", and you are trying to express the idea of gathering again for another meeting, the word you are looking for is "reconvene". <S> Example: <S> With a bitter election campaign finally over, the U.S. Congress will reconvene this week to try to set aside its partisan differences long enough to keep the government from closing. <A> Meet has several connotations. <S> It can simply mean to get together, but it also means "encounter someone for the first time. <S> " It can even mean "be formally introduced to someone." <S> Because the latter two meanings are something that can typically happen only once, I believe they are what prevent "meet" from taking the prefix re- . <A> On the other hand, re-encounter has no such hang-up. <S> It does seem to be a verb in English (UK) and a noun in English (Simplified) though.
| Instead you would say "Let's meet again" or "Let's get together again" or a similar phrase:
|
a book "said"...? Which expression do you use when you refer from books? A few weeks ago, one of my friend and I talked about tomorrow's traveling course. I said, "my guidebook said a city walking course." But books can't say anything. So I thought "said" was a wrong expression. What should I have said? Which verb do you use when you refer information from a book? Or just I could have said "There is a city walking course in my guidebook."? If you know any alternative expression in the situation please let me know. <Q> Using <S> "the book said..." is understood to be figurative, and is quite common. <S> We know the book isn't talking. <S> The book says that the church was built in 1089 <S> You can't say "The book writes..." because it is not the book that is writing, it is the author. <S> So, if the book has a named author you can, as an alternative say: <S> In his guidebook, Jack Smith wrote about a city walking course. <S> That is more formal, and more appropriate to written English. <S> You can use a variety of verbs with the book as subject: <S> The guidebook (describes/ explains/ contains) a city walking course. <S> And for the most formal, when the author isn't known, one may use the passive voice: <S> It is written in the Book of Genesis that when God's Spirit hovered over the water at the beginning of time, all was darkness." <A> My guidebook said there was a city walking course. <S> The commercial said art supplies were 50% off. <S> Works fine with images too: <S> What does it say on the painting? <S> — <S> Oh, that's just the artist's signature. <S> The label says you can wash it in the machine, in cold water. <A> My guidebook said a city walking course. <S> The verb say can mean 6 (of something that is written or can be seen) to give particular information or instructions according to this dictionary . <S> But I wouldn't use <S> said in your example, because it's followed by a noun phrase a city walking course , which in this particular sentence somehow feels awkward or even ungrammatical. <S> The dictionary does say that the verb say can be followed by a noun phrase say something <S> The clock said three o'clock. <S> I wouldn't think, however, this guarantees that the same verb can be freely followed by any noun phrase in other contexts as in your own example. <S> I would use other verbs such as mention or talk or show instead, and I would prefer the present tense unless there's a clear reason to use the past tense: <S> My guidebook mentions <S> a city walking course. <S> My guidebook talks about a city walking course. <S> My guidebook shows a city walking course.
| Essentially any source and format can be used with "said", at least in natural speech, oddly enough.
|
Difference between "contrived" and "stilted" There can be many reasons due to which anything can seem artificial.Consider a case of movie.When can we say that movie is contrived and, when stilted? <Q> When talking about a movie, I think you would be more likely to say it is stilted if you are specifically referring to the writing or acting being poorly executed. <S> I had a hard time enjoying that movie because of the stilted writing. <S> or The main character's acting was <S> so stilted <S> I wished she had been relegated to the role of eye candy. <S> Stilted gives the impression that the artist has failed in the execution of their art and the result is that it seems unnatural and not pleasing. <S> It pretty much means the writer or actor did a poor job. <S> The word contrived gives the sense that something is overcomplicated in an unnatural way in order to achieve an artificial goal. <S> For example, the writer wanted to arrange a romance between two characters, so they ended up stranded on an island in a way that doesn't make sense in the overall plot. <S> The special effects in Pacific Rim were fun, but the plot's introduction of robots was <S> so contrived <S> I could hardly sit through it. <S> The plot of a movie is often the thing that is contrived. <A> Well, they are both synonyms of each other; however, they aren't always used interchangeably. <S> I normally hear people say something is "stilted" when talking about language: <S> "John's speech last night was so stilted . <S> He casually threw out words like "shall" and subjunctive clauses as if he had been quoting from Shakespeare." <S> I usually hear "contrived" when talking about a plan or a plot in a novel: <S> "It was clearly a plan the was contrived poorly, which is why it fell apart so quickly." <S> "The ending of the novel is clearly contrived as it has almost no chance of happening in real life." <A> To add on to the other good answers: <S> The way he said that long speech was stilted and unnatural. <S> The plot twist where they suddenly found the missing MacGuffin was too contrived to be plausible. <S> Again, when talking about a performance, both of these violate the audience's suspension of disbelief : suspension of disbelief : a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe something surreal; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment With a stilted performance, the audience recognizes that what they are watching is an actor playing a part , and not the actual character embroiled in some dramatic moment. <S> Example of a stilted performance vs. a genuine performance, from "Wayne's World 2" (1993) <S> Meanwhile a contrived story is one in which what happens is so artificial, or unexpected, as to force the audience to recognize they are watching a work of fiction, and not a witness to a real-world drama. <S> A classic example of this is the Deus ex Machina : <S> Deus Ex Machina : when "some new event, character, ability, or object solves a seemingly unsolvable problem in a sudden, unexpected way." <S> There are many variations, such as when the sidekick (who everyone thought dead) shows up to kill the bad guy just before he's about to kill the hero. <S> While this can be well done, often the sidekick's rescue is through some contrived plot device: a previously unseen rope, previously undisclosed armor, etc. <A> ' Contrived ' is used in the context when the movie becomes too formal, losing its natural script and thus becomes predictable to the extent that a viewer can derive the next moment or dialogue easily. <S> Whereas if you are referring to it as ' stilted ', that would mean the script or the dialogue of the movie is too formal that it can be referred as an artificially unnatural presentation of its overall plot. <S> Check Oxford dictionary's definitions as well: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stilted https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/contrived
| In the context of a movie, "stilted" relates to the performance , while "contrived" relates to the story .
|
How to use 'explain and suggest' in passive form? Would anyone please tell me which of the following two expressions is correct? A. The problem was explained to the children. B. The children were explained the problem. or A. A meeting place was suggested to us. B. We were suggested a meeting place. Waiting for your kind reply .Thank you very much . <Q> Only the direct object of the verbs " explain " and " suggest " can be at the head of a passive sentence. <S> The indirect object in the passive comes after the verb. <S> The problem was explained to the children. <S> ( Correct ) <S> The children were explained the problem. <S> ( Incorrect ) <S> A meeting place was suggested to us. <S> ( Correct ) <S> We were suggested a meeting place. <S> ( Incorrect ) <S> For structural analysis: The problem [direct object] was explained [verb] to the children [indirect object] . <S> (Somebody explained the problem to the children. <S> - Active ) <S> A meeting place <S> [direct object] was suggested [verb] to us [indirect object] . <S> (Somebody suggested a meeting place to us - Active ) <S> There are other verbs they work the same way: announce , repeat , and describe . <A> In each example, you're giving one instance in which the direct object ('the problem' or 'a meeting place') is the focus, and another instance in which the indirect object <S> ('the children' or 'us'/'we') is the focus. <S> It is possible for passive structures to begin with either the direct object or the indirect object . <S> Consider these examples: <S> The gold medal was awarded to Sue. <S> Sue was awarded the gold medal. <S> or The alphabet was taught to the students. <S> The students were taught the alphabet. <S> In each case, both variations are equally strong - it simply depends on which noun you'd like to focus on within your context. <S> The problem is that some passive sentences sound awkward when lead with indirect objects - ones linked with verbs such as 'explain' and 'suggest' . <S> "The children were explained the problem," and "We were suggested a meeting place," may be colloquially acceptable, but their meanings are not immediately understandable. <S> Unfortunately, there's not a clear distinction between which verbs are ill-suited for their indirect objects to take the focus of passive sentences, but here's a nice rule-of-thumb: <S> In an active sentence, if prepositions such as 'to' can be removed from before the indirect object , that indirect object can work well as the focus of a passive structure of that same sentence. <S> The parents explained to the children the problem. <S> - removing 'to' doesn't work well. <S> Richard suggested to us a meeting place. <S> - removing 'to' doesn't work well. <S> The judges awarded to Sue the gold medal. <S> - it's an okay sentence without 'to'! <S> The teacher taught to the students the alphabet. <S> - it's an okay sentence without 'to'! <S> Just as 'explained' and 'suggested' need 'to' or some similar preposition to come before their indirect objects , starting the passive forms with 'the children' and 'we'/'us' respectively creates awkward sentences. <S> (Just remember that while we're focusing on the indirect objects here, it's the verb that determines how they can be used.) <S> All that said, <S> it's always acceptable and correct to use the direct object at the start of a passive sentence. <A> Very simply: <S> A. <S> The problem was explained to the children [by the teacher]. <S> [passive voice]B. <S> The teacher explained the problem to the childre n. [active voice] or A. A meeting place was suggested to us [by the teacher]. <S> [passive voice]B. <S> The teacher suggested a meeting place to us . <S> There you have two sentences in their active and passive voices, with the changes introduced to make them make sense. <S> the verb explain: explain + direct object + to with indirect objectthe verb suggest: suggest + direct object + to with indirect object
| You can't go wrong with "The problem was explained to the children," or "A meeting place was suggested to us."
|
Does this sentence make sense: "So many women have never received economic degrees as today"? Before doing the below exercise, I and my friend have been taught about inversion, like these examples: Example 1 : I have never seen such a beautiful rose. (standard word order) Example 2 : Never have I seen such a beautiful rose. (inversion) Source: http://www.learn-english-today.com/lessons/lesson_contents/verbs/inversion.html We understand that the two example sentences basically mean the same thing, and in example 2 inversion is used to add more emphasis. However, we have confusion about this exercise from our exercise book (we notice the exercise is adapted from the book "English Grammar Practice for TOELF", page 281, question 14 here ) These questions are incomplete sentences. Beneath each sentence you will see four words or phrases, marked A, B, C or D. You are to choose one word or phrase that best completes the sentences. In that small country, ____ received economic degrees as today. A. never have so many women B. so many women have never C. never so many women have D. never so have many women Our book's answer key is (A), but my friend thinks (B) is also a valid answer in this case according to the above example sentences. For me, I don't quite agree with her. I guess (B) doesn't make any sense there, but I just don't know how to explain it to my friend. Could you please advise whether my guess is correct or not in this case? <Q> I would say that you are right in saying that A is the only correct option for a couple reasons. <S> In this instance, the word "never" changes the meaning of the sentence depending on what it is in front of. <S> In A, "never" implies that the country has never had something, but in B, it implies that women have never received something. <S> I would also point out that by inversing the word order, it also gives a different meaning to the word "as". <S> In A, It talks about how there haven't ever been so many women receiving economic degrees AS THERE ARE TODAY. <S> In B, it implies that "as today" is a qualitative type of economic degree. <S> Another example of B would be to replace the word "today" with "graduates" or something similar. <S> So my explaination to your friend would be that in this case, the word "never" changes the meaning of the sentence depending on it's placement. <S> In the inverted example you gave about seeing a beautiful rose, the word "never" gets the same point accross because in both situations, it is talking about never seeing something before. <S> In A and B of your question, "never" changes "received" to "haven't received". <S> I don't know if that was helpful or not, but hopefully it was! <A> A clause that begins with <S> Never has subject-verb inversion, the tensed auxiliary verb coming before the subject: <S> Never had tensed verb <S> we <S> subject seen such a strange sight. <S> A. never have so many womenB. so many women have neverC. <S> never so many women haveD. never so have many women <S> In that small country, ____ received economic degrees as today. <S> So "A" is a viable option: ... <S> never have tensed aux verb <S> so many women <S> subject received economic degrees as today. <S> and "C" and "D" are not viable because there is no inversion there. <S> "B" is not viable for a different reason. <S> In that small country, so many women have never received economic degrees as today. <S> ungrammatical <S> Let's look at the clause: <S> so many women have never received economics degrees as today. <S> as today is not a valid complement for so many women . <S> so many women as today <S> ungrammatical <S> What you could say is: <S> As many women as [there are] today have never received economic degrees before. <S> As many women have never received economics degrees as today. <S> as many and never . <S> This would be better: <S> So many women have never received economics degrees until today. <S> Best would be to start the sentence with <S> Never : <S> Never have so many women received economics degrees before . <S> Never until today have so many women received economics degrees. <S> My ear tells me to avoid combining never and as today even though Never as today is a valid collocation: <S> Never as today have so many women received economics degrees. <S> Never have so many women received economics degrees as today. <S> To my ear this collocation sounds very dated, on the verge of being forgotten. <A> It is an extremely awkward sentence. <S> I doubt any native speaker would ever say it although a careless one might write it. <S> It contains several instances of ellipsis as well as a strained word order as well as an unfortunate choice of tense. <S> "Never before in that small country did women receive as many economic degrees as they do today. <S> " That is inverted word order with a nice clear-cut distinction between present and past tenses and contrasting temporal markers at the start and end of the sentence. <S> But you can also say, "Women in that small country never before received as many economics degrees as they do today." <S> But the example sentence uses the present perfect without any contrasting tense due to ellipsis plus uses an ellipsis of "before." <S> "Have never received" does not mean the same thing as "have never before received."
| Those two sentences are grammatical but somewhat awkward in the way they combine
|
Use of "have to" vs "am to" Suppose my friend invites me to play football. But I have planned to study. So, what of the followings should be my reply: I have to study. (Since, I am not obliged by someone else, should I use it? Or, should I use it because I think I have made a firm plan and I am obliged by it) I am to study. (I find it stilted, since it doesn't have connotation of firmness. It just indicates a plan). <Q> "Be to", oddly enough, means that you have been directed or destined to do something by someone else . <S> I can't. <S> My mother says I am to clean my room. <S> I am to go to London in a fortnight and report to the major. <S> Whereas there can be almost any source of obligation in "have to": <S> I have to study if I want to pass. <S> I have to use the washroom. <S> As you will note, this means "be to" is more or less a subset of "have to". " <A> I have to do the dishes. <S> (It is necessary even if I don't want to; I'm enforced to do it) <S> I am to do the dishes. <S> (I'm obliged since nobody else wants to; I'm supposed to do it) <S> Mostly " to be to " isn't used in spoken English, only in written (mostly formal) <S> English. <S> Unlike have to which is very close to should , "to be to" is much closer to must in degree. <S> If you should study and you cannot not do it then " have to " or " should " is your choice, but if you must study but it isn't so strict then better use " must " and don't overuse " are to ". <S> This is what I have been taught <A> I would suggest "need to". <S> It indicates a necessity, without implying an externally imposed obligation. <S> But "have to" is also acceptable.
| Have to" would work for the first two examples (losing some flavour of Britain and archaism, by the way), but "be to" could not work for the second two examples. " have to " sort of implies ' enforcement / necessity/obligation ' and " are to " sort of implies ' obligation / supposingness '.
|
What is the difference between "thanks" and "thank you"? Is it about the person's age or the extent of my knowledge of the person? <Q> To add to TRomano's great answer, " thanks " isn't as much stranger-friendly as " thank you ". <S> " thanks " is mostly used with family and friends. <S> The word itself doesn’t take much effort to say and it just rolls off your tongue. <S> If you drop a pencil and someone picks it up for you, you’d say “thanks.” <S> You basically would say thanks to just about anybody. <S> “Thank you” on the other hand is a verbal hug. <S> It takes more effort to say and people often add some tonal emphasis on either the first or second word. <S> Plus it’s more personal since it actually includes the word “you.” <S> Rarely do people say “Thank you”, and not mean it. <S> It’s often a genuine expression of appreciation and possibly affection. <S> Reference: <S> The Subtle Difference Between “Thanks” and “Thank You”. <A> The register of thanks is informal. <S> thank you <S> is normal register and can be used in informal or formal situations. <S> The social situations that allow for informality are varied. <S> You have to determine whether your context would permit you to be informal. <S> You cannot go wrong with thank you . <A> As an English speaker, the difference between "thanks" and "thank you" is minimal and they are used almost interchangeably. <S> The only time I would distinguish between the two is in a formal situation where "thank you" should be used.
| When you say “ thanks ” to someone, it’s like a quick verbal pat on the back.
|
In the sentence: "Drinking and driving IS dangerous", why does the verb "to be" need to be singular? In the sentence: "Drinking and driving is dangerous". Drinking and driving are both subjects and the word dangerous is the object (I think) but why do I have to use the verb to be in singular? <Q> This might happen a lot when we combine two or more elements in a sentence: <S> My favorite drinks are gin and tonic. <S> This could mean I have two favorite drinks: gin is a favorite drink, and so is tonic. <S> My favorite drink is gin and tonic. <S> This means that a gin-and-tonic is my favorite drink. <A> There, and is understood to mean "in combination with" hence the singular is appropriate. <S> They are not individually dangerous (if you don't drive recklessly and drink in moderation) and that's why you wouldn't say are . <A> If you say: Drinking and driving are dangerous. <S> this is the equivalent of saying: Drinking is dangerous. <S> Driving is dangerous. <S> By saying: Drinking and driving is dangerous. <S> we mean that drinking to the state of being intoxicated, even mildly, and then driving while still intoxicated, is dangerous. <S> However, the quote is much pithier than the explanation! <A> The combination of drinking and driving is a single object. <S> Here we see one combination of two things. <S> The common phrase 'drinking and driving is dangerous' is leaving out some clarifying words. <S> "Drinking and driving are dangerous" has a particular meaning: drinking is dangerous (perhaps) and driving is dangerous (perhaps), if you look at each singularly. <S> The meaning of your sentence is that [the combination of] drinking and driving is dangerous. <S> An new example of 'is vs. are' with clearer context may help: Singing and rock climbing are challenging activities. <S> Singing while rock climbing is a more challenging activity. <A> In standard English when a list of items is used as the subject of a verb then, that verb takes the plural even if all the items in the list are singular. <S> For example you would say Gold, iron, copper and aluminium are metals rather than is metals (although some dialect have the opposite convention). <S> BUT 'drinking and driving' is a list but effectively a single compound noun. <S> actually 'drunk driving' would be more grammatically correct but has been abandoned as the precise definition of 'drunk' <S> is too ambiguous in this context and the phrase is used to reinforce the idea that drinking any alcohol before driving <S> is dangerous even if you don't think you are 'drunk'. <S> This is different to saying 'drinking is dangerous, driving is dangerous'. <A> It is the singular act of drinking and driving that is being described as dangerous. <S> In describing multiple acts that are individually considered to be dangerous you would use the plural form of the verb. <S> For example: Drinking and driving is dangerous and illegal. <S> Smoking and mountain climbing are dangerous and legal. <A> "Drinking and driving" is treated as one unit in this case. <S> "Drinking and driving" is dangerous <S> "X" is dangerous Interestingly, in the UK <S> the expression is "drink-driving", and it's still treated as a singular unit and can be placed right into the same structure: "Drink-driving" is dangerous
| Because drinking isn't dangerous, and driving isn't dangerous – at least, not in comparison to the single activity "drinking and driving" – the two words are treated as a single unit.
|
Have no problem doing something and have no trouble doing something What's the difference between the two phrases? I'm interested in nuances. For instance. We had no problem/ trouble finding the stolen item/ finding her a house etc You had no problem/trouble taking advantage of her naivety. <Q> Although the two words overlap, problem implies dealing with complications and difficulty. <S> I would prefer problem in situations involving bureaucracy, especially in dealing with officialdom. <S> Trouble is more a case of fixing a puncture, getting the desk through the front door. <S> However it is a case of nuance, as you say, with plenty of room for personal preference and disagreement. <A> Adding on to Ronald Sole's answer to address your example sentences: Problem and trouble both imply some kind of difficult or obstacle to be overcome. <S> In many cases, these are interchangeable: <S> I had no problem/trouble passing the course <S> Your second example sentence, however, implies something different, that the person didn't need to overcome any moral objection . <S> While either trouble or problem works here, you could consider a word that embodies this idea of doubt, like "qualm" , "second thought" , or "misgiving" <S> You certainly suffered no second thoughts before taking advantage of her naivety. <S> Naturally this depends on whether the speaker intends reproach or approval ... <S> although this might be more a question of tone and context than verbiage. <A> "To have no trouble doing something" means to find it easy or convenient. <S> In perhaps less common cases, the second one can also be used in place of the first.
| Trouble implies more effort. "To have no problem doing something" means not to object to it.
|
What is the difference between stand silent and stand silently? He was standing silently behind the curtain. He was standing silent behind the curtain. What’s the difference between these two sentences? <Q> Superficially, nothing. <S> Both describe the same action. <S> There is a slight difference in nuance. <S> "Silently" is an adverb, which modifies the verb "to stand". <S> The writer is simply describing how he is standing ("in silence"). <S> In the same way, the following examples are merely descriptive : <S> He waited patiently for her to return <S> She lay restlessly in bed, unable to even close her eyes. <S> "Silent" is an adjective, and must modify a noun, not the verb. <S> If I say "He stands silent ," I'm saying he is silent, that silence is a part of who he is, at least in this moment. <S> She lay in bed, restless and unsleeping , unable to even close her eyes. <S> By using the adjective, the writer implies the person has a certain innate quality (or a capacity for that quality), and isn't just expressing it that one time. <S> Since the adjective relates to the subject, and not the verb, you might want to separate it with a comma: <S> The plane flew, serene and graceful , through the clouds. <A> In other contexts, there can be a more significant difference. " <S> Stand silently" can really only be used literally, to refer to standing up while not making any noise. " <S> Stand silent", on the other hand, can be used metaphorically to describe somebody conspicuously saying nothing in some situation. <S> For example, "The Republican Party stood silently while Donald Trump said that the Earth is flat" would mean that the members of the party were literally standing up and not making a sound while Trump made that remark; "The Republican Party stood silent while..." would mean that no members of the party spoke out to contradict Trump on that claim, with a suggestion that they could and probably should have. <S> (Feel free to substitute any other party and person; I have no reason to believe that any US political leader actually believes the Earth is flat, or any other shape.) <A> I disagree that the only difference is metaphorical. <S> There is actually a literal difference. <S> "Not speaking" , which is the meaning "standing silent" implies. <S> Counterexample: <S> Let's say there's a burglar in your house and you have noisy floors on the second story of your home. <S> You're upstairs, standing without saying anything, but you're trembling and hence your floor is making noise. <S> Then you're standing silent , but you're not standing silently .
| "Silent" has two different meanings : "Not making or accompanied by any sound" , which is the meaning "standing silently" implies. I'd say there's very little difference between the stated sentences, though I agree with the nuances that Andrew points out .
|
What does be right back in 1 hour mean? Does saying "be right back in 1 hour" mean I'm going to be back in 1 hr? or does it mean I'm going to be gone in 1 hour? <Q> It means that the person will return in an hour – although such a casual expression may indicate that the person could be away longer than that. <S> Or less time ... <S> But it definitely does not mean that the person intends to leave in an hour's time. <A> I agree with Livrecache that chances are that the person will take longer than an hour, but he's giving the listener an idea about when he will return. <A> That's an example of Internet slang, but not strictly though. <S> Be back in one hour <S> is simply a shorter way of saying I'll be back in one hour which means that the person will leave and after one hour they're going to be back. <S> I'll is left out because that way the thinking goes it's "supposed" to be faster to type things into your computer when there are fewer symbols in a sentence. <S> You see this used a lot mostly by people who make use of instant messaging apps to text each other over the Internet. <A> "Be right back in 1 hour": It means within 1 hour, not exactly 1 hour (20 minutes, maybe...) <S> "I'm going to be gone in 1 hour": exactly 1 hour
| It means the person will return in one hour.
|
Difference between quiet and quietness What is the difference between quiet and quietness if we take both as nouns? For example in sentence: the quiet of a wooded trail. ... why there couldn't be quietness ? The dictionary says: quiet - absence of noise or bustle; silence; calm quietness - absence of noise or bustle; calm I see the same meaning, but I know that there must be some difference, since in the books are exercises about it. <Q> In short, there is not much difference. <S> In English, adjectives and nouns and verbs are not distinguished by their spelling, but only by their position in a sentence. <S> So a word "quiet" might be an adjective, verb or noun. <S> Now adjectives can often form nouns by adding "-ness", so we have "noisy" and "noisiness". <S> As there is no noun "noisy" <S> the word "noisiness" is not redundant. <S> The noun "noise" has a different meaning from "noisiness" <S> We can form the noun "quietness" in the same way, but in doing so <S> it happens to have almost the same meaning as the noun quiet. <S> There is a slight distinction: <S> The quiet of the wood <S> Might mean the quiet part of the wood. <S> Other parts of the wood might not be quiet. <S> It follows the pattern "The quiet of the night", compare with "The centre of the wood". <S> The quietness of the wood Means that the wood is quiet, and I'm discussing this property of the wood. <S> Walking further from the town, John entered the quiet of the wood. <S> Here the only sounds were the calls of the birds and the rustle of the leaves. <S> The quietness of the wood was broken by a helicopter flying low over the trees. <A> The meaning is almost exactly the same as well. <S> Since the extra syllable is unnecessary, my personal preference is to use "quiet", <S> e.g. "the quiet of a windless night" . <S> "Quietness" feels excessive, and you might as well go for a more esoteric word like "quietude". <A> " quiet " - the state of being silent - is less common. <S> The more common word is " quietness ". " <S> Quiet " could be used by writers to create a more emphatic sentence. <S> A sudden blast broke the quiet of the night.
| According to Ngram both "quiet" (as a noun) and "quietness" are equally common.
|
Is “last year is 2016” correct? Is “Last year is 2016” correct? I wonder whether to use the past or present tense here. Another example: "1980 is the year I was born" or "1980 was the year I was born." <Q> Last year was a banner year for Acme Widgets. <S> But if you're looking at a chart, say, and are referring to a data-point on the chart that represents data from last year, it is common to refer to that data as "last year", and then you could say something like: <S> As the chart shows, last year is truly an aberration. <S> But in that case, you're not using the phrase last year to refer to the year that just passed, but merely as a convenient label for something else, even if it bears some relation to the year that just passed, and you're referring to the chart in front of you. <S> P.S. <S> If the year is included in some present context we can use is : As you can see , last year is a banner year. <S> But absent such present context we would not say: <S> Last year is a banner year for Acme Widgets. <S> unidiomatic without a context <A> Whenever 'last year' means 'the past year', the past tense "was" should be used, as in this particular case: <S> Last year was 2016. <S> According to Google Ngrams which statistically quantifies and can compare the frequency of usage of particular expressions or constructions, "last year was" has always been (and remains) much more popular than "last year is" which has hardly been used over the last 200 years, especially when 'last' is capitalized which indicates that 'last year was/is' comes at the start of a sentence: <S> Source page: <S> Ngram for "Last year was" vs <S> "Last year is" Examples where "last year is" sounds appropriate: considering our company's progress over the last decade, <S> last year is the year of maximum financial growth. <S> Last year is special for so many reasons! <S> Note that "last year was" would be equally grammatical in both cases, but the "fine shade of meaning" might change a little, depending on the context. <S> On the other hand, any specific past year such as 1980 is not always interpreted as 'the past year 1980' and can also be understood as 'the specific year 1980', <S> so 'is' may be found used somewhat more often than with "last year" , although 'was' is still found more commonly used , as shown by Ngrams: <S> Source page: <S> "Ngram for "1980 was" vs "1980 <S> is" Other examples for using a particular year with a verb in the present tense: <S> 2016 <S> is over // <S> 2016 <S> is done and dusted. <S> 2016 <S> remains a landmark year for the global economy. <S> 1943 is remembered as the year the tide of the War began to turn in the Allies' favor. <S> 1776 <S> is historic // <S> is important in history <S> because... <S> 1776 <S> is the year that the American Revolution began. <S> 1776 <S> represents a historic change in our politics. <S> Note too <S> that "1960 is the year I was born" <S> might be technically correct but native speakers of English are more likely to say <S> "I was born in 1960." <S> Example: <S> Friend:""So <S> what is so special about 1960?" <S> Non native speaker: "1960 is the year I was born." <S> Native speaker: "I was born in 1960." <S> I am not a native speaker myself and would be very interested to know native speakers' views; also willing to be corrected in this matter! <A> I'm very interested in this question. <S> I try to put an answer here, but I am not sure if I am right. <S> So feel free to downvote and add any comments. <S> My intention is to get it clear. <S> First, after talking with Tᴚoɯɐuo, it should be 'last year was 2016'. <S> Second, both XXxX is the year I was born... and XXxX was the year <S> I was born... can be correct based on the context. <S> When you put yourself to the past, you should use XXxX was. <S> Putting to the present, then use XXxX is.
| "Last year", when it refers to the year that just passed, as passed , takes the past tense, was .
|
Can I say "Any tiger is a dangerous animal"? What is the meaning of this sentence: "Any tiger is a dangerous animal."? A. A tiger in general is a dangerous animal. B. Any tiger, even a sick one, is dangerous. <Q> Yes, you can, but in the context of your second sentence it makes more sense. <S> Two zoo workers are talking: A. <S> That old tiger can't be dangerous, it's hardly got any teeth left. <S> B. Look, any tiger is a dangerous animal . <S> Always treat them with respect. <S> In a similar way, you can say While most are not serious, emergency room workers treat any complaint of chest pain as if it might be a heart attack. <S> This baseball team is a mess. <S> I think, at this point in our terrible season, any win is a major victory . <A> It could mean either one of your options, and perhaps it could be nuanced a couple other ways as well. <S> By the way, it's hard to take such a short English sentence and simply ask, "What does this mean?" <S> Native speakers will invariably ask for more context. <S> I remember an exercise one time where a professor asked us to consider what went through our minds when we heard this sentence: <S> Mary had a little lamb. <S> For those who aren't' aware, Mary Had a Little Lamb <S> is an old nursery rhyme and simple song that most people (at least in the US) are first exposed to at a rather early age. <S> So, when we first hear that sentence, most people imagine something like this: <S> But the class was asked: <S> What if you knew that Mary was my girlfriend, and I had just told you that we went out to dinner last night? <S> Or what if Mary was the name of my sheep, and you knew she had been pregnant? <S> Suddenly, the pictures change quite a bit: <S> In summary, the title of your question asks: Can I say, “Any tiger is a dangerous animal”? <S> My answer to that is: Absolutely. <S> You can say anything you want. <S> But that one is even grammatical. <S> You go on to ask: What does it mean? <S> My answer to that is: It means I'll be careful to avoid tigers – especially at night. <A> But it's a poorly constructed sentence. <S> To emphasize sentence A <S> : <S> A tiger is always dangerous. <S> To emphasize sentence B <S> : <S> Tigers are dangerous animals. <S> Here the emphasis is on what sort of animal tigers are, i.e., dangerous.
| It can and does mean both. Here the emphasis is on the verb to be, it implies that whatever state a tiger is in, it is dangerous.
|
How to say "a bit of code" I am describing how this part of my code works: def store_output(self, file_name, identifier): dsc_in = ogr.Open(file_name) if dsc_in is None: raise Exception("Reading data failed.") dsc_out = ogr.Open("PG:" + self.connstr) if dsc_out is None: raise Exception("Database connection has not been established.") layer = dsc_out.CopyLayer(dsc_in.GetLayer(), identifier, ['OVERWRITE=YES', 'SCHEMA={}'.format(self.schema_name)) if layer is None: raise Exception("Writing output data to the database failed.") I now want to describe the "if layer is None:" parts, and I am missing a word (or a couple of words): "Each of the three above mentioned operations is followed by a simple ______________ that checks if the output of the operation is not None." I thought about "statement", but I feel like that's not exactly what it is. <Q> That is, since "if layer is None" is an if statement, I might say "followed by a simple if statement ..." with the implied context that I am referring to the entirety of the conditional and the code within it. <A> The part that "checks" is called a (boolean) condition : <S> In computer science, conditional statements, conditional expressions and conditional constructs are features of a programming language, which perform different computations or actions depending on whether a programmer-specified boolean condition evaluates to true or false. <S> - wikipedia (emphasis, mine) <A> Consider also guard , a word for a conditional that emphasizes that some code must be prevented from executing if a condition is not met. <A> // <S> -------------------------- <S> dsc_in <S> = ogr. <S> Open(...) <S> // <S> A statement that evaluates an expression (the method) and then assigns its result to a variable. <S> if dsc_in is None: // <S> A conditional statement that evaluates an expression. <S> raise Exception <S> () <S> // <S> A <S> statement.// -------------------------- <S> dsc_out <S> = ogr. <S> Open(...) // <S> Same pattern as above... <S> if dsc_out is None: raise Exception()// -------------------------- layer = <S> dsc_out. <S> Copy(...) // <S> Same pattern as above... if layer is None: raise Exception() <S> Each of the three abovementioned operations is followed by a simple _____ that checks if the output of the operation is different from None." <S> Some general terms: Statement - Basically any "line" of code. <S> Line is in quotes because you can technically have a statement span multiple lines. <S> Expression <S> - Something that is evaluated to produce a value. <S> This could be a method call, such as in the above code snippet, or even something like "1 + 1". <S> Operation - A mathematical or binary action. <S> (+, -, *, /, |, &, etc) <S> If I could suggest a description of this code snippet, I would say: <S> Each of the three aforementioned assignment statements is followed by a test to see whether the assigned value is "none", and if so, an exception is raised. <A> I, as someone who's a native English speaker and has been programming professionally for decades, would say... "bit of code" to fill the blank in "Each of the three above mentioned operations is followed by a simple ______________ that checks if the output of the operation is different from None." <A> Unfortunately you are overthinking it and should rely on the laziness of programmers: <S> Each of the three above mentioned operations is followed by a simple check that the output of the operation is not None. <S> For the code you posted, this is a very clear description. <S> In general when you “snip” out a piece of code to look at or use you can call it a “snippet” <A> a short piece of code, as given in this book on programming: short piece of code
| I would say something like code block , piece of code , or a more specific description of the statement(s).
|
Is "as" a preposition or an adverb? "We can even shut out everything external to us, and concentrate on an internal dialogue, as when we are lost in thought." Is "as" a preposition or an adverb? Thanks. <Q> The problem with the page https://www.grammarly.com/blog/like-vs-as/ is that it attempts to reduce this to "a simple rule" and so over-simplifies. <S> Also, the distiction seems to be being gradually dropped in actual usage. <S> In addition to comparing things, "as" can be sued to mean "in the role of". <S> It is important to remember that he was speaking as a judge, not an advocate. <S> Here "like" would be wrong, or would at best change the meaning significantly. <S> The point here is that "he" was speaking in the role of a judge, not in some other role. <S> He was not speaking like a judge, he was a judge. <S> Similarly, "behaving as an X" can mean "acting in the role of an X." <S> Now as to the example: We can even shut out everything external to us, and concentrate on an internal dialogue, as when we are lost in thought. <S> I think this is actually more natural, and flows better, then the version using "like". <S> In such constructions "as when" means "in the way in which things happen when" or it may be giving an example, and be seen as short for "such as when" I often lose track of time, as when I am reading a technical paper. <S> "reading a technical paper" is one of several possible examples of when the speaker loses track of time <A> I believe your example sentence is ungrammatical. <S> I think it should be: <S> We can even shut out everything external to us and concentrate on an internal dialogue, like when we are lost in thought. <S> Like is used as a preposition, telling where, when or how the noun in the sentence is doing whatever it may be doing. <S> When to you use "like" as opposed to "as" can be confusing. <S> This page sums it up nicely: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/like-vs-as/ <A> "as when" is best regarded as Compound Preposition. <S> He found her lovely and attractive, as when he had last seen her; but, since that time, what changes had taken place, and how might her heart have altered! <S> (1827) <S> [The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language Page <S> No. 626]
| "As" in "as when" as used in the sentence is a Preposition.
|
What are the possible common meanings of "have a good one"? I was wondering if there is some sort of complete list of what "have a good one" can commonly mean. As the answers to this question imply, it can mean "have a good day!" or "have a nice weekend!", always as a form of saying goodbye to someone. But would it also be acceptable for longer time ranges? For example, if someone says "Happy New Year!", can I reply "Thanks! You too, have a good one!" or simply say to someone off on vacations "have a good one!"? Merriam-Webster says: Definition of have a good one US, informal —used to say one hopes the person spoken to will have an enjoyable day So, my question is : Does "have a good one" need to be restricted to a single day, as in "have a good day!"? Or can it be used for longer periods? (the answers here also suggest that it should be confined to a single day) EDIT: Thank you for the answers! But I'm having a hard time picking the definitive one, since they rather contradict each other. Maybe different regions use it differently and there's no single answer? (I'm also curious to know what people from other native speaking countries, like England or Canada, would think of this) <Q> " have a good one " can refer to anything. <S> As an answer to your question - yes, it can. <S> It can refer to a weekend, holiday, party, vocation, work day, journey, school year even. <S> It can also refer to minor things like a ride, a show, a play, etc. <A> It's all depends on 'context'. <S> (Have a good one" [trip]) <S> Let's say you tell me you're going on vacation next week. <S> I say <S> oh wow I'm not going to see you until the end of January. <S> When we finish talking, I say to you "have a good one <S> " I'm telling you to have a good vacation because I won't see you until after you have returned. <S> [think of until we meet again] <S> A really common use for it is for people who don't know each other very well. <S> They don't know if they'll ever see the person again <S> (but they don't want to say that) <S> so they say "have a good one" (with whatever it is you're going to be doing after I leave you). <S> So, if I just meet you and we had a short discussion on grammar <S> and it's just ended <S> I'm going to say to you "have a good one" <S> [I don't know you <S> and I don't know what you're going to do after because we didn't talk about that. <S> So it's like saying okay, good luck and enjoy what it is that you're going to be doing now.] <S> In reference to your question : Most of the time it is used for shorter periods of time but it can also be used for longer periods of time. <S> But it all depends on 'context' . <A> It seems to me like your question is primarily concerned with have a good one used as a farewell. <S> As you probably know from the various links you've provided, have a good one <S> is an idiom that means "have a good day" when used as a farewell. <S> I've seen the accepted answer that says it can mean different things such as "have a good evening" or "have a good weekend" -- depending on the context of the conversation preceding the farewell. <S> This is certainly true for parts of a day (morning, afternoon, evening, night, etc.), but I think such usage is fairly uncommon for periods of time longer than a day. <S> For example, I personally have never heard anyone say have a good one when referring to an entire weekend. <S> I think it most often means just "have a good day" or "have a good morning/afternoon/evening" -- a very common, folksy farewell.
| Sometimes we use "have a good one" for a single day (good day) and sometimes for a longer duration.
|
Is there a male equivalent of "hag"? Hag is generally used for females, but what about males? Is there a male counterpart to this term? My current understanding of the word is: an old woman who is disgruntled, a possible recluse, and has some form of bad hygiene. <Q> There are many more terms for ugly women than there are for ugly men -- which seems quite unfair to me. <S> But I found a few: Troll - <S> This one is probably the closest male equivalent to hag . <S> The male troll who lives under the bridge is fairly similar to the hag who lives in the woods. <S> Unfortunately, "troll" has taken on a completely new meaning within social media, so it might cause a little confusion if you use it in its original sense. <S> I saw "ogre" was mentioned above. <S> Ogres are thought of as ugly, too, but there is also a strong connotation of great physical strength (thanks to "Dungeons & Dragons" and Lord of the Rings ), so it might not be suitable. <S> Nerd / geek / freak - <S> These are terms to describe wimpy (and usually book-smart) and (sometimes) physically unattractive students or adults. <S> Originally, a "geek" or a "freak" was a circus sideshow performer (for example, "the bearded lady" or "the smallest man in the world"). <S> It was once very shameful to be considered a geek or a nerd, but today people are usually proud to be labeled as such. <S> These terms are gender-neutral today, so they're not strictly analogous to a hag , per se. <A> I agree that "ogre" could be a masculine word with a similar meaning to "hag", but it also has a feminine form: "ogress". <S> I can't think of any others, but you could look up some of these terms in a thesaurus to see whether I've missed any common ones. <S> I hope this might have helped you out. <A> you could technically call a man hag a scum, a blighter, or a curmudgeon. <S> However, my personal favorite way to refer to a man hag is this: "A beastly confounded disgruntled old hoot of a man. <S> " You could also call him a scummy old hermit.
| There are terms that are more often used for men, but they can be used to refer to women as well: (old) miser; curmudgeon; grouch; (old) codger; churl; crosspatch.
|
Is there any pattern or logic in word formation? Is there any pattern or logic in word formation? For instance: Suppose we have the verb "associate" its meaning is: "to relate two things, people, etc" now the noun of that verb is "association" but it has two meanings: "an organization of people with the same interests or with a particular purpose" and "a connection or relationship between two things or people". Now why does the first meaning have nothing to do with the verb? Is there any pattern or logic? It's very weird and illogical <Q> "Association" is actually one of the more logical words in English. <S> Here is its etymology: associate (v.) <S> mid-15c. <S> , "join in company, combine intimately" (transitive), from Latin associatus past participle of associare "join with," from assimilated form of ad "to" (see ad-) + sociare "unite with," from socius "companion, ally," Intransitive sense of "have intercourse, be associated" is from 1640s. <S> Earlier form of the verb was associen (late 14c.), from Old French associier "associate (with)." <S> source If we consider the fundamental meaning "join in company with, or befriend" <S> then it's perfectly logical to say an "association" is a group of people who associate with each other, and from there to "an organized body of persons with a common purpose" . <S> Other meanings of the word play off of this meaning, as in two related thoughts or ideas that are "friendly" or "joined in common purpose". <S> For example: Americans often associate drinking coffee with eating breakfast, or some kind of morning activity, but many cultures prefer to drink coffee after dinner. <S> Here I say actions of "drinking coffee" and "eating breakfast" are closely related, as if they are a kind of combined idea. <S> Many other nouns that end in "-ation" or <S> "-tion" follow a similar pattern. <S> For example, as Tᴚoɯɐuo says, relate becomes relation . <S> Others combine ⇒ combination <S> register <S> ⇒ registration frustrate ⇒ frustration cultivate ⇒ cultivation populate ⇒ population celebrate ⇒ celebration and many others. <A> The answer to your question is, "yes, but not enough to be very useful to learners". <S> There are usually several different patterns, and lots of exceptional cases. <S> Some of the patterns make sense only if you know something about the origins of words <S> (for example, the privative prefixes in- <S> im- <S> il- <S> and ir- <S> is normally applied only to words of Latin origin, a- <S> and an- <S> nearly always to words of Greek origin, and un- <S> usually to words of Germanic origin). <S> But if you are not aware of the history of the words, that is no help. <S> Similarly, derivation is often logical, but not reliably. <A> As Andrew points out, "association" is pretty logically related to "associate". <S> Like the one you allude to here: "Put -tion on the end of a verb to turn it into a noun. <S> " There's, "Put "un-" in front of an adjective to indicate the opposite meaning, like "intelligent" and "unintelligent". "Put -er or -or at the end of a verb to indicate someone who performs the action", like "think" and "thinker". <S> Etc. <S> The problem is that there are lots of such rules, and they aren't applicable universally. <S> Like people who "associate" may be an "association", but people who "think" aren't "thinktions", nor do we call the act of thinking "thinktion". <S> Something that isn't "available" is "unavailable", but something that isn't "tall" isn't "untall". <S> Etc. <S> You can try to invent a new word by applying one of these rules when that isn't already an accepted word. <S> Sometimes people will accept it and sometimes not. <S> Like "uncool" is becoming an accepted word. <S> I don't suppose "thinktion" is going to catch on. <S> So knowing the rules can help you to guess the meaning of an unfamiliar word when you see it. <S> But it doesn't really help you to guess words with a desired meaning. <S> That is, if, to take a simple example, you know that "white" is a color, then if you see the word "whiten" you could guess that this is a verb meaning "to make something white". <S> But knowing that "white" is a color doesn't really help you to guess at a word for making something white. <S> You could guess "whiten", but you could equally reasonably guess "whitize", "whitify", "enwhite", or many other non-words.
| There are lots of rational and consistent rules for forming new words out of other words.
|
Can I use the phrase "It just so happened that..."? Recently I learnt a phrase "it just so happens that....". I would like to know if I could use "it just so happened that..." to refer to a past situation? For example, It just so happened that I met him yesterday! As I searched on the internet, I saw no -ed one. Thanks in advance! :) <Q> The construction <S> **just so happened" is fine. <S> See this link from Merriam-Webster. <S> While just so isn't specifically given as an example with happened , it is grammatically and idiomatically correct. <S> HAPPEN[ED] <S> 2 <S> a : to do or be something by chance — followed by to <S> + verb <S> The children [just so] happened to be asleep when we called. <S> I [just so] happened to overhear their conversation. <S> b — used with it to describe something that occurs by chance <S> It ([just] so) happened that the children were asleep when we called. <S> It (just so) happen[ed] that I kn[ew] <S> his brother. <A> It just so happens is a phrase used as an idiom and like an idiom <S> it has a special meaning which most English speakers and learners understand. <S> I think it's <S> the meaning of the idiom that is important here rather than whether to use happened or happens <S> Even if the thing you're talking about happened in the past then this is irrelevant when considering which tense to use. <S> This is because the phrase has a meaning that covers or includes the past because it acts as an idiom. <S> Having said all of this I agree that using happened is probably an understood and acceptable substitute. <A> The word used to describe that situation is "serendipity" implying unexpected, unplanned or surprising.
| "It just so happens(ned) is an idiomatic expression implying that the event happened in due course without outside influence.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.