source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is this sentence correct? Make vs Made "Your kindness has (and will continue to) made a difference." <Q> This sentence is an attempt at parallelling, where a sentence branches into two or more parts. <S> In this case, it also rejoins at the end. <S> The parallelled part must join on to the common part in the same way. <S> If you are unsure how to do this, the best way is to write out the parts as complete sentences: Your kindness has made a difference <S> Your kindness continues to make a difference. <S> You can then combine these sentences by eliminating the duplicated word sequences: " <S> Your kindness" from the start and "a difference" from the end. <S> Your kindness has made, and will continue to make, a difference. <S> You cannot eliminate make/made because they are not the same in the two sentences. <A> You can say: Your kindness has made and will continue to make a difference. <S> Your kindness has made, and will continue to make , a difference. <S> Your kindness has made -- and will continue to make -- a difference. <A> I like to find the simplest way to say things. <S> You can thank a person for their past, present, and future kindness all at once: <S> Your kindness always makes a difference! <S> I added an exclamation point too. <S> When you're thanking or complimenting someone, you want to sound peppy and upbeat.
| No, that sentence is incorrect because "continue to" requires an infinitive after it, and "made" is a past participle (forming part of the present perfect, in this case).
|
Articles in set expressions + adjectives I would like to know if there is any specific rule on how articles work in set expressions, when adjectives are added. For instance, 'set the pace' - will the definite article remain if I add an adjective, let us say, 'proper'. Is it still 'set the proper pace' or 'set a proper pace'? The same for the indefinite article - 'as a result'. In a sentence, where adjective 'good' is added - will it become 'as a good result' or 'as the good result'? <Q> Dictionary definition: <S> Pace = a rate of speed a proper pace and the proper pace can have slightly different meanings. <S> If we say: The Olympic runners are expected to run at a proper pace . <S> Then this can be taken to mean any pace that is not ridiculously slow. <S> If we say; The Olympic runners are expected to run at the proper pace . <S> Then this could refer to a specific speed they need to run at in order to qualify for the next race. <S> Articles are used to modify or refer to nouns regardless of the adjectives you place before a noun (providing the adjectives are correctly used). <S> As already mentioned the indefinite article refers to something that isn't specific and the definite article refers to a specific noun. <S> Of course, their usage is more complex than this and without seeing every set expression or idiom <S> I can't honestly say that a rule applies to their usage. <A> <A> Yes the article will remain as it wouldn't make sense - definite or indefinite. <S> For example, in this sentence: I set the/a proper pace in order, now the only thing to do is wait. <S> Whether it is the article, the or a, depends on its usage. <S> If the definite article 'the' was used, then the reader automatically assumes it is talking about [something] specific, that was perhaps fore-mentioned. <S> The indefinite article 'a' can refer to anything "I set a proper pace in order, now the only thing to do is wait" The indefinite article here is talking about something non-specific, generic. <S> For example a person can talk about the pencil , but a pencil can refer to anything.
| Adjectives don't affect articles at all, whether in set expressions or elsewhere.
|
Grammar - is or are based on technical document In the following sentence, I am unsure as to whether the fact the invention (singular) is made up of claims (plural) makes the subject singular or plural and therefore requires is or are. If one of the lovely folks here could help. and maybe explain why? I would be very grateful, Thanks :) The newly claimed invention defined by present claims 1 and 9 are submitted to be novel over the prior art… OR The newly claimed invention defined by present claims 1 and 9 is submitted to be novel over the prior art… <Q> There is no doubt that "is" is more logical, and careful writers will always use it in this case: the subject is "The invention". <S> Having said this, it is quite common to see (and more particularly, hear) <S> examples like this where the speaker is affected by the more recent plural noun, and says "are". <S> I would suggest in written work, stick with "is". <A> If in doubt, split the sentence up: <S> The newly-claimed invention is submitted.... <S> The invention is defined by present claims 1 and 9..... <S> This can be rewritten as: <S> The newly-claimed invention, which is defined by present claims 1 and 9, is submitted..... <S> Similarly you might write: <S> The old dog, which is covered in fleas, has been rescued. <S> That there are numerous fleas on the dog does not alter the fact that there is only one dog. <S> However your sample sentence is not idiomatic and it is difficult to know exactly what you mean. <A> According to Grammarly.com : <S> Use is with singular subjects and are with plural subjects. <S> Collective nouns usually take is, but you can use are if you need to emphasize the individuals who belong to the group. <S> Phrases like a number of … usually take a plural verb. <S> Example sentences: <S> The invention is , and the claims are , things mentioned in a Patent application. <S> My invention contains several claims which are unique in this field. <S> This amendment to my inventions numbered 1234, 1235, and 1238 contains several claims which is intended to clarify their differences from other works. <S> So, "The newly claimed invention defined by present claims 1 and 9 is submitted to be novel over the prior art…" is correct. <S> The "invention" is what is submitted, the claims don't stand alone nor could they (though an invention could be submitted without claims it is unlikely). <S> The is/are choice is based upon the subject, the invention. <S> Further reading: When writing a Patent application the claims can be chained or non-chained as explained in " Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer's Guide ", so further on in your writing the claims <S> might be dealt with in a singular sense but the invention is always singular (because you refer to your own invention and can only submit one, if you refer to other's inventions then invention can be plural).
| It is the invention that is submitted, regardless of how it is defined, and therefore the singular is is required.
|
"Should the" with subject-verb agreement Not sure if somebody already posted this question or not but I just need some clarity on the sentence below. Should the ultrasound demonstrate myomas I will discuss her case in our meeting. Question: Should it be -> Should the ultrasound demonstrates Please explain <Q> No, it absolutely shouldn't because that's just incorrect grammar. <S> All modal verbs <S> (those are words like can , could , should , would , <S> may , <S> might and a whole slew of others), at least in Modern English, knock out all the s's on the ends of the verbs that immediately follow them (as well as all the to's). <S> In other words, modal verbs should only be followed by bare infinitives . <S> Here's a simple example: He should help me. <S> (That's how you should say it.) <S> He should helps me. <S> (No words can describe how patently wrong this is. <S> There should be no s on the end of the verb help .) <S> The only time you tack an s on the end of a verb is when it is the first verb that immediately follows the subject in third-person singular form (those are typically singular nouns and the pronouns <S> he , she , it and one ). <S> For example: He likes to eat ice cream. <S> As for the sentence itself, it's fine as far as English is concerned. <S> I think what we've got here is called a subjunctive form in a conditional sentence. <S> This is grammatically and structurally the same as saying the following: <S> Should you have any problems, let me know. <S> That's a very common phrasing in English and one way to understand this construction <S> is to substitute <S> should with if : If you have any problems, let me know. <S> If the ultrasound demonstrates myomas, I will discuss her case in our meeting. <A> Short answer: <S> We can't use third person S after should . <S> Here it is difficult to see that demonstrate belongs with should , though. <S> This is because should and the ultrasound have changed places. <S> Full answer : <S> It is more difficult to understand the grammar in the Original Poster's sentence because it has unusual word-order in the first section (the clause in bold ). <S> Should the ultrasound demonstrate myomas , I will discuss her case in our meeting. <S> This sentence is a conditional. <S> It is the same kind of sentnce as an if -sentence. <S> This sentence means exactly the same as: If the ultrasound should demonstrate myomas, I will discuss her case in our meeting. <S> In sentence (2) the Subject of the first clause, the ultrasound , comes before the verb phrase <S> should demonstrate myomas . <S> This is what we expect in normal sentences. <S> Let's swap myomas with the word problems , so that the clause is easy to understand: the ultrasound should demonstrate problems <S> *the ultrasound should demonstrate s problems (ungrammatical) <S> We can see that because these examples use the modal verb should , the next verb should be in the plain form (an infinitive). <S> We cannot use a verb with third person S after a modal verb. <S> Consider these examples: <S> the ultrasound can demonstrate problems <S> *the ultrasound can demonstrates problems (ungrammatical) <S> So why is the word order in the Original Example different? <S> Well, sometimes in formal writing, we like to remove <S> the <S> if when we have the verb should : <S> If the ultrasound should demonstrate myomas <S> .... --- <S> > <S> the ultrasound should demonstrate myomas .... <S> (not finished yet!) <S> But when we do this we also need to change the order of the Subject and the modal verb should : <S> [the ultrasound] [should] demonstrate myomas --- <S> > <S> [Should] [the ultrasound] <S> demonstrate myomas. <A> Your original sentence is correct. <S> "Should the ultrasound demonstrates" would be present tense, which is wrong since we are referring to the past. <S> The ultrasound has already been done and because it exists has already "demonstrated" what it has to offer in a sense, hence why we use past tense. <S> However if you were to say "if the ultrasound demonstrates myomas" that would be correct also; since we are talking about near future.
| The sentence would definitely be easier to read, if we put a comma after the word myomas : Should the ultrasound demonstrate myomas, I will discuss her case in our meeting.
|
Future Perfect and Future Continuous with present reference I came across this dialogue: Is it too late to call them? Do you think they'll have gone to bed yet? Knowing them, they won't have finished their dinner yet. They'll be watching a film. My question is why are the future perfect and the future continuous used in these sentences? I couldn't find any reliable information. In the case of the future continuous it might be "future as a matter of course", but I'm not sure and have absolutely no ideas as to the future perfect here. I'd be grateful for any ideas. <Q> The second speaker's will does not signify futurity; it is an epistemic use, marking the clause as the speaker's confident inference of probability from knowledge of the subject and the circumstances. <S> A: <S> Hey, Bob isn't in his office. <S> I need to ask him about this script. <S> B: <S> Oh, he' ll be at lunch now. <S> I can give you his cell number if it's an emergency. <S> The first speaker's will could be understood as a future ("Do think it probable that if we call them we will find they have already gone to bed"), but should probably be understood as another epistemic ("Do you think it probable that they are already in bed?"). <A> It is used to express something that has been done before the moment of the actual conversation <A> Since the call has not been made yet, "When I/you call them" is implied in the subsequent statements. <S> For example: "When you call then, they'll be watching a film. <S> " is correct usage of the future continuous. <S> As for use of future perfect, this is due to the negation. <S> In practice, "they will not have finished their dinner yet" (perfect) is merely a different way of saying "they will still be eating dinner" (continuous).
| Perfect tense becomes necessary in this particular case because the emphasis is on an action's completion, it's just that the speaker is saying the completion will not have occurred.
|
Will not be or Shall not be Candidates shall not be allowed to bring any item. I saw this sentence on a prospectus. Is it correct to use shall not be instead of will not be? <Q> You may, but in this context, "shall" enhances the note of requirement, expectation, or command, similar to "should": <S> Candidates shall bring a notepad and a pencil, but not a pen. <S> Each cadet shall be expected to buy his own uniform, and to keep it in perfect condition. <S> You shall not pass! <S> "Shall" is also somewhat more formal and affected . <S> "Will" does mean much the same thing as "shall", without the extra emphasis: Candidates will not chew gum during the exam. <A> When we form the future tense, we can use either "Will" or "Shall". <S> Nowadays, most people, especially in informal speech use "Will". <S> However, if you are writing formally, you can use "Shall". " <S> Also note that the "Will" and "Shall" in general are stronger and more definite than the phrasal future (To be going + Infinitive). <S> Imagine that you're asking if you can choose gum during an exam. <S> Now, compare your proctor saying the following sentences: <S> "You shall not chew gum during the exam." <S> "You will not be able to chew gum during the exam." <S> "You aren't going to be able to chew gum during the test." <S> Do you see the difference? <A> This is one of the exceptional use of shall in the present-day English to denote an absolute rule, and will cannot be used instead of <S> shall in this particular case. <S> Candidates shall not be allowed to bring any item. <S> means "It is mandatory that candidates not be allowed to bring any item."
| Shall" gives emphasis, and is often used to express commands. If a less absolute rule is intended, may should be used instead: Candidates may not be allowed to bring any item.
|
What is the difference in meaning between the sentences? What is the difference in meaning between the two sentences? I want to travel the moon. I want to travel to the moon. <Q> In the first case, you are saying that you want to explore the moon. <S> If you drop the "to" before a place name, you are implying that you are exploring the area. <S> In the second case, the "To" is implied, and you are just saying that you would like to go to the moon or go on a trip to the moon. <A> "To travel to the moon" means to go to the moon but not necessarily to do anything once you are there or even to come back. <S> "To travel the moon" means to travel around to different places on the moon. <S> If you are not already on the moon, you would have to travel to the moon before you could travel the moon. <A> Travel to the moon means you want to make the trip to get there. <S> Good luck with that.
| Travel the moon means you want to fully explore it.
|
Is there a more concise way to say "cars stuck in traffic"? I am searching a word for describing cars stuck in traffic. When I googled the phrase "stuck cars", I found out that stuck cars imply cars stuck in ditches rather than traffic. <Q> I don't know what exactly <S> you mean by an abbreviation, but in English, a situation when there are just too many cars on the road where little to no movement is possible is traditionally called a traffic jam or a traffic congestion . <S> To find out more about what other expressions related to cars stuck in traffic exist in English, follow the link to the Wikipedia article on traffic congestion that I provided. <S> Example: <S> The reason I'm so late today is because my car got caught in a huge traffic jam this morning. <A> I would use bumper-to-bumper traffic . <S> Due to a truck collision, cars on the freeway were stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. <A> You could say, "Heavy Traffic", "Congestion", "Clogged Roads", "Heavy Delays", or, even depending on the cause, you could say, "Gaper's Delay" or "Rubbernecking" if the cause is because people are staring at an accident. <A> You can use gridlock or deadlock. <S> It is defined by Oxford Dictionaries as follows: <S> A situation of very severe traffic congestion. <S> ‘the city reaches gridlock during peak hours’
| You could also say, "Traffic was at a standstill", or call the highway "A parking lot".
|
I found the box to be empty I found the box to be empty Does the sentence mean that the box was empty for real, does it or mean that I guessed the box was empty (i.e. I was not really sure about it but implies only a possibility of the box being empty in a few seconds when you open it). If the given sentence means that the box was empty for real, then, it means the same as the following sentence, right? I found the box empty Formulated a little differently: (1) I found the box empty (2) I found the box to be empty Do these mean the same? <Q> A similar question has been asked in <S> Should I say 'find...interesting' or 'find... <S> to be interesting'? . <S> According to the approved answer there, "find to be" is exchangeable with "find". <S> However, I think in this case there may actually be a difference. <S> Looking at yet another question, I find X to be Y <S> vs. <S> I find that X is Y , the real equivalence would be that I found the box to be empty <S> is equivalent to <S> I found that the box is empty <S> Both sentences use "found" to relate to a fact (that the box is empty). <S> The sentence without "to be" has a different equivalent: <S> I found the box empty <S> is equivalent to <S> The box was empty when I found it Here, "found" relates to the box itself, not to the fact. <S> With "to be" it can't have this meaning. <S> So, one answer says they are equivalent <S> and I'm saying there is a difference - <S> what gives? <S> Context may make the meaning clear, but if you refer to the finding the fact and want to avoid an interpretation of finding the actual box , adding "to be" makes the difference. <A> The complement has just been expanded to give more information about the object in this case. <S> In short, (2) is much more formal and would be found on a written letter (why you would be writing about empty boxes, I'm not sure). <S> On the other hand, (1) is informal and would be more commonly spoken. <S> In actual fact, the more likely phrase to be spoken would be: <S> I found the box was empty <A> Both the sentences are grammatical, without any difference in meaning. <S> You can use the structure find + something/someone + adj. <S> or the structure find + <S> something/someone <S> + to be +adj. <S> However, the former structure is far more common and idiomatic. <S> So we prfer to say: I found the box empty. <A> There is a nuanced difference. <S> Consider the following definitions: <S> find verb <S> 1 Discover or perceive by chance or unexpectedly. <S> ‘When the search party returned they found Brush in the kitchen raiding the fridge.’ <S> - ODO find verb 2.2 Ascertain by study, calculation, or inquiry. <S> ‘The survey also finds a high correlation between overcrowding and incidents of fighting between students.’ <S> - ODO <S> The version without to be corresponds better with definition 1 <S> (where 'found' relates to a search ), whereas the version with to be only works with the second definition (where 'found' <S> has the sense of finding out ). <A> To me this strikes as a matter of perception. <S> Consider the following: <S> If I found the box to be empty, then the box should be empty. <S> Someone else looked inside the box and found it to not be empty after all. <S> So did I find the box empty, or was my perception deceived? <S> to be speaks to me electing (categorizing) <S> the box to be empty. <S> Leaving to be out of the statement, adds more weight to the surety that the box was found to absolutely be empty.
| It means that "I found the box empty" is ambiguous. They do mean the same, yes.
|
What is the meaning of this sentence "And I'll never take it for granted" in this song? I'm studying English and I came across this new expression. I researched, but in Portuguese it has several different meanings, some of them even contradictory. So I'd like to know from the American perspective, what the idea of that phrase is. Here is the lyrics of the song (joe Inoue - Closer): You know the closer you get to something The tougher it is to see it And i'll never take it for granted Let's go! And the translations I've already found: And I'll never get used to it. And I'll never be satisfied. And I'll never think this will ever be like this forever. etc <Q> In this context, it seems that we are saying that we can't take advantage of things that were worked hard for in order to achieve, and we can't treat privileges like rights. <S> I found a few verbs that seem to have the same meaning in Portuguese: presumir, asumir, and supor. <A> @ElenderGóisGallas <S> Your translation is probably accurate. <S> Lyrics to songs don't always fit the context -- they often mean something special to the person who wrote them, which may not be obvious to everyone else. <S> Or, in this case, a Japanese songwriter using a common English phrase in a way that means something to his audience, but may not be a standard use of the phrase. <S> In general, To "take something for granted" simply means not to properly appreciate it. <S> I always took my mother's cooking for granted , until I moved out and had to cook for myself. <S> "I'll never take it for granted," means, "I'll always appreciate it. <S> " <S> I don't know what "it" is, but you may be able to figure that out from the rest of the lyrics -- at least, those that aren't in Japanese. <A> I think the closest (of what you have found) is <S> And I'll never get used to it <S> but in the sense of ceasing to appreciate the value of something. <S> That is, in the beginning you have something that you appreciate or value but that over time you become used to it as "normal", the novelty/uniqueness or special feeling fades away <S> and you no longer ascribe it <S> the same value that you did in the beginning - you take it for granted.
| In general, to "not take things for granted" just means to appreciate what you have.
|
What verb to choose: "DO all you do is sit here?" or "IS all you do is sit here?" Is all you do is sit here? Do all you do is sit here? Which of the two is correct? From my opinion it's the first one but it's still awkward. However, the second one also seems to make sense. <Q> The short answer is that the first seems grammatical whereas the second is definitely not. <S> Making them interrogative while retaining the infinitive does seem to lead to a doubled verb as in "Is all that you do is to sit here" or "Is all you do is sit here. <S> " <S> The only way to make sense of the doubled verb is to assume an ellipsis such as "Is it true that all you do is to sit there. <S> " <S> I agree that the interrogatives so formed with the doubled verb sound awkward (or at least colloquial). <S> That awkwardness can be avoided by using a participle instead of an infinitive. <S> "Is sitting here all that you do" or "Is sitting here all you do" sound better to me, but that is esthetics, not grammar. <A> The correct way of forming the question is <S> Is all you do sit here? <S> This follows naturally from the statement form <S> All you do is sit here by the standard question-forming process of inverting the verb ("is") and the subject ("all you do"). <S> The result sounds rather clumsy, though, so I'd recommend either rephrasing (say, as "Is sitting here all you do?"), or adding a word between "do" and "sit" - for example, <S> Is all you do just sit here? <S> Adding the extra word gives a more natural rhythm to the sentence, which is probably why some people want to insert "is", but to me at least that's ungrammatical due to repeating the main verb "is". <A> I would say: Do you just sit here? <S> or Is sitting here all you do?
| "All that you do is to sit here" or "All you do is sit here" are perfectly acceptable declarative sentences.
|
A phrase or single word for a person who always think he is important Is there any interesting phrase or word used to describe a person who wants others to pay all their attention to him and think himself important than anyone? <Q> I checked synonyms for self-centered and found: egotistical, self-absorbed, self-serving; narcissistic, inconsiderate plus the rather informal idiomatic phrase: looking out for number one . <S> which dictionaries define as: To act in one's own interests; to act in a manner advantageous primarily to oneself; to do what you think is best for yourself and not care about other people. <A> " high-maintenance " - informal (of a person or relationship) demanding a lot of attention. <S> " self-important " - having too high an opinion of oneself <S> You can even combine them: <S> My girlfriend is a self-important, high-maintenance girl. <A> Attention whore <S> 'Attention whore' is a mildly derogatory term for someone who will act-out in order to garner unnecessary attention. <S> Being slang, it is more difficult to find authoritative citations; however, this is the best I've found. <S> From Wiktionary.com: <S> 1 <S> : (derogatory, vulgar, idiomatic) <S> An individual that routinely solicits attention through inappropriate tactics and provocation.
| - She is having a high opinion of herself and demands a lot of attention.
|
What is the right way to ask If you want to rent your apartment, what is the proper way to say so? Do you offer a friend an apartment in rent? <Q> If you are asking what would be an acceptable wording for a statement offering an apartment for rent, here is my suggestion: <S> "I have an apartment for rent. <S> Are you interested?" <S> Or if the statement will be used for an online or written advertisement, I suggest simply:"Apartment for rent:" followed by the terms of rental, such as the amount of the rental fee, whether or not utilities are included, and the size of the apartment and number of bedrooms/bathrooms. <S> I would say that if you have an apartment for rent and you have a friend that is looking for an apartment, it is usually appropriate to simply notify that friend in a statement similar to the one I suggested above. <A> X rents <S> Y - X is staying at Y and paying rent to the owner of Y <S> (X is the tenant). <S> X rents out Y [to Z] <S> - X owns Y and is letting Z stay there if Z pays rent (Z is the tenant). <S> X rents Y to Z - Same as X <S> rents out Y to Z . <S> X is for rent - The owner of X is looking for a tenant. <S> X is renting [out Y] for Z - The owner of X is looking for a tenant that will pay Z if Z is a cost, or the owner of X is seeking a tenant on behalf of Z if Z is person. <S> Y would be the place itself if specified. <S> If you want to let your friend stay somewhere in exchange for money, you are renting or renting out a place to him. <A> A renter rents 'from' a landlord. <S> I rent my apartment from Mr. Biggs. <S> A landlord rents 'to' a renter. <S> I rented [leased] 210 Elm St. to Mary J. <S> An apartment that is on the market to be rented is 'for' rent. <S> 201 Elm St. is for rent.
| As for your question regarding whether you can offer a friend an apartment that you have for rent, whether or not it is appropriate depends entirely on the situation and what your friendship is like.
|
A word or phrase for a person who doesn't accept new things I mean that I need a word to describe a person who always opposes the development of society and has outdated concepts and ideas. For example, an Asian person who doesn't like people having tattoos or accept girls who have sex before marriage. <Q> The most general term for what you're asking would be conservative . <S> You can't get any more basic than that. <S> This word has a lot of different meanings, but the basic idea is that a conservative person is someone who is averse to change and innovation and typically holds traditional values. <S> That's how most dictionaries define it. <S> Example: <S> My parents don't like this modern idea that you can have sex before marriage. <S> They're very conservative . <S> The meaning is exactly the same. <S> Old-fashioned people tend to lean towards more traditional or conservative ideas or customs. <S> Example: <S> My grandparents are strongly opposed to this modern idea that you can have sex before marriage. <S> They're very old-fashioned , you know. <A> Let's see: <S> Red-pilled. <S> Sensible. <S> Wise. <S> Traditionalist. <S> Self-respecting. <S> Red-blooded. <A> Another word commonly used is reactionary .
| Another term that can be used in a similar way to conservative is old-fashioned .
|
at IKEA or in IKEA? I'd like to use the phrase: "Let's buy it at IKEA!" I'm not sure if I should use "at" or "in" in that particular case. Maybe both work?Is there any difference between them? <Q> at is usually used for a location (IKEA is a location) in , if used with a location can mean inside the location/space <S> (IKEA is also a building, with an interior space). <S> I would have a preference for "at" in your example, however I wouldn't necessarily say that "in" before a location is wrong. <S> It might be OK depending on context, for example if you were already inside the building when you said it. <S> Also, it's quite possible to say things such as <S> "I'll see you in IKEA", or "I was in the bank when the robbery happened", when you mean inside the building. <A> English speakers say they are at the store. <S> If they are inside the building, they may say they are in the store (but they are also at the store). <S> Examples: <S> Q: <S> Where did you buy your desk? <S> A: <S> At Macy's. <S> It's sold in <S> the furniture department, on the third floor. <S> Q: (on the phone) <S> Where are you? <S> I can't see you in the parking lot. <S> Are you at the front of the store? <S> A: I'm in the store, over by the electronics section. <S> Q: <S> (texting) <S> Where are you? <S> A: <S> I had to get out of the house, so <S> I'm in the park. <S> I'm going by the coffee shop, and will be at your house in an hour. <S> Unfortunately there are many idiomatic usages. <S> For example, you may be in a meeting, at (or on ) <S> the computer, in deep contemplation, at a loss, and many others. <A> Generally though, we use 'at' when refering to a place or locality. <S> We use 'in' to denote being in a space or area. <S> So, the answer is 'at'.
| "At" is used for location, while "in" is (generally) used to indicate being inside something.
|
I would rather die than for this to happen 'I would rather die than for this to happen.' Does this sentence make sense and sound natural?I saw it. But i am not sure.. <Q> I am guessing that your question is not about the meaning, or the hyperbole, but about the grammar. <S> but yes, it is natural. <S> When the subject is the same, you get the pattern you would expect, with two parallel finite verbs: <S> I would rather die than go to Lancashire. <S> When there are two explicit subjects, that can't be used, and there is no way to attach a normal clause after "than". <S> But we can attach a clause that behaves like a noun phrase, and there are two constructions which are used. <S> A "that" clause: <S> I would rather die than that he should succeed. <S> and a "for" construction: I would rather die than for him to succeed. <A> English has a handful of idioms expressing the idea "I do not want X." <S> I would prefer to get a root canal without anaesthesia than X." <S> I would rather have to clean Grand Central Station with a toothbrush than X." Or any variety of unpleasant things that one might claim to be better than X. <S> All of these are meant somewhat sarcastically, and not at all literal. <S> Substituting death for X is just an extreme example of this type of idiom. <S> Of course, the speaker does not actually want to die, any more that I want a root canal. <A> Yes it makes sense. <S> It's an example of hyperbole , a form of exaggeration used for effect. <S> It's not to be taken literally. <S> The person would not really rather die. <S> It's similar to expressions such as: "I nearly died laughing!" <S> "I'd rather gouge my eyes out than do X."
| The answer is, yes, it is odd;
|
Words to describe a video thats not working The only words I know are “buffer” and “lagging” but are there more words to describe “the video is/has _____” <Q> Why isn't it working? <S> When the reason is known the verb is associated. <S> The video has a broken codec. <S> The video is broken. <S> (Can work as a matter of fact) <S> The video has missing audio. <S> The video isn't in the right format. <S> The video has some unfixed issue. <S> The video is corrupted. <S> The video doesn't run. <S> The video is damaged. <S> Besides the traditional ways if you mention streaming video or video files on the net, then there may be various errors, such as: <S> The server is down and the video won't load. <S> The server is overloaded and it takes a lot of time to buffer the video. <S> The connection speed is too low <S> so again the buffering is too slow. <S> The video is in a very high resolution that your computer doesn't meet the requirements to play it smoothly. <S> The video file is corrupted and it shows mosaic images and plays stuttering audio. <S> The video was improperly converted and got damaged. <S> The video and audio are out of sync. <S> The video player is malfunctioning. <S> Traditionally we don't say that a video is lagging, mostly the server or the computer is. <S> The website or the video player (on the web) can be malfunctioning too - this sometimes happens on some websites. <A> The question is about describing the symptons of a video that is not playing properly. <S> The video is stuttering. <S> means that the playback is not smooth but skipping frames. <S> The video is pixellated. <S> means that the image has broken into large pixel squares due to faulty decoding. <S> The video has stalled. <S> means that the video won't play beyond a certain point. <A> Although it may seem like the word jittery <S> (jitters are shaking movements) is only reserved for situations where we're describing people, it can certainly be used in an informal context to describe a video that has skipping or lagging problems. <S> For example: The video is just too jittery . <S> I can't watch a movie like this. <S> flickery and jerky are two other similar terms that you might find interesting. <A> When you say "not working" you are talking about functionality. <S> For it to be buffering, lagging, stalling or almost any -ing verbs I can imagine, it is actually working; just not performing at the level we might want. <S> Lagging does not necessarily mean one component is out of sync. <S> If you are watching a real time feed, it generally refers to the time delay between the video capture and the display. <S> Jitter will be that the feed isn't coming in smoothly (what buffering tries to avoid). <S> Now, as to when it, or any technology, isn't "working" it can be given as listed by SovereignSun (with the exception of the broken codec which isn't the video's fault at all). <S> Other possibilities include: <S> Microsoft has detected an unknown error <S> Computers hate Mondays too and also not to be forgotten the more emotive innumerable variations of: The {device/technology} is @! &
| The video is faulty.
|
My father and my birthday/My father's birthday and mine/My father's and my birthday...something else? As an esl teacher I'm a bit embarrassed about this one. I have some groups on WhatsApp to practice English and in one of them a student put: "Today is birthday of my father and my." What would the correct sentence be? Thanks for your time. I love this site! <Q> Try <S> My and my father's birthday. <S> It's still a tad awkward sounding, but there's no perfect way out of this particular linguistic cul-de-sac in English. <S> Note: never use <S> my except as a possessive pronoun. <S> Say "Today is the birthday of my father and me ," never "my father and my ." <A> The sentence in the question would be better as <S> Today is the birthday of my father and me . <S> Another way to say this awkward sentence is <S> Today is my birthday and my father's. <S> with the sentence left dangling, its meaning obvious. <S> However I was taught not to mention myself in a sentence before others (a matter of manners), so another way could be <S> Today is my father's birthday and mine. <S> And going off a bit: <S> My father and I share the same birthday, which is today! <A> I can think of these only: <S> Today is our birthday. <S> Mine and my father's. <S> Today I and my father have a birthday.
| Today it's my father's birthday and mine too.
|
When can we omit the preposition "of" in such cases? I'm struggling to understand when we can omit the preposition " of " in cases when we use determiners in English (distributives and quantifiers) . I mean we all know that both " half the students were absent " and " half of the students were absent " are correct as well as " all my friends are there " and " all of my friends are there ". I would like to know the rule - when can we or can't we omit the " of "? Scrolling through various examples online I've noticed that even with " all " and " half " it doesn't always apply and sometimes we can use it with other determiners and other times - not: Both of the cars were stolen. (can we omit "of"?) Half of every apple on the table was bitten. (can we omit "of"?) All of it was a lie. (can we omit "of"?) Several of my books were printed in Canada. (can we omit "of"?) Most of the people living in our town are teenagers. (can we omit "of"?) <Q> All of the cars were stolen. <S> Both of the cars were stolen. <S> Half of the cars were stolen. <S> Several of the cars were stolen. <S> Some of the cars were stolen. <S> Few of the cars were stolen. <S> Most of the cars were stolen. <S> Many of the cars were stolen. <S> Or this: All cars were stolen. <S> All the cars were stolen. <S> Both cars were stolen. <S> Both the cars were stolen. <S> Half cars were stolen. <S> no Half the cars were stolen. <S> ok Several the cars were stolen. <S> no Several cars were stolen. <S> Some the cars were stolen. <S> no <S> Some cars where stolen. <S> Few the cars were stolen. <S> no Few cars were stolen. <S> Most the cars were stolen. <S> no Most cars were stolen. <S> Many the cars were stolen. <S> no Many cars were stolen. <S> {Several, some, few, most, many} do not accept another determiner. <S> They must be used alone with the noun, or in a partitive construction with of . <A> In English generally, many rules have exceptions, which often makes them practically useless as rules. <S> Anyway, I can answer the rest of your question. <S> Both of the cars were stolen. <S> (can we omit "of"?) <S> Yes, you could say "Both the cars were stolen." <S> or "Both cars were stolen" Half of every apple on the table was bitten. <S> (can we omit "of"?) <S> Yes, but I'd say this is acceptable in colloquial English - but not everyone will agree, and according to some here it's rather controversial. <S> Better to leave the "of" in there. <S> All of it was a lie. <S> (can we omit "of"?) <S> - No, but you could say "Everything was a lie." <S> I suppose you could say "All was a lie" but it sounds a bit archaic/literary, although it might be OK in a poem. <S> The "it" can't remain however. <S> Several of my books were printed in Canada. <S> (can we omit "of"?) <S> No, but you could say "Several books were printed in Canada", but then if you do that, you can't put "my" in there. <S> Most of the people living in our town are teenagers. <S> (can we omit "of"?) <S> No, but if you also omit "the", then you can say "Most people living in our town are teenagers" <A> The omission of "of" when used as in your question is slang, so it's unlikely to make much sense. <S> I'm going to try to make up some rules anyway. <S> Please tear them down; if they're too wrong I'll improve them. <S> The meaning numbers below (e.g. 1.4 ) are referencing Wiktionary . <S> If the meaning is 1.3 , 1.4 , 2.1 , 2.2 , 2.3 (where it would change the meaning), 3.1 (where it might change the meaning), 3.2 , 3.3 (where it might change the meaning), all of 4 , all of 5 (especially 5.5 , where its omission can cause any following indefinite article ("a" / "an") to mean "each" or "per"), all of 6 , 7.2 , 7.4 , 8.2 , 10.2 (you can't really ... <S> but it'd be interesting to see if the "exceptions" have a rule-like pattern) <S> Rule-like assertions: <S> If the meaning is 7.1 , like in your question, you can omit "of" if: (colloquial) <S> The word following "of" is an article and the word preceding "of" is an indefinite pronoun in this list: both <S> all half there are probably more... <S> The noun following the article is plural and you remove the article. <S> If the meaning is 8.1 , 8.3 or 9.1 , you can omit "of" if: <S> If the meaning is 10.1 , you can omit "of" if: You convert the second noun to its adjectival form (e.g. "body" → "bodied," "leg" → "legged") and put a hyphen ("-") in between. <S> If the meaning is 10.3 , you can omit "of" if: <S> You remove the noun phrase preceding "of" (e.g. "at a speed of 40 m/s" → <S> "at 40 m/s"). <S> CAVEATS: <S> This removes information. <S> This can be confused with 8.3 <S> (e.g. "at the speed of sound"). <S> You can always remove it without changing anything else if the meaning is: 7.3 Conclusions: <S> There are no complete rules about that can be described using English itself. <S> English is horrible . <S> What were we thinking?! <A> The general rule is actually simple. <S> If you strike of, the noun in the prepositional phrase becomes the sentence noun and the old noun becomes an adjective. <S> So the rule is when the original subject noun can convert to an adjective.
| There are no hard and fast rules which would apply in all situations. You reverse the two noun phrases either side of "of" and it remains grammatically correct.
|
“Asked” Vs. “Having asked” vs. “having been asked” 1) asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up... 2) Having asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up... 3) Having been asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up... What is the difference in meaning among these three sentences; are all of them conveying the same thing ? Are they all grammatically and semantically acceptable and correct? And in the first sentence, is “asked” finite or non-finite verb? <Q> Your example 1 is a reduced subordinate clause. <S> The full form would be "When she was asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up..." <S> Accordingly, "asked" is part of a passive construction and is the past participle of "ask". <S> (Personally, I'd prefer to call it a "passive participle".) <S> Similar to the "whiz" reduction of relative clauses, "she" referring to the main clause subject and the form of "be" can be deleted, giving "When asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina ..." Additionally, "when" can be left understood (as other subordinate conjunctions can be, sometimes). <S> The other two examples are only marginally acceptable, in my opinion. <A> I do not believe that they have the same meaning. <S> " <S> Asked" and "Having been asked" seem to have the same meaning. <S> A second party did the asking. <S> "Having asked about her parents, Ms. Angela..." would mean that Ms. Angela had done the asking. <A> 1) [having been] Asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up... <S> 3) <S> Having been asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up... <S> The square brackets shows how they are basically the same thing. <S> Someone asked her about her parents. <S> That's the meaning. <S> The questions are directed at her. <S> She is not asking the questions. <S> 2) <S> Having asked about her parents, Ms. Angelina said she was uncertain of their names and promised to look them up... 2) has a different meaning <S> In 2) <S> She is asking the questions. <S> It is an active sense. <S> She asked about her parents. <S> She asked the questions, the questions were not asked to or of her.
| Ms. Angelina is asking someone else about her own parents.
|
Why "Google Translate" instead of "Google Translation/Translator"? Why has Google named its translation service "Google Translate"? Wouldn't "Google Translation" or "Google Translator" be more natural? <Q> This is marketing, not grammar. <S> In theory, this makes their translation service sound more exciting and/or emphasizes that translation is a lot of work. <S> For very similar reasons, many people recommend that your résumé or CV should describe your work experience using verbs, which shows dynamic action on your part. <A> The name is in a commercial style which deliberately seeks to add "pizzazz" to product names. <S> The verb connotes action . <S> It would not be surprising to find a Google app about city transportation schedules called Google Commute , or an iOS app about local restaurants called i-Eat or i-Dine . <A> It is Google Translate because it translates stuff for you. <S> It is not a finished product. <S> The German translation of Gone with the Wind = a finished text. <S> The translation of the Bible into Russian = a finished text. <S> Google Translation for the online application would be a misnomer. <S> However, people will often cite a poor Google translation as "proof of x, y or z".
| Verbs convey a feeling of action, by definition, so by using the verb translate , Google is hoping to emphasize that they're doing something .
|
Preposition when speaking about time record I want to say something in meaning of "You've made the record at?/in? 2 seconds" - basically a user answers questions and time to answer is measured. After each question, I want to say if a new record was made and what's the record. But to be honest neither at/in or other preposition seems to be right and I don't know how an English speaking person would say this. (And something like 'you've made a record, you've answered in X seconds' seem to me a bit awkward.) Thank you <Q> You have set a new record (for speed, distance, whatever). <S> P.S. <S> And as Billy Kerr remarks in his comment and stangdon does in his answer, to refer to the specifics of the record, you use this pattern: <S> You have set a new free-diving record of 214 meters! <S> You have set a new record of 133 days for being adrift in a raft at sea! <A> In X where X is a duration can be used to express that an activity was completed and the time to completion was X. <S> For X is used if you just want to say how long something lasted or took, without implying completedness. <S> I walked to the store in 15 minutes. <S> (15 minutes passed and now I'm at the store.) <S> I walked to the store for 15 minutes ( <S> Sounds weird, did you make it to the store?) <S> I walked through the park for 15 minutes (There's no "endpoint" we were trying to reach, so this sounds better.) <S> At X , if X is a time, needs to be a clock time, not a duration. <S> If it's anything but a clock time, on X is used. <S> On isn't usually specified if it happens at the beginning of the sentence. <S> At 3pm I went to the store. <S> I went to the store at 3pm. <S> Wednesday I went to the store. <S> I went to the store on Wednesday. <A> The idiomatic way to say that there is a new record and the record is a certain amount is "a new record of 2 seconds". <S> For example, H. S. Kehlor driving the Johnson-powered Rowdy set a new record of 44.444 m.p.h. <S> Ahead of World AIDS Day, Apple says this year’s (RED) purchases set a new record of over $30M <S> The Russians set a new record of 114,000 feet...
| You have set a new record of {number} {unit of measurement}
|
Founding? Is it wrong or right? One of my Japanese students said the following today when we were practicing for an MBA interview. "I want to founding my own venture in the future" I corrected it automatically to "I want to find my own venture...". Also, I felt that "launch" or "start" would be better than the verb "to find" since he was talking about his long-term goal. When I said this to my student, they said that there is a verb "to found". But I think we can't say "I want to founding my business/venture/etc", no? At least I've never heard this kind of sentence so I'm confused about what the student means ... Can someone please enlighten me? Is the student wrong or am I just not getting something? <Q> To found is correct: to set up or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence . <S> But you should use the infinitive: <S> I want to buy a book <S> I want to found a company <S> Not <S> I want to buying a book <S> I want to founding a company <S> (Edit:) <S> As KRyan notes in the comment below there is a third possibility: I want to be founding a company. <S> There is a slight difference in the meaning between the two. <S> Using want to found implies that this is a thing you want to do at some point, want to be founding <S> implies a particular point in time that you want to be involved in this process (e.g. "What do you see yourself doing in five years?" <S> "I want to be founding a company.)" <A> When we say that a person is a Founder of this Company, or in the phrase that we keep the Foundation of a house, the infinitive form of the word Found is used. <S> Therefore, Founding a venture or business is grammatically correct. <S> With an adjustment in the tense used, your correct sentence would be: <S> I want to found my own venture in the future. <A> The verb to found means establish or originate (an institution or organization) <S> Very briefly, in this instance to found is an infinitive, which can (and in this sentence, does) act as a noun, effectively the direct object of want in the sentence you cite. <S> The sentence <S> I want to found my own venture is correct, although the word venture may be considered vague. <A> Although you cannot use the term: <S> I want to founding an adventure <S> you can still use: <S> I am founding an adventure As though you are currently in the process of doing this. <S> You can use this also: <S> I founded an adventure Being past tense. <S> Although I personally wouldn't use this term as it would easily be passed as a misspelling of the sentence <S> I found an adventure . <S> A better option would be <S> I created an adventure or built an adventure . .
| To Found is an infinitive (basic form of the verb) which means To create or establish , especially those things which have a continued existence e.g. a building.
|
Is calling someone "creepy" rude? I learnt "creepy" is feeling unease or scared, but it's not considered rude to say creepy at someone? In my language, when people felt scared about something in horror, we use a word close to "eerie" but for bugs which feels uncomfortable to see,or person who acts strange, or a stalker, we use a word similar to "ew" and it's rude because it expresses a feeling disgust about the person. In English, when people say "He is creepy!" or "You are creepy!", it's not rude? Not including of disgust like "ew"? It's just like "Your act is scary"? I know "you are disgusting" is rude and showing strong disgust, but "creepy" for bugs or weird people, it also has nuance of disgust? and rude? <Q> "Creepy" is a word like "ugly". <S> It is rude to use it to describe someone. <S> Examples <S> I watched a creepy film yesterday. <S> Fine. <S> A film can be creepy, that's not rude. <S> I saw a creepy woman at the bus stop. <S> Okay. <S> Some people are creepy. <S> But remember that the "creepy" woman is someone's daughter. <S> This is not a "nice" thing to say. <S> Sometimes it may be the right thing to say Mr Smith, you are creepy. <S> Not Okay because you shouldn't insult people. <S> If you need to tell someone you could say "you are being creepy" to tell them what they are doing is wrong. <S> This describes an act instead of insulting a person. <S> However, people are often rude. <S> Using language like "ugly", "creepy" and so on is part of how people speak. <A> "Creepy" is used to express a feeling of disgust or awfulness , especially that which makes one frightened. <S> Also, it can be used for a feeling towards an inappropriate sexual behavior. <S> To answer your question, yes , the word is used to denote a negative expression. <S> It may sound rude to use it for to say to a person- <S> in the context that "you are creepy" . <S> But you may use it to describe a disgusting situation or as an adjective for a third person. <S> For deeper insight as to how to use "creepy" in English, you can have a look at: http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/creepy <A> Telling someone they are "creepy" is not something that happens often. <S> More often you would say "You're giving me the creeps" to decry behavior or speech by someone in your presence.
| What's more pejorative, and thus also more rude, is to call someone a "creep" (a noun).
|
Can you tell me the difference between these two sentences? You are actually the third person to call with the same issue. You are actually the third person to have called with the same issue. <Q> In both sentences the role of the infinitive is to qualify person : its purpose is to identify a particular type of person. <S> A relative clause could be used to produce the same effect: <S> You are actually the third person who has called with the same issue. <S> The first sentence uses the present infinitive to call , which can be used about a single action, a repeated action, a continuous action or a state. <S> I want to press the button! - single action . <S> He seems to know - state <S> The second sentence uses the perfect infinitive , which indicates that something has been or will be completed. <S> He is the first person to have crossed the Atlantic in a bathtub - past <S> He will be the first person to have crossed the Atlantic in a bathtub - future <S> Neither type of infinitive gives any indication of timescale (past, present, future): that is provided by the context. <S> John wanted to press the button - past <S> John likes to press the button - general truth <S> John wants to press the button - future <S> You can regard a call either as the action of picking up the phone and dialling the number, or as the entire process, including the conversation and hanging up. <S> If the speaker views the call as just picking up and dialling, then part-way through the phone call the speaker could use present infinitive (calling is a single action) or perfect infinitive (completed action). <A> Honestly, at an intuitive level, it sounds fine to me both ways, with #1 sounding perhaps a little more natural and #2 sounding a bit more formal or stilted (which, on further investigation is probably because the second construction is often used in passive sentences, which tend to sound more formal). <S> That said, hopefully I can help you in researching this. <S> So the abstract question you're interested in is: What is the usage or distinct meaning of the perfect infinitive? . <S> In general, the perfect infinitive is used to discuss uncertain ideas , such as reported speech or beliefs/expectations about the past. <S> For example: He seems to have contracted a bad flu. <S> (inference about the past) <S> Mammoths are said to have once wandered the plains of Illinois. <S> (reported speech about the past) <S> She expects to have earned her PhD by 2020. <S> (an expectation about the past from the perspective of 2020) <S> So, very strictly speaking, #1 would be more in line with documented native usage of English because there is no uncertainty about the past callers ('actually' clarifies <S> this is a fact, not speculation). <S> But again, if I heard this in a daily conversation, it would not seem particularly strange to hear #2. <S> Do take a look through source #1 for quick coverage of the basics of this construction. <A> The semantics of the two statements are identical. <S> However the words "You are actually.." are redundant as it has already been established that you were the third person to have called with the same issue. <S> The actuality of the event has already been articulated.
| The distinction between #1 and #2 is that #1 uses a to infinitive ( to call ), while #2 uses a perfect infinitive ( to have called ).
|
They're closing their shop We were shopping at the mall. It's late and all the shops were starting to close. "They're closing." "They're closing their shop." Will the second sentence mean the shop is bankrupt? <Q> They're closing <S> In this sentence closing does not have an object (it's intransitive), and for this meaning <S> "They" can only apply to the shop, not the staff. <S> They're closing their shop <S> In this sentence, "They" could refer to the the owners (which might imply that the shop was closing permanently) or to the staff (which would mean that right now the staff are outside the shop and locking the doors). <S> If the owners also work in the shop, if could mean either. <S> Either sentence could mean that the shop is closing at the end of the day, or that it is closing permanently. <S> Unless the context indicates otherwise, I would assume that the shop was closing at the end of the day, especially if it was late in the day and other shops are closing too. <S> To indicate that the shop was closing permanently, you could use one of these expressions. <S> The shop is closing its doors <S> The shop is closing down <S> They are closing down shut up shop <S> used to be common, but has declined in post-war years: more so in the US than in the UK . <A> They are closing. <S> They're closing. <S> Both could either mean that the shop is closed for the night or that it is bankrupt. <S> You'd have to look at the shop to be able to tell. <A> The store is closing down = closing permanently. <A> Yes, the second sentence ( They're closing their shop. ) <S> could mean they're going out of business, but it's equally possible <S> it means it's closed just for the day. <S> Same with the first sentence. <S> But there's an idiom, used in American English only, that the other answers haven't mentioned, which is this: They're closing up shop. <S> This usually means the shop is going out of business. <S> John: Have you been to Orange Julius lately? <S> Mary: <S> No, Orange Julius has closed up shop . <S> John: I might cry. <S> With this idiom, you omit the possessive pronoun "there": <S> Closed up shop <S> [Correct] Closed up their shop <S> [Not an idiom] <S> EDIT <S> Here are a few references that support what I'm saying: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/close+up+shop <S> http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/close-up-shop https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/close%20up%20shop <S> For what it's worth, I've noticed in all these references "closed forever" is mentioned first and "closed temporarily" is mentioned second. <S> Here's a reference to shut up shop , supposedly a British idiom: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shut%20up%20shop
| They are closing the shop = closing for the day
|
Can cum be used with living beings? The meaning of cum is combined with; also used as (used to describe things with a dual nature or function). For example a sofa cum bed Can it be used with humans as well like My friend cum brother? <Q> It's true that Google Books has 1190 written instances of sofa cum bed , but it also has 343 instances of sofa come bed , which makes a lot more sense to me. <S> As you might expect, the formal Latin cum (meaning with ) is particularly used in academic contexts - such as [to graduate] <S> cum laude = with honour(s). <S> There's an orthographic quirk whereby to come [to a sexual climax] has led to the unusual noun spelling <S> cum <S> = ejaculate (though the verb form is usually still written as I'm coming!, <S> Did you come? <S> , not <S> I'm cumming! <S> , Did you cum? ). <S> So it's possible some "non-academically-inclined" readers might primarily associate the quirky spelling with sexual overtones, not the Latin origin. <S> But one shouldn't pay too much attention to such "snigger potential" (it would often be considered "childish" to even acknowledge it, let alone laugh oneself). <S> My personal choice would be to write about my friend-come-brother . <S> Which I interpret as a "reduced" form of, say, my friend who can become my brother [in appropriate circumstances] . <S> This distinction only applies in speech , obviously. <S> And I'd hazard a guess that the majority of native Anglophones might not even realise that the majority of published writers use the cum spelling in this construction (because they don't know that spelling at all ; most natives Anglophones aren't as knowledgeable about orthography, academia, and Latin roots as most published writers/editors). <S> As regards OP's specific question (can this construction be used of people? ), the answer is it's a complete non-issue. <S> Of course you can. <A> In American English, "brother" is often used as a synonym for "male friend. <S> " If it is intended to make clear that a male is a very close friend but not technically a brother by blood or adoption, a phrase similar to "my friend, who is as close to me as a brother" would be used. <S> The use of "cum," pronounced like the verb "come," in the sense that you are describing is simply not heard in American speech. <S> For example, the common American term is "sofa-bed," not "sofa cum bed" or "sofa come bed." <A> I see no reason why "cum" can't be used for humans, to indicate two separate roles combined in one person: <S> I have a chauffeur cum gardener in my employ. <S> Aside: many place names in the UK use it to indicate two parishes combined as one, such as Shingay-cum-Wendy <S> and it is not always hyphenated. <S> It has the same usage as in the question. <S> Similarly please see the usage in Oxford Dictionaries for "study-cum-bedroom."
| The use of "cum," pronounced "coom," is rare in American English and virtually absent outside academic or quasi-academic discourse.
|
How do I start a sentence with a date? I want to say: August 22, 2012, the day my life changed forever and the day I met you. My only problem is that I don't know how to start a sentence with a date. If someone could help me with this that would be great thanks. <Q> Just add a was or is after the date. <S> Practically speaking, it doesn't really matter which one you use. <S> Either one will work equally fine: <S> August 22 nd , 2012 <S> was the day my life changed forever and the day I met you. <S> The sentence would actually sound a lot smoother if you rewrite it like this: August 22 nd , 2012 is the day <S> when my life changed forever because it was the day when I met you. <S> You can make it even shorter: August 22 nd , 2012 changed my life forever because it was the day I met you. <S> Or shorter still with <S> the day I met you as a parenthetical statement: <S> August 22 nd , <S> 2012—the day I met you—changed my life forever. <A> You could start the sentence with the preposition on <S> On August 22, 2012, my life changed forever when I met you for the first time . <A> Like @Bilkokuya, I too find the current wording is essentially best, I would just change the punctuation slightly (and remove a word). <S> I would switch the first second comma for a colon, and change the word 'and' into an hyphen m-dash (or n-dash if you're a rebel). <S> Spaces should be removed from around your dash (but it looks ugly so be even more rebellious and leave them in if you feel like it). <S> August 22, 2012: the day my life changed forever – the day I met you. <S> As Bilkokuya says 'Any other phrasing makes it sound like a story, and loses the significance.' <A> As others have said, leave the words and change the punctuation. <S> August 22, 2012—the day my life changed forever, the day I met you. <S> But if you need a true sentence (requiring a verb) rather than a phrase, how about, August 22, 2012 was the day my life changed forever—the day I met you. <S> This is perhaps more a style question than a usage one. <S> For me, putting a coordinating conjunction like and before "the day I met you" weakens it compared to the original phrasing. <S> I think there should be a progression "August 22, 2012" [mundane], "the day my life changed forever" [special], and finally "the day I met you" [incomparable]. <S> Note: <S> This answer assumes that the reason your life changed forever on that date <S> was because of meeting this person. <A> You can use several different approaches. <S> (1) You could paraphrase the sentence. <S> (2) You could use a preposition before the date. <S> (3) August 22 nd , 2012, was the day when my life changed forever and the day I met you. <S> 22 nd of August, 2012, changed my life forever because it was then that I met you. <S> On 22 August 2012 my life changed forever because I met you that day. <S> You could use this style guide to help you. <S> You could rephrase it like this: <S> It was the year 2012, the 22 nd of August when my life changed forever because I met you. <A> It depends - most would agree that your sentence is not strictly grammatical with out a main verb. <S> But semantically, the sentence works quite well, and delivers a strong declarative statement about the date as a subject (it's all subject) and its personal importance to the writer. <S> This form, used prudently, is generally acceptable for informal language, and is a matter of style and emphasis, but it is generally unacceptable, for formal use in particular, not to have a main verb. <S> So as a matter of style, it is a dramatic way to introduce a subject. <S> I would point out that the original does not make it clear that the reason the writer's life changed forever on that day is because someone was met on that day. <S> It could just be a coincidence. <S> The meaning is a bit vague or ambiguous in this regard, which isn't a bad thing. <S> The following, somewhat reduced, has a similar feel, is grammatical and perhaps a bit less ambiguous, but is not as dramatic. <S> August 22, 2012, the day I met you, my life changed forever. <S> a version of: The day I met you, August 22, 2012, my life changed forever. <S> a version of: My life changed forever on August 22, 2012, the day I met you. <S> Certainly, August 22, 2012, the day I met you, the day my life changed forever, is a fine way to begin a story about that day. <S> Yes, it presents a grammar issue <S> but it's not serious if it is done intentionally (and infrequently), and there's nothing inherently wrong with ambiguity <S> - these are devices for writers, some things are better left open-ended and then unpacked in the telling of a story.
| You could insert the verb after the date.
|
I don't understand the following sentence of structure He never cared for sleeping, not when there were people he could talk to. In the sentence, after comma, "not when" is to me quite unusual. Would you give me a comment and the other usage? <Q> I don't think the current answers adequately answer the question. <S> There's two parts to this. <S> First, he never cared for sleeping. <S> When doesn't he like to sleep? <S> The answer is "when there are people he could talk to [instead of sleeping]". <S> The idea being shared is that when people are around, he would rather talk to them than to sleep. <S> The "not when" is kind of tying into the "He never". <S> They both refer to the same thing, his dislike of sleep at that moment. <A> Often it is either preceded by " but " or separated by a " comma " from the previous statement. <S> He always goes to the park on weekends, not when there is rain outside though. <S> He always goes to the park on weekends but not when there is rain outside. <S> (" but not " can be replaced with " except " for instance) <S> In your sentence it's a mere emphasis with clarification, the " not when " focuses on the information. <A> It is possible to understand not when... as a refinement of never , a condition placed upon never . <S> It can be repositioned: <S> He never—not when there were people to talk to—cared for sleeping. <S> The <S> not when is connected semantically to the negation of the predicate [cared for sleeping], but is otherwise detached. <S> She never drank soda-pop, not when fruit juice was available. <S> She drank soda-pop sometimes, but only when fruit juice was not available.
| " Not when " creates a contrast to what was said earlier (usually before " but " or with " though "), emphasises or adds clarification to the previous statement .
|
When I decided to stop saying something I cant easily come up with a verbal expression I can use when I decided to stop talking about something because it's a sensitive topic, for example. One expression I can think of is 'I'll stop talking about it here', but it feels somewhat redundant and too much decisive. Another expression is 'I'll save my words', but is it commonly used? <Q> There are many options available to you here, and they often differ in the reasoning for not saying something. <S> I'll bite my tongue <S> This is a colloquialism used when you might have otherwise said something negative or incriminating, normally involving somebody else. <S> It's not my place to say <S> If the thing in question is about somebody else <S> and it's of a personal nature, you might choose this. <S> I'd rather not talk about it <S> You might use this option if the thing involves you or upsets/embarrasses you. <S> Now is not the time to talk about this <S> This one's pretty self-explanatory, and can also imply that this is neither the time nor place to talk about the thing. <S> I don't have [much/anything else] to say about it <S> A straight-forward approach that should help end a discussion. <S> (Anyway,) let's move on <S> To move the conversation forward, and hopefully avoid any discussion at all about it. <S> Again, there are many options available to you depending on context. <A> To add on to Dan's excellent answer: <S> I agree that there are many options, and the nuances of each vary depending on what you want to say. <S> Here are some others: <S> I'll just leave it at that <S> I think I've said enough on that topic (for now). <S> Well, you've heard (enough about) <S> my opinion on the subject. <S> More colloquially: <S> I've blabbered/babbled/prattled/gabbed on long enough. <S> Enough said. <S> (or 'nuff said) <A> If the person you're talking to has seen the movie Forrest Gump , the phrase <S> That's all I have to say about that. <S> will express your reluctance to continue the conversation and possibly produce a laugh depending on how good your Tom Hanks impression is. <A> The following bunch of examples are probably the simplest phrases you can use to let your interlocutor know that you realize you're breaching his or her discussional comfort zone and thus will not continue discussing the issue that makes them feel uncomfortable any further: <S> I see that talking about this makes you feel uncomfortable. <S> Let's just switch the topic. <S> You don't feel comfortable talking about this? <S> Oh, I see. <S> Let's just change the topic. <S> The death of your father is a sensitive topic to you? <S> Then, let's not touch on that. <S> You don't feel comfortable talking about this? <S> Then, let's not touch that subject. <S> I understand that you don't feel comfortable talking about this. <S> Let's move on to something else, shall we?
| I'll just shut up now.
|
Synonym for the word "information" A friend sent me an email telling me about a job opening. I want to send him an email telling him " thank you for the information about the job ", but I feel that the the word "information" is very broad and formal, I want something specific and casual. What one word or phrase can I use to replace information in the bold sentence above? <Q> If this is a useful piece of information about the job offer then " tip " could be helpful: <S> Thank you for the tip. <S> Instead of the word " information " you can say " info " which will sound less formal. <S> Thanks for the info. <S> If it's a reference to a webpage or maybe some other source <S> then the word " link " will be the right one. <S> Thank you for the link. <A> I wouldn't say that the word information sounds formal. <S> Though, I agree with you that it is, in some sense, broad in meaning. <S> It's nevertheless a very basic and everyday word just like many other words in English. <S> So, there's really nothing wrong in using it the way you're using it in your sentence. <S> But if you do insist on sounding a little bit more terse and casual, consider substituting the whole thing with find : <S> Thank you for your find . <S> Thanks for the find . <S> Possibly, a word like tidbit would work even better: Thanks for the tidbit . <A> It depends on what exactly you want to say. <S> As Cookie Monster mentions, Thank you for your find <S> works well. <S> Also: Thank you for the listing. <S> Thank you for the lead. <A> You may want to thank him for contacting you rather than for the information -- that is, the communication is more important than the data. <S> So you can choose from many synonyms for the communication itself and the act of communicating: contact, notice, notification, note, message, email, reaching out, letting me know, telling me, and so on. <S> For example: Thank you for letting me know about the job. <S> or Thank you for your message about the job <A> The sentence could be structured as: <S> "Thank you for the particulars." <S> According to Dictionary.com (definition 11), the word means: particular (noun) usually particulars . <S> specific points, details, or circumstances : to give an investigator the particulars of a case . <A> You can always look up the word in a good thesaurus . <S> My recommendations, though not a native speaker, are info tip <S> notice <S> guidance news <S> update guessing from the context.
| You can even use word particulars (that is, the details).
|
baby or a baby? I'm wondering whether the following sentences strike you as odd, with baby in its bare form: Taking care of baby doesn't mean having to sacrifice one's social life. Taking care of baby can be a challenging task. I'd appreciate your help. <Q> but increasingly marketing and self-help information targeted at parents use the word as if it were a proper name,, which does not require an article: <S> We know that you want the best for baby... <S> There is even a book called "Taking care of baby" If you don't want your sentence to sound like oily marketing speak, I recommend the use of an article "a baby" or a possessive pronoun "your baby". <A> I'm wondering whether this strikes you as odd, with baby in its bare form <S> : Taking care of baby can be a challenging task. <S> It strikes me as unusual , but not necessarily as odd . <S> That is, I wouldn't expect to see it often, but I'm not bothered when I do run across it. <S> More importantly, though, I'd want to know more about the context where I heard it. <S> If it was found in a self-help parenting book, such as What to Expect the First Year , published in 2009: <S> And listening to what baby tells you not only makes your job easier <S> (you can provide what baby wants promptly, rather than figuring it out through trial, error, and tears)... <S> then I would not bat an eye, because I'm well aware that this convention has been used in literature for quite some time – like in this magazine ad from 1920: <S> However, if I was at my neighbor's house, and her baby started crying, and she said: Listen to that fuss! <S> I wonder what baby wants . <S> then I might find that a little unusual, <S> because mothers more typically say, "my baby", "the baby", or use the baby's name: Listen to that fuss! <S> I wonder what Samantha wants . <A> Mother/Mama/Mom and Father/Papa/Dad and even Baby are terms of address which get used as quasi-generic nouns because of the normalcy and near ubiquity of the so-called "nuclear" family pattern. <S> Where's Mother? <S> --She's in the nursery, giving baby a bath. <S> It is often recommended to allow baby to cry himself or herself to sleep. <S> We'd like to welcome all of you first-time parents to this class on taking care of baby. <S> Taking care of baby is an old construction, not something to be attributed to recent ad-speak. <S> It's attested in the mid 19th century. <S> It happens in other contexts too. <S> What gift should we give Coach at the awards banquet? <S> When nurse comes, tell her that doctor said your incision could do with a fresh bandage. <S> This phenomenon is related to role nouns. <A> In addition to JavaLatte's answer I wish to add that to speak about general stuff we use the plural and this isn't an exception here either: <S> Taking care of babies can be a challenging task. <S> - To speak about babies in general, any baby. <S> In most cases I personally would prefer to include the article: <S> Taking care of a baby can be a challenging task. <S> Otherwise, we can rephrase it a little to turn it into a compound noun for instance: <S> Baby care can be a challenging task. <S> without the article <S> " Taking care of baby " sounds more like a headline, a title to an article for instance. <S> "Feeding and taking care of baby" by Loving Mommy. <S> Notice that without the article the word " baby " can go with compound nouns - parts of baby,or related to him, or belonging to him. <S> Taking care of baby skin. <S> Taking care of baby teeth and gums.
| It is certainly normal to use an article with baby .
|
Pig meat or Pork I work in a, seemingly, international organization where English is the preferred language - however most employees do not have English as their native tongue. We have a lot of customers within the field of agriculture and in a report I saw someone had written something like: Pig meat or Producers of pig meat. Would this be a correct phrase? The report has existed for many years with this “naming”. I would however think that the correct term to use would be Pork or Producers of pork I am thinking that no one has corrected it because it is not their native language or because maybe they just don’t really care. Am I wrong here? Is ‘pig meat’ a correct term? <Q> Pork is pig meat meant for consumption . <S> Pork is food. <S> Meat is generally a substance/material. <S> Most of meat from a pig is pork, but if you find inedible or otherwise unsuited for consumption parts of pig, that are still meat, you'd call them pig meat, but not pork. <S> I don't know enough of pig anatomy or butcher's craft to give specific examples of what parts of pig carcass are discarded, but these could count among pig meat that is not pork. <S> I guess you could also find pork referred to as pig meat - in contexts where it's not meant as food. <S> Say, target of ballistic tests of ammo, or test material in chemical tests - someone buys 10kg of pork shoulder, packs it tightly into a block, shoots a 9x22mm round from a pistol at it, and reports "depth of penetration in a block of pig meat." <A> Pig meat is not incorrect , but it's dispreferred and sounds very unusual. <A> The term 'pig meat' occurs in many legal contexts in documents connected with the agricultural, food safety and animal welfare policies of the European Union. <S> In that technical context it is not dispreferred. <S> Outside that context its use would be considered bizarre.
| Pork is a natural and common way to describe the meat that comes from pigs.
|
Single word for a person who always follows their own principles I need a positive word to describe a person who usually sets a lot of rules for himself and also for others and always adheres to his rigid principles. For example, a man who is always punctual, keeps promises, avoids what he thinks they are hamful to his health, so on. <Q> What is wrong with principled ? <S> principled ( adj ) of a person or their behavior acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong <A> A stickler is a person who insists on behaving a certain way (usually adherent to a fixed principle or set of principles). <S> Definition: <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stickler noun <S> A person who insists on a certain quality or type of behaviour. <S> ‘he's a stickler for accuracy’ ‘ <S> I'm a stickler when it comes to timekeeping’ <S> So you can say (for example): "He's a stickler for punctuality." <S> and so on. <A> I'd call such a man disciplined (or self-disciplined if I wanted to point out that they're setting the rules for themselves). <A> "Rigid principles" might convey some negative connotations about the person to which "perfectionist" might be a suitable description, but we are asked for a positive word. <S> I suggest "conscientious": SOED: "habitually governed by a sense of duty; scrupulous."
| Scrupulous is also a good word to point out their strict adherence to rules.
|
"Not funny 'ha-ha'", what does Siri mean? When I say to Siri, the virtual assistant from Apple, "Ok, Google," or "Hey Cortana," Siri replies: Very funny. I mean, not funny "ha-ha", but funny. I don't know how I should interpret this sentence. From what I understand, Siri found my remark "funny", although it wasn't funny in the sense that it makes one laugh aloud. I'm thinking of a few interpretations that seem possible: It isn't funny in the sense of "causing someone to laugh", but it has good, more subtle and refined humour. It's funny. It doesn't make me laugh though. I'm saying this ironically. It's naturally funny and doesn't require any artificial laughter to be made. I'm pretty sure Siri doesn't like me talking to her like this, so I feel the second should be the closest, but I'm at a loss for precise interpretation.Dictionaries at hand don't list any specific idiom for "ha-ha." What does this sentence mean? Also, is this an idiom that has specific meaning (rather than rhetorical invention that should be understood from context)? <Q> The two meanings of 'funny' when spoken by humans are traditionally summarised as "funny ha ha" - makes you laugh - and "funny peculiar" - as in "the milk tastes funny. <S> You'd better not drink it". <A> In context, Siri is saying that you've made a joke but (s)he's not amused by it, in the same general way that a human would respond if you called them by the name of a similar-looking person. <S> It's quite a nuanced sentence though, so native English speakers would interpret it in a variety of ways (with the common element being that it's not worthy of laughter). <A> I think there is a more shaded meaning to the response than "not funny" or pure sarcasm. <S> The response "very funny" is a normal response to a joke question or statement. <S> In your case, saying "Hi Cortana" is clearly intended as a joke, and Siri correctly responds (sarcastically) "very funny". <S> Let me give an example. <S> Sometimes I will notice it is raining and say to my wife: <S> Are you going to hang the washing out? <S> (joke question) <S> Her response: <S> Very funny! <S> The answer therefore acknowledges a (lame) attempt at humour. <S> We both know that the question was not intended literally, and that the answer therefore is not intended literally either. <S> So, when you address Siri as Cortana her response of "very funny" is acknowledging your joking with her, and then she goes on to explain "not funny ha-ha" because Siri doesn't really do inflections, and without that explanation you might think Siri genuinely thought the remark was actually funny. <A> A web search finds that this is the answer that Siri gave to someone saying "Okay Google" instead of "Hey Siri". <S> If Siri was a human, saying this would be a rather unfunny attempt to say something funny; a human would be insulted by being addressed by the wrong name. <S> Especially that name. <S> And the answer is what a human might say. <S> "Not funny. <S> Ha ha." would be telling the other person that their attempt at being funny failed miserably.
| It isn't really sarcasm as such, it is "I acknowledge your attempt at humour".
|
apply or be applied? If I'm talking about a promotional offer that one can take advantage of more than once within a given period, should I say "The offer can apply multiple times" or "The offer can be applied multiple times"? Is there anything unusual about "can apply multiple times"?I've found a few Google hits like the following: Select this check box if the offer can apply multiple times . This is normally used for duration discounts when the contract says that for each block of 7 nights the customer gets one free. http://downloads.dolphind.com/training/traininglibrarybmm/Product Database User Guide - Land.pdf The promotional offer cannot be used cumulatively with customer conditions. Only one offer can apply . The offer will not apply or be extended outside of the promotional date or uplift date ranges. http://www.sustaingain.co.nz/Content/PhaSedNQST&Cs.pdf These come from a British and a New Zealand business, respectively. Could this be a British thing, given that New Zealand is a member of the British Commonwealth? I'd appreciate your help. <Q> The phrase "the offer can apply multiple times", when googled in quotation marks, is found only in one document on the web (the one you linked to), and in your questions that you have posted here and also on wordreference forums. <S> You should never base yourself on something coming up in only one document, especially when it is supposed to describe something that happens thousands of times every day all over the internet (offers being made). <S> Whoever wrote that document might not have been a professional writer, could be a non-native speaker, etc. <S> Native speakers that told you that they wouldn't use the active version are counfused by the addition of "multiple times". <S> What they are thinking of is the phrase "the coupon (or promotion code) can be applied multiple times" (which is what people have also told you on wordreference). <S> Native users, if they are not professional linguists or editors, can also become confused about things and use a word that is wrong in a particular context. <S> An offer is a single situation provided by a company. <S> A company decides, "We'll give you a 10% discount if you enter the promotion code FRIEND10. <S> You can use this code multiple times from next Monday to next Friday." <S> This is all one single offer. <S> The buyer doesn't apply the offer. <S> S/he is making use of one offer by applying a promotion code. <S> In cases where "an offer applies", we are not talking about the act of a user/buyer making use of it. <S> E. g. <S> an offer can be characterized by a certain duration (as in the phrase "The offer will not apply or be extended outside of the promotional date") which you've quoted. <S> It is another way of saying the offer will not be valid. <S> It is a characteristic/rule given by those who provide the offer (the company), not by those who make use of it. <S> This is why the phrase "the offer can be applied multiple times" is not correct. <A> Now, after sticking to my guns with correct language use based of semantics, I need to make a caveat. <S> I found an example of a certainly native-English-speaking corporation that uses the phrase "an offer can be applied" (though only once). <S> It happens to be Amazon in its how-to for promotional codes . <S> Note that when the process is described, the how-to shows where to enter a promotional code (not offer) and then click "apply. <S> " You can't enter an offer into a field. <S> The phrase in question (the questionable phrase) appears further down amidst a whole lot of legalese. <S> The thing is, the document specifically defines, for the purposes of the document, what the word "offer" will mean for the purposes of this particular document , and it's one heck of a intricate ball of attributes: "promotional claim code offer." <S> And where the "offer is applied", it is an example of catachresis , that is, a semantic error. <S> It can be used by native speakers, sometimes as high literature—there it would be a deliberate "skewing" of the language landscape for poetic purposes, like the example in the Wikipedia article, " <S> Mow the beard, Shave the grass." <S> This is not a reason, however, to expect a phrase like "My wife wants me to mow my beard" to be okayed for everyday use. <S> Which is why answers both on wordreference and here were suggesting to substitute something else either for "offer" ("promo code"), or for "applied" ("be used"). <S> The correct semantics of this, I have detailed in the discussion to my previous answer . <S> An important factor in what to use in a language is established usage. <S> Established usage is that it's the promo codes and the discounts that are "applied", overwhelmingly. <S> The possibility of buying something with such a discount is an offer by a company, which is a meta-term, and it would be a semantic/stylistical mistake to use it metonymically . <S> The correct usage would be "This 20% sale is a nice offer by this company. <S> You can take advantage of it by using a promo code. <S> You apply it in your shopping cart when checking out". <S> Awkward language happens to all native speakers, especially when an intersection of legal matters and software use is involved. <A> Let's use rule instead of "offer". <S> This rule applies on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. <S> This rule can be applied only on weekends. <S> In the intransitive version, "this rule applies", there is no agent applying the rule. <S> With the transitive version, "can be applied", there's an implicit agent who applies the rule. <S> You apply this rule on weekends. <S> The same thing can be stated using the verb intransitively or transitively. <S> When transitive, it is a passive (or quasi-passive) construction. <S> The rule is applicable. <S> P.S. <S> As is shown in this example , offer applies is standard disclaimer-speak. <S> The thing that's giving your native speakers of AmE pause here is the modal can apply . <S> can apply is not disclaimer-speak (in a disclaimer something either applies or it does not apply). <S> So can apply must default to general-speak, and it refers to how the offer can be used , that is, to how the customer can use the offer, and so the passive form would be preferred: can be applied [by the customer]
| The phrase "this offer applies" describes some rules of the offer, provides its characteristics.
|
Asking people if they'd like to try a question. Would it be correct to say, "Any take on this question?", when I ask any maths question in a group of people? Also, any alternatives to it? The reason I am unsure of this usage is that according to Cambridge Dicitionary , take on something means: to fight or compete against someone or something <Q> You are confusing two similar but different idioms. "have a take on (something)" and "to take on (something)" <S> Have a take on (something) <S> Here, "take" is a noun and this expression means to have an opinion or impression about something. <S> E.g. do you have a take on why John's been acting strangely lately? <S> To take on (something) <S> Here, "take on" is a verb and means to attempt or to fight/compete against. <S> E.g. Do any of you want to take on the math problem I've written on the board? <A> A "take on" <S> something can also mean an interpretation of it, eg <S> "That's my take on it, at least". <S> See the Noun section here : <S> (Noun)1.1 A particular version of or approach to something. ‘his own whimsical take on life’ With this usage <S> , you could say "Any takes (note plural) on this question?", which is a contracted version of "Are there any takes on this question?". <S> However, it would be more idiomatic to say "Does anyone have a take on this?" , which means "Would anyone here like to share their interpretation of this? <S> " <S> I'm not sure if this is appropriate: it depends on how ambiguous the question is. <S> If you were to ask a question whose meaning is obvious, it's not really appropriate to ask people for their "interpretation" of it: <S> you just want them to proceed with the obvious interpretation and solve it. <S> In that case you would not necessarily be asking them to solve it, you might just be asking them to reformulate the question in a more clear way. <A> 'Take' means much the same as 'opinions' in that sentence. <S> It is functioning as a noun while the 'on' is a preposition connected to the verb 'have' in the implied words "Does anyone have ..." <S> In contrast, the dictionary entry quoted is the definition of the phrasal verb, 'to take on'. <S> Can anyone tell me the correct term/expression where I wrote connected to ? <A> In addition to Max Williams' dictionary reference, here is how a university professor of architecture defines the phrase in his blog (under an entry for "The Concept"): "Having ‘a take on’ something means having a position on it." <S> Whether one agrees with this definition or not, it shows that the phrase is in use across multiple disciplines. <S> The important thing when teaching math in a collaborative group setting is to vary the questions you ask your students so the questions don't become repetitive or boring. <S> Students often find "word problems" in math particularly challenging, and teaching them the patterns found within the problems by asking the following and similar questions helps them to cut through irrelevant aspects and find how to express and solve them mathematically. <S> Alternatives to and variations on "Any take on this question?" might include some of the following: Does anyone want to talk through how to solve this question? <S> How can we express this question in mathematical terms? <S> What math issues does this question present? <S> Are there aspects of this question that do not relate to a mathematical solution? <S> Is this question similar to others we have examined before? <S> If so, how did we solve them? <S> ... <S> and so forth.
| However, if a question is ambiguous then it can be interpreted, or approached, in different ways, and in this instance you could ask people for their "take" on it.
|
Do Trespassing and No trespassing mean the same thing? The meanings of Exit and NO Exi t or Entry and NO Entry are naturally opposite. When I see an [Entry] sign, it means ' enter here' . When I see a [No Entry] sign, it means 'do not enter '. In this respect, considering the definition of trespassing, what would a [No trespassing] sign mean? Could it mean *free to enter? (No - No entry without permission?) No Entry means the contrary of Entry . No Trespassing shall therefore means the contrary of Trespassing ? How could appearance defy logic? Are we putting the car before the horse? In order to trespass, someone first needs to enter without permission. If there already were a no trespassing sign before someone had even been entering, could the absence of trespassing be interpreted as a green light? <Q> Trespass : to enter the owner's land or property without permission. <S> No Trespassing <S> : Do not enter the owner's land or property without permission. <S> They are contradictory as trespassing is essentially meaning go on a land that isn't yours without your permission , while no trespassing means DON'T go on that land that isn't yours <A> , no trespassing means Do not enter without permission . <S> I don't think I've ever seen a sign encouraging trespassing as it wouldn't make sense - <S> to encourage it would be to give permission, so it would no longer be trespassing! <A> You are correct that a sign saying "Enter" gives permission to enter. <S> You are also correct that "trespass" means "enter without permission. <S> Thus a sign that said "Trespassing" would be self-contradictory because it would be giving permission to enter without permission. <S> You are also correct that a sign saying "No Exit" denies permission to exit. <S> So a sign saying "No Trespassing" denies permission to enter without permission. <S> It may be redundant, but it is not contradictory. <S> It means "Keep Out."
| A "No Trespassing" sign means exactly what it suggests: If to trespass is to enter without permission
|
Have existed vs. To have existed I want to know that: does the perfect tense function it proper usage when it preceded by “to” infinitive. I was taught that we couldn’t put “ago” with present perfect. So, I came across a sentence such as the following: These lions seem to have existed 70 years ago Isn’t the same as?: These lions have existed 70 years ago. incorrect Warning: Cambridge Dictionary We normally use ago with the past simple. We don’t use it with the present perfect: I received his letter four days ago. Not: I have received his letter four days ago. Incorrect The source Luskin’s team found that there are now only two habitats with viable populations, down from the 12 thought to have existed 70 years ago . <Q> "seem to have existed" has nothing to do with the present perfect. <S> The sentence: <S> These lions seem to have existed 70 years ago <S> is equivalent to: <S> It appears that / Apparently these lions existed 70 years ago. <S> Other examples: <S> He must have arrived yesterday. <S> (I conclude/infer that he arrived yesterday.) <S> He happens to <S> have arrived earlier than expected. <S> (It turns out that he arrived earlier than expected.) <S> As you can see, the perfect infinitive accompanies modals or expressions that can indicate the speaker's current attitude or view in regard to a past event, and this enables the perfect infinitive to take past adverbials. <A> I will try to explain this to myself, and maybe it will make sense to you :) With the present perfect, the temporal origo is the speaker's Now , and we cannot use ago with the present perfect, because ago excludes The Now. <S> However, with the present perfect infinitive, the origo is free-floating (the infinitive being non-finite): it can be projected into the future or into the past: To have existed in a world without elephants may well be the fate of people living only 50 years from now. <S> The Yeti is believed to have sent telegrams to Sasquatch 100 years ago. <A> These lions seem to have existed 70 years ago The perfect infinitive is formed with to have + the -ed form of a verb: to have existed . <S> The perfect infinitive is used after another verb: seem in your first example. <S> Or, as in the source: <S> Luskin’s <S> team found that there are now only two habitats with viable populations, down from the 12 thought to have existed 70 years ago. <S> The verb here is thought , followed by the perfect infinitive, and thought is the past simple that you see with ago . <S> This phrase has a relatively complex construction, with multiple components and verb conjugations: <S> Luskin's team found / (that) <S> there are now only two habitats with viable populations, / down from the 12 thought + to have existed 70 years ago. <S> The first clause/phrase has the simple past found , the second has <S> the present are and the third has the simple past <S> thought with the perfect infinitive to have existed . <S> If it helps, the sentence could be rewritten as: <S> Luskin's team found that there are now only two habitats with viable populations. <S> Luskin's team thinks that 70 years ago there were 12 habitats with viable populations.
| The perfect infinitive (formed by "(to) have + past participle") refers to the past and can thus take any adverbial typical of the past tense.
|
Present perfect or past simple when it is used with time adverb I'm not a native speaker so to understand the difference between past simple and present perfect is giving me a headache sometimes. I have learned, that when it is used in a sentence a time adverb describing a past event, I need to use present simple. But a few days ago I heard on the TV the following sentence: It is better than what you have done previously. But I would use: It is better than what you did previously. Because previously, yesterday, last week - all of these adverbs are set the story into the past. At least to me. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. <Q> There is a small difference between using the simple present and present perfect in cases like those. <S> The difference is that simple present may have more specificity than present perfect. <S> It is better than what you did previously. <S> This might seem to imply that "what you did" comprised a single event. <S> It is better than what you have done previously. <S> This can open the scope a little, and may refer to multiple events. <S> Note that the distinction here is small, and in actual usage either could be used to suggest a single event or multiple events. <S> Also be aware that a more specific time adverb ( yesterday , last Monday ) likewise narrows the scope. <A> Present Simple is used when something is set at a specific point in the past. <S> E. g., <S> I have read this book <S> means that I have this experience of reading this book <S> , it is now part of my intellectual "luggage". <S> But whether I read it last week or 10 years ago is not essential. <S> Since "previously" is not about a specific time, this is why Present Perfect is used. <A> The time expression in a present perfect construction must not exclude the present. <S> With previously there is an implicit reference to the present: what has happened previously happened before now .
| Present Perfect is about something that happened in the past—no matter when exactly—and is a fact now because of that.
|
Meaning of the phrase "go from" in context I have come across it in Crash Course Astronomy, episod 11[ https://youtu.be/w-9gDALvMF4][1] The sentence is at the beginning of the video. The Earth went from being our unique planet in the universe to one of many such well... planets. I have checked all the meanings of the word "go", but still have a hard time understanding the sentence. <Q> Only in this case, the place that has been changed is in our head—our view of the importance that the Earth occupied. <S> It used to be that we didn't know how many planets existed, so Earth was #1. <S> It now went (in our mind) from the #1 position to the #19484575620457...... position. <S> (Of course, there is no such ranking, but you get the point.) <S> З унікальної вона стала однією <S> з багатьох. <A> "Go", as you already know, means to change location. " <S> To go from here to there" means that an entity moves from his current position or place of stay("here") to "there". <S> The speaker of the given sentence says that the Earth has moved from it's position of being a unique planet in the universe to not being unique anymore due to the fact that scientists have discovered many other Earth-like planets. <S> Earth-like in the sense that the other planets may also support life or have oxygen or water and so on. <A> In terms of its meaning, here's what the sentence in question is saying: <S> It was once thought that the Earth was the center of our entire world (that's why it was considered unique). <S> But as time went by and scientific progress marched on, scientists like Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and many other great people like them proved that not only was the Earth not the the center of our solar system, but it was also not the center of the universe at large. <S> So, as it turned out, Earth was just a regular planet no different from other celestial bodies out there. <S> That's how it went from being a unique thing in the entire universe to something that's very minuscule in its significance and not unique at all. <S> The expression to go from something to something else itself means to go from one state to another or to go from one extreme to the other . <S> Initially, you are one thing, but as time goes on and things change, you become something completely different from or even the opposite of what you originally were. <S> The following example will show you how you can use this phrase in a sentence: <S> In one year, she went from waitressing to earning millions of dollars as YouTube's most popular video blogger. <S> That's quite a transformation!
| It is a metaphorical use of normal "go", which means change places, go from here to there .
|
Is it possible to form possessive just changing the order? I saw this two examples: The emperor of China and China's emperor . Is it possible to say: "China emperor" without the apostrophe? I saw some examples in ficcion books, like: The England's king emissary . I would think of The England's king's emissary . Understood. So, in this instance, Life force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_force Is the idea different if it were stated force of life or life's force ? <Q> To answer your main question, no. <S> " <S> As for your example, The England's king emissary , I can't imagine it's valid grammar. <S> This phrase strikes me as odd due to "The England's" -- it could be "England's", "English", or maybe even " <S> The English's", but to put the article "the" in front of "England" makes little sense. <S> Apart from that, " king emissary " could be a specific title given to the king's emissary, like how the English refer to the "queen mother" instead of the "queen's mother" . <S> Except for established titles like that, an apostrophe is required. <A> If somebody said to me "China emperor", I would visualise a ceramic statue of an emperor. <S> That's only because china has more than one meaning and, without any context, the wrong meaning seems more probable. <S> It is possible to refer to a group of people who represent a country by the name of he country, for example you can talk about England, in the context of football, to mean the England football team. <S> In the same context, you can say "the England manager" to mean the manager of the England football team. <S> This usage is not a possessive: it is a compound noun made up of England (meaning the group of people who represent England in football) and manager. <S> In the context of football, "the China manager" might be understood, but some people might still interpret this as another ceramic statue. <S> In a compound noun, the final noun is the main one and the preceding nouns act in an adjectival role. <S> In the case of China, it would make more sense to use the appropriate real adjective Chinese, giving "the Chinese emperor". <S> Again, this is not a possessive. <S> The England's king emissary. <S> This sounds like something that you might see in subtitles for a bootleg Asian copy of a DVD. <S> Can you provide a link to it? <S> The nearest grammatical phrase would be The English King's emissary. <S> Moving on to "life force", this is a compound noun like "England manager". <S> Again, it is not a possessive. <A> No, "China emperor" is not correct. <S> Yes, there is a difference in meaning between your examples about life force. <S> Life's force: <S> Force belonging to or possessed by lifeForce of life: Force related to, pertaining to, or associated with life (not necessarily belonging to life)Life force: <S> A noun that in the Wikipedia example refers to a specific concept. <S> In another context, this could also mean "force that gives life".
| China emperor" is not grammatical; it has to be "China's emperor", with the apostrophe.
|
What do you call someone who attends the same university as you? Can I call that person a schoolmate ? Or is that a wrong word because a school isn't a university? In that case, is it common to call that person a university mate? <Q> In the US at least, this person would be a fellow student , a friend from college or a friend (or acquaintance) from school. <S> Personally I've never heard "university mate." <S> Also I've never seen or heard "an university" anything. <S> It would be "a university" something. <S> Because "university" starts with a Y sound, a consonant in this case. <S> A "classmate" is only for a student who's sitting in the same class with you. <S> I haven't heard "schoolmate" <S> but I don't know why. <A> A person who attends the same college or university as you, from a more technical perspective, should probably be called your collegemate ( college is more or less a general term for an institution of higher education, at least, in North America) rather than your schoolmate, but I wouldn't say that this term is common enough that you will ever hear someone actually say it in real life. <S> Though, technically speaking, it does exist in English. <S> The word classmate , on the other hand, would be a term that's used to refer to someone from your class regardless of the kind of educational institution that you're attending. <S> It can be a high school, college or university. <S> Your classmates are simply people who are in the same class as you. <A> A few comments from the UK. " <S> An university" used to be current 200 years ago. <S> See for example Google ngrams. <S> Also I recall seeing more than once (but cannot now trace a reference) <S> the definite article being used at about that time, as if there were only one university. <S> (There had been two in England for centuries). <S> "Uni" is now very commonly used in spoken BrE but is newish. <S> The older informal term abbreviated the word from the other end: Varsity. <S> So, for an older generation: the answer would have been "a Varsity friend". <S> In formal BrE, "at college" is potentially confusing because there are lots of colleges in the UK that are not universities - and there used to be many more that have now become universities, and some of them were previously known as "university colleges". <S> The AmE use of school to mean university is also confusing for us. <S> And all the more confusing for everyone is that both 'college' and 'school' are used in BrE to refer to aspects of universities. <S> When I was an undergraduate I was a member of a college which was not in itself the university, and I am now associated with the School of Mathematics and Statistics in a British university, but that school is likewise not a university in itself. <S> What this all adds up to is that there seems not to be a single word answer in BrE. <S> I personally would use "fellow student". <A> Since nearly every university in the U.S. has a school nickname, it's very common and well understood to call other students by the nickname. <S> This reference would cover students attending as well as alumni. <S> For example, if you and your friend go to the University of Georgia, you could say, "Michelle is a Bulldog too." <S> We went to the pre-party and the bar was full of Bulldogs. <A> I've never heard the term schoolmate. <S> I've heard classmate, but that is specifically for someone in the same course as you. <S> Where I grew up (near San Diego), we would generally refer to other students at our same school as peers . <S> Since peer is a very general term, you could also qualify it, like school peers or class peers. <A> In Germany we have a special word for that "Kommilitone", opposed to "Mitschüler" what means schoolmate, or "Klassenkammerad" what would be "classmate" <S> so let's see what auto-translate-tools get for that... <S> so I'd say "fellow student" seems the most correct choice, even though it's not "a single word" <A> Yes, schoolmate is perfectly acceptable. <S> At least in AmE, where school is used interchangeably with college or university in informal speech. <S> In BE, it seems like it would not normally be used this way as school is normally not used beyond secondary education. <S> schoolmate noun 1. <S> a companion or associate at school. <A> A classmate. <S> As noted in some other answers (which specifically disagree with using this term in this way), using the term "classmate" can be a bit controversial. <S> If you are in at least one class as the person, then the term is applicable. <S> In saying this, I am using the word "class" as meaning a group of people who meet at the same time, under one instructor. <S> However, even if I have someone who started at the same time as me, and graduated at the same time as me, we could still be classmates. <S> For instance, a person born around 1977 may have graduated high school around 1996, and was part of the "class of '96". <S> (Likewise, then, those who got a bachelor's degree four years later would be the "class of 2000".) <S> If I wanted to refer to such a person, I would feel right in saying that we were in the same "class", since the word "class" has multiple meanings. <S> Note that if the person is one grade ahead or behind you, you may still attend college at the same time, while not being in the same class. <S> So this term would only apply to some of your co-students. <A> " fellow student " is what I hear most often and probably the most common term. <S> One could possibly think up " co-student " but it's not a real word.
| More realistically, you would probably just say something like people who go to the same university as you or people who study at the same university as you or simply fellow students from my university . I've definitely never heard anyone use it.
|
does stutter only refer to speech? Can an action be stuttered? Or is it only referring to talking only? I see in the dictionary that it means to speak in such a way that the rhythm is interrupted by repetitions. What if an action is interrupted by repetitions? would that also be considered stutter? <Q> I think that the Cambridge Dictionary provides the best response to this question. <S> They provide two distinct meanings: the first relates to speech, and the second is to work or happen in a way that is not smooth or regular <S> Regarding the sentence in your comment to Lars Mekes' answer: He stuttered the ball, that's why they lost. <S> - incorrect <S> This doesn't work for two reasons. <S> First, when stutter is applied to a person, the first meaning would take precedence. <S> Second, the ball is the object of the verb stutter : if you check the dictionary, stutter is intransitive, and so it cannot take an object. <S> Nor could you say "the ball stuttered", because a ball cannot "work or happen". <A> Stutter is not restricted to speech. <S> It can also be used to indicate a series of short, sharp sounds or a progress that is not going smoothly. <A> "Herky jerky" is the informal phrase used to indicate start and stop actions. <S> Haltingly would be the adverb most like stutter. <S> "He haltingly threw the ball around." <A> Hm. <S> You can use stuttering to refer to actions other than speech, but there's always an implicit analogy to speech lurking in the connotations. <S> One wouldn't say "He stuttered the ball". <S> That sounds really strange because stuttered doesn't take an object -- it refers reflexively to its own subject. <S> Some of the other suggestions here work so well because they are referring to sounds, so the phrase "the engine stuttered to life" tells us that it banged and clattered and almost describes the vocalizations of a living creature. <S> If you search the internet for the phrase "stuttered across" you'll find that most of the times that phrase is used, the author is referring to sounds, breaths, exhalations, vocalizations, or at least is metaphorically describing an inanimate thing as though it is alive. <A> The most common variants I've encountered are "stuttering steps" in literature and the related "stutter step" movement as a tactic: Merriam-Webster Stutter Step . <S> I've also seen machines described as moving in "stuttering jerks", using the definition that Dr. Gary posted from Merriam-Webster.
| While stutter can be used to refer to non-speech actions, it is uncommon in my experience.
|
"the problem was my nerves" or "the problem were my nerves"? They tried anti-acids, also anxiety drugs in case the problem was my nerves. In the end, they sent me home since my life wasn’t in danger. Should it be was or were and why? I tried using Google but I couldn't get an answer. <Q> If you were to reverse the sentence, making "my nerves" the subject and "the problem" the predicative complement, then you would use "were": "My nerves were the problem." <S> (In your example, you use the term "anti-acids". <S> I would instead say "antacids".) <A> It should definitely be was because the subject of the clause <S> the problem was my nerves , which is the problem , is a singular thing. <S> And if the subject is singular, the main verb of the sentence or clause should match the subject in number. <S> It's the subject that dictates whether the main verb takes on a singular or plural form and not the object. <S> And it's never the other way around. <S> It's simple as that. <S> For example: I won't be able to go out tonight. <S> The problem is my parents. <S> They're not gonna let me leave the house. <S> In this sentence, the subject is the problem , the verb is is and the object is my parents . <S> Since the subject is singular, the verb must agree with the subject in number. <S> That's why it's is . <S> The object has no say here whatsoever. <A> A sentence in the form "A is B" is a copular sentence, and sometimes it is possible invert a copular sentence to give "B is A" with the same meaning. <S> This process is called copular inversion <S> In this example "The problem is my nerves" can be treated as the inversion of "My nerves are the problem" <S> The verb should normally agree with the subject, and so the inversion has a different verb form.
| The correct choice is: "The problem was my nerves." The verb should agree with the subject of the sentence, which is singular: "the problem".
|
Do you wash windows, or clean them, or both? my main question is what is the correct verb to precede the noun "windows" to indicate removal of dirt, etc. The reason I ask is that despite being an English teacher I'm also Dutch, and sometimes I can't tell for certain if something "sounds right" because of my Dutch or because of my English. I had "to wash the windows" in a test, and a pupil asked if it shouldn't be "to clean the windows". I couldn't explain and really have no idea where to look for these kinds of usages. <Q> After reading the other answers/comments, it seems like the preferred verb is a regional thing. <S> J. Taylor commented that it's "do windows" in American English - but, where I've lived in America, I've never heard that phrase. <S> (For what it's worth, it's usually "wash" in the western US.) <S> Either "wash" or "clean" is valid as a verb here, and, for all intents and purposes, they mean the same thing. <S> So, this might not be the best question for an English test. <S> (; <S> For true window-washing enthusiasts, image searching on US-based Google reveals the most common uses of these phrases: "window washer" -> a profession <S> "window cleaner" -> <S> a cleaning product "window wiper" -> <S> a squeegee <A> I had "to wash the windows" in a test, and a pupil asked if it shouldn't be "to clean the windows". <S> I couldn't explain and really have no idea where to look for these kinds of usages. <S> Sorry <S> but I think the kid is right :) <S> I think this is probably the right place to look. <S> In England we have a profession called "window cleaners". <S> Therefore clean the windows is used. <S> We also use "wipe" the windows due to the action of wiping or windscreen wipers. <S> I wash the dog, I wash the car. <S> But I don't hose down the windows, I make them clean. <S> When I shop I look for a window cleaning brush or a squeegee (like a hand held wiper blade). <S> And yes, oddly, squeegee is used too. <A> As a native speaker of American English either sounds fine to me, although there is a subtle difference in meaning: <S> washing implies cleaning with water .
| Wash is usually used in a more encompassing sense.
|
Do native speakers say 'get on' instead of 'continue'? Today I was talking about something important with our manager, but then another guy came and interrupted our conversation. As soon as that guy finished talking and went away, I said 'Let's continue' to the manager, and he chuckled a bit. Then I realised that I must have said something awkward. As far as I can remember, I've never heard any native speaker say 'Let's continue'. It seems that they say 'let's get on...' or something. So how do native speakers say 'continue'? Is it really 'get on', or is there any other expression? Could you show me some examples? <Q> I don’t think “let’s continue” is grammatically wrong; it just sounds overly formal in everyday conversations. <S> I would recommend one of these alternatives: <S> So, where were we? <S> To continue what I was saying... <S> Picking up where I left off... <S> Before we got interrupted, I was saying... <S> As for saying “get on,” if you were telling me something, and we got interrupted, I might tell you, “Go on.” <S> Two things about this: It’s go on , not get on <S> It’s <S> not usually the speaker who says this, but the listener You can say, “Let’s get on with this,” but, as one person mentioned, that suggests some annoyance, frustration, or a desire to hurry. <A> If a discussion is proceeding slowly someone might say "we must get on", or if dissatisfied with someone else's progress you might say "get on with it!". <S> In the circumstances described, I would say "Let's carry on" or even, "Let's carry on where we left off." <S> I don't see what was wrong with "Let's continue" by the way. <S> Maybe you made it sound pompous. <A> I'd definitely say "let's continue with the conversation", but I'm a bit on the formal side at work. <S> I'd not say it while drinking beer with friends after work...
| As a native speaker (BrE), I do think that "get on" has some sense of continue but with an added sense of urgency.
|
What does "sweeping drive" mean in this context? . . .and a few moments later, with a great lurch, the long procession of carriages was rumbling and splashing its way up the track toward Hogwarts Castle. Through the gates, flanked with statues of winged boars, and up the sweeping drive the carriages trundled, swaying dangerously in what was fast becoming a gale. Harry potter and the Goblet of Fire What's the meaning of "sweeping drive" here? If the original sentence is "the carriages trundled up the sweeping drive,"(am I right?) is drive like a road or something? And I don't know what sweeping means here either. <Q> The 'drive' referred to here is a driveway in US English. <S> It is the road that typically leads to the entry of a building. <S> In this context, the drive is the road (or pathway for the carriages) leading to the door of Hogwarts Castle from the gates of the castle. <S> 'Sweeping' in this context refers to large and continuous - both in size, as well as having a large radius. <S> When used like this, it is used to convey the impression of grandeur. <A> "Drive" in this sense means a private road connecting the main building on a property to the public road. <S> eg a mansion, through a scenic or decorated landscape on a large piece of property. <S> Many such drives end in a carriage sweep that allowed horse drawn carriages a graceful and easy way to change direction and exit after entering. <S> EDIT: <S> As always in defining words or phrases, I should specify that I am not qualified to discuss nuances in British English. <S> I tried in my topic sentence to indicate the denotative meaning being used: a private road joining the public road and the main building. <S> In the US, such a road if short may occasionally be referred to as a "drive" but will typically be referred to as a "drive way" with "drive" being reserved for an unusually long such road. <S> Apparently usage is different in the UK. <S> However, in the passage quoted by the OP, the idea of a substantial road in a pleasing landscape on private property is what is meant, not a slab of concrete 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. <A> It means it's not straight. <S> sweeping <S> adjective <S> | sweep·ing | <S> \ ˈswē-piŋ <S> \ 1 : <S> moving or extending in a wide curve or over a wide area <S> a sweeping driveway – MW "up the sweeping drive the carriages trundled, swaying dangerously" <S> They're swaying dangerously because the driver has to turn the carriage to follow the curvature of the sweeping driveway. <S> Here's a "cleaned up version" of Hogwarts showing a drive with gentle curves, originally drawn supposedly by the author herself. <S> ( source )
| It usually is used with reference to a road leading to a large structure, "Sweeping" here implies "gracefully impressive" and easily traveled.
|
Does the phrase breaking out mean taking out and ate? Having missed breakfast we turned eagerly to lunch,breaking out peanut butter sandwiches, apples, and cookies. There are two phrases I don't understand clearly. (1) Does the phrase breaking out mean taking out and ate? (2) What does the phrase turned to lunch mean? Does it mean we ran to the cafeteria, we started our lunch time or we took out the lunch box? Could you help me clarify it? Thanks. <Q> to break out (v): 7. <S> To present something for use, especially something that had been stored out of sight or concealed. <S> By itself it doesn't mean "to eat", and it doesn't have to be used only for food: <S> We walked all day, following the map to where the treasure was hid. <S> Arriving at the spot, we broke out the shovels and picks and proceeded to dig. <S> Similarly, "turn to" has multiple meanings. <S> In this case, the closest is: turn to (v): 4. <S> To devote or apply someone or something to someone or something. <S> In this context it's short for "turn our attention to", meaning we focused on eating lunch. <S> Again, nothing in the verb explains how we got lunch, only that lunch was the objective. <A> To break out food items means to take them out of their storage places and containers to make them available to be eaten. <S> turned to lunch means "turned [our focus, our attention] to lunch" <A> In your example breaking out means " to bring out " <S> , it is more animated than " unpackage " or " unwrap " but does not mean " to eat ", which colloquially might be expressed as wolf down <S> we broke out the sandwiches and <S> wolfed them down . <S> Having missed breakfast, you turned eagerly to lunch <S> means you're " looking forward " to the next upcoming thing, as in our attention turned to the next event <S> we turned to the next page of the story
| In this context "break out" means to take out the food that had been stored somewhere (presumably in lunch boxes or come other container).
|
When is "Next Saturday"? When people say "Next Saturday", do they mean the Saturday that will come in 1 day? Or do they mean the Saturday that will come in 8 days? Is this the same rule if I say "Next Week"? <Q> It usually is the Saturday that falls on the coming week. <S> " I'll see you next Saturday " <S> This means that the speaker intends to meet the listener on the Saturday, in the next week. <S> If he had wanted to convey to the listener that he wanted to meet the latter on the Saturday of the same week, he would've said: " <S> I'll see you on Saturday " or <S> " I'll see you <S> this Saturday " <S> Although the first sentence could invoke a question " Which Saturday? ", the speaker could clarify that he wanted to meet him on the coming Saturday. <A> It wouldn't usually be within one day, because if it's Friday, you would usually say "tomorrow," instead. <S> If you're talking about a Saturday that is more than seven days away (with another Saturday in between), you would usually say "a week from Saturday" or "two weeks from Saturday," up to about three weeks. <S> Beyond three weeks away, you would probably give a specific calendar date: <S> Saturday, May 19. <S> Of course, people get confused about time when they're speaking, and it never hurts to verify. <S> Because the standard work week is Monday through Friday for most people, when they say "next week," they usually mean in the next Monday to Friday time range after the current one. <S> People who don't work standard work weeks just adapt their understanding to that, too. <S> If people mean a Saturday or Sunday "next week," they'll usually specify. " <S> Saturday, next week" might mean the same thing as "a week from Saturday" in some contexts, but it's more confusing. <A> "The following Saturday" is the phrase that best describes the second coming Saturday (i.e., the second Saturday from today). <S> "Next Saturday" is short for "the next Saturday" which means exactly what it sounds like... <S> the very next Saturday which is coming up. <S> " <S> Next" is what causes all the problems, of course, because one can argue that it means not this Saturday coming but the next one after that. <S> It is such an equivocal term that it really shouldn't be used at all. <S> It's better if one intends to specify the upcoming Saturday, he/she just says "this Saturday". <S> Edit: <S> Next week means not this week, but the next. <S> In the same vein as what I mentioned above, it means the very next week that is coming up. <S> Just like if it was Saturday and you were to say "next Saturday", we are in this week, and next week will be... <S> well, next.
| Next Saturday typically means the next Saturday that occurs, within two to seven days. "Next week" doesn't mean the same thing at all.
|
difference between annoyance and anger (other than intensity) In the OALD article "annoyance" the following sample sentence is given: His behaviour caused great annoyance to his colleagues. In the same article, the meaning of annoyance is defined as "the feeling of being slightly angry" . Following this definition, great annoyance is simply anger . So, why to speak of "great annoyance" instead of His behaviour caused (great) anger to his colleagues. What are the stylistic and semantic differences between the two sample sentences above? <Q> Being annoyed is different from being angry . <S> If I am angry at someone, I might yell at them. <S> If I am annoyed, I might just roll my eyes and shake my head. <S> If I am greatly annoyed, I might exaggerate the eye-rolling and head-shaking, but it's still not the same as being angry . <S> Naturally this depends on context and personality. <S> There are people who yell even when they are only annoyed . <S> There are people who don't yell even when they are furious . <S> In addition, "annoyed" can be a diplomatic substitute for "anger". <S> In a professional environment it is often inappropriate to be or act <S> angry , so instead we use "annoyed" (or "upset") to downplay <S> the severity of the emotion. <S> HR Rep : <S> Ted, we've called this meeting because we were told you got a little <S> annoyed with your boss the other day. <S> Ted : <S> Yes, I was a little upset. <S> HR Rep : <S> Well, your coworkers said you were screaming and running around the office, yelling out some very rude words to describe your boss. <S> Ted : <S> OK, I guess I was more than a little upset. <S> For this reason we can only guess what "great annoyance" actually means . <S> More context is needed to understand what actions resulted from the annoyance of his colleagues. <S> Only then we can tell whether the author is downplaying a more serious emotion (like anger), or if it means the colleagues simply rolled their eyes and shook their heads frequently and intensely . <A> The annoyance is a stimulus , but anger is a response . <S> Even if it’s largely involuntary ... <S> It is a somewhat hair-splitting distinction, but it might help to think of annoyance as an irritation (i.e. an itch ), and anger as a scratch , or at least as the urge to scratch . <S> We have been irritated . <S> We are itchy . <S> Now, someone punches you in the face, you're angry . <A> We can find something or someone annoying or an annoyance. <S> The thing or person irritates or bothers us. <S> We can turn our back on an annoyance, so to speak. <S> Anger, on the other hand, is usually directed at a thing or person that has provoked us. <S> Annoyance can transition to anger. <S> For example, when you keep kicking the back of the seat of the person in front of you at the movies, you are annoying them. <S> At some point, that person may turn around and look at you and express their anger at having been annoyed for too long. <S> There is such a thing as "righteous anger", but there is no such thing as "righteous annoyance".
| To respond to your comment: yes, we can say annoyed to mean that something has annoyed us.
|
Which sentence is “however” contrasting in this context? Now research shows the night is getting even brighter. From 2012 to 2016 the earth's artificially lit area expanded by an estimated 2.2 percent a year (map), according to a study published last November in Science Advances. Even that increase may understate the problem, however . The measurement excludes light from most of the energy-efficient LED lamps that have been replacing sodium-vapor technology in cities all over the world, says lead study author Christopher Kyba, a postdoctoral researcher at the German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam. I can’t find any sentence that is in contrast with the sentence attached with however ? <Q> If this is the beginning of the article, then a few introductory sentences along the following lines are omitted: Artificial lighting is a problem that we would like to alleviate. <S> We cannot address this problem without accurately measuring it. <S> Studies have been performed to quantify the effect. <S> Therefore, "however" refers to the contrast between the accurate evaluation that we hope for and the underestimation that results from omitting light from certain energy-efficient LED lamps, as explained in the rest of the paragraph. <A> Research shows the night is getting brighter. <S> However, the 2.2% annual increase in brightness between 2012 and 2016, as presented by a recent study, may understate the problem. <S> The contrast is between the stated rate and the actual rate of increase. <A> If you like "rules", you will find some editors who have a rule that a sentence may not begin with "however." <S> Such editors would always replace "Today was hot. <S> However, the sun was not shining" with "Today was hot. <S> The sun, however, was not shining. <S> " <S> The reason for the 'rule' is that if you are telling a complicated story you may find yourself beginning every alternate sentence after the first with " <S> However,". " <S> A. However, B. C. <S> However, D" and so on. <S> The point of the word "however" is to contrast a point about to be made with one that was made immediately previously. <S> In the example quoted the "however" signals the point that 2.2% might be an understatement. <S> Not as a point of grammar, I would want to know, however, why 2.2% is necessarily bad. <S> Bare figures like that prove nothing.
| "However" here refers to certain unspoken assumptions that the author is expecting the reader to understand.
|
An adjective for an event that happened in a night dream Provided that the noun "dream" may mean both images and emotions occurring during sleep and imaginative thoughts indulged in while awake, what adjective would unambiguously modify an event that took place in a night dream ? For example, last night I saw a dream where I was drinking Vodka and playing backgammon with Boris Yeltsin at my kitchen table. How can this game (or any other event such as encouter, wedding, fight, etc.) be modified in a sigle collocation of an adjective and a noun? Such adjectives I could think of as dreamful (full of dreams), dreamlike (resembling a dream), dreamed (imagined or hoped for) definitely don't match the idea, Since in Russian (my native language) there is no adjective for this, and the idea is usually expressed by what may be translated into English as "the game from the dream", I wonder if there's one in English. In addition, the example sentence might read something like this: After sending you the message where I had told you about my [ the requested adjective ] encounter with Boris Yeltsin at the buss stop, next time I saw him in my dream was at a mobile juice-bar—he was sipping tomato juice from a schooner. <Q> We do say things like "dreamed of X" or "the X dreamed of": <S> The dreamed of stranger was walking a rabbit on a leash. <S> The stranger dreamed of was walking a rabbit on a leash. <S> in an attempt to focus on the element of the dream, excluding the dreamer. <S> It would be more natural to say: <S> The stranger [I, he, she] dreamed of was walking a rabbit on a leash. <A> The problem with your question is that, because dreams are so pervasive in human experience, there is no word that refers to actual dreams which is not also a common metaphor. <S> Even other uses of "dream", as in: I dream of living in a big house one day are still figurative references to what you call "night dreaming", as if you were visioning this experience in a dream. <S> In the same way, what we term a "nightmare" (negative dream) is used figuratively to describe real-world situations that have the (sometimes exaggerated) quality of being caught in a terrifying dream. <S> The storm came in suddenly during the wedding reception, scattering the decorations, the table settings, and the food, and soaking the guests. <S> It was a nightmare . <S> As userr2684291's comment mentions. <S> there is a rare word oneiric derived from the ancient Greek oneiros (ὄνειρος) meaning "dream", that may work for your purpose. <S> However the words commonly associated with this deal with the mystical interpretation of dreams (e.g. oneiromancy ) and so using a word like oneiric might imply you are talking about the significance of the dream, rather than the dream itself. <A> Tricky! - as 'dream' does encompass both sleeping and waking visions. <S> You could use something to show that you were 'ready for bed' in your vision, which will work as long as you made some earlier mention of dreaming while asleep. <S> We will then assume you mean you were really dreaming. <S> In which case you might describe your - encounter as: pyjama-clad soporific ('sleepy') <S> night-time REM-induced. <S> (This perhaps does capture 'real' sleep only - as that's <S> when REM (random eye movements) are (by most people) perceived to happen <S> nightmare <S> (if it was a scary dream, only) somnambulant (sleep-walking) could be used if you humourously want to obliquely suggest you could have actually bumped into Boris at the bus-stop. <S> In that case, you deliberately blur lines of reality and dream - suggesting 'it seemed so real!' <S> But - we know you are really dreaming because you must be asleep to be 'somnambulant' or 'sleep walking'. <S> Example:"After sending you the message where I had told you about my somnambulant encounter with Boris Yeltsin at the bus stop <S> , next time I saw him in my dream, was at a mobile juice-bar — he was sipping tomato juice from a schooner." <S> If you don't want to joke about sleep-walking, then I suggest 'soporific'. <S> Note: <S> dreamed - is ok - <S> it means you dreamed it. <S> dream encounter - could mean it was something you 'wished for' or 'desired' or 'dreamed of' - rather than being asleep <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/somnambulant
| There is no one-word adjective that means "in my dream" or "in his|her dream" or even "occurring in a dream".
|
How many pieces of garlic? How much garlic? uncountable noun I learned that we should say How much gravel do you have now? since "gravel" is an uncountable noun, but it's also okay to say How many pieces of gravel do you have now? Then, how about garlic, which is another uncountable noun?I know I can say two cloves of garlic,but what should I say if it's a whole piece of garlic? How much garlic do you want? How many pieces of garlic do you want? Are both okay? <Q> Hence, How much garlic do you want? <S> How many heads of garlic do you want? <A> “Garlic” is an uncountable noun. <S> So you should say "How much garlic do you want?" <S> , not "How many garlic(s) do you want?" <S> The whole garlic consisting of cloves is called a “head” or “bulb”. <S> So you can also say: How many heads/bulbs of garlic do you want? <S> How many cloves of garlic do you want? <A> Garlic is a bulb, and referred to as such. <S> When shopping you can ask for "three bulbs of garlic". <S> You can also say "garlic head" or "head of garlic". <S> For example, "Wrap each garlic head in foil and roast for 30 minutes". <A> A garlic bulb (or head ) is made up of multiple cloves . <S> Most recipes call for one or more cloves of garlic, but you typically buy garlic by the head or bulb . <S> So - I may buy three heads of garlic, and use four cloves from one head in a recipe. <A> Not all English speakers agree on whether "one piece of garlic" means a clove or a head. <S> That's the real problem here. <S> You can observe this cultural disagreement playing out in some of the other answers. <S> Your question: "How many pieces of garlic?" is technically a correctly-formed English sentence, but is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. <S> It is best to always ask "How many cloves?" <S> or "How many heads?" to avoid the ambiguity. <A> ... <S> but it's also okay to say How many pieces of gravel do you have now? <S> Yes and no. <S> You wouldn't say that to someone who just had a load of gravel delivered, you'd stick to "how much gravel" (and they'd probably reply with X number of tons or loads or bags or similar); "how many pieces" would be unanswerable. <S> But if you were asking about the number of pieces of gravel someone had in their hand, for instance, it would be fine. <S> Then, how about garlic, which is another uncountable noun? <S> I know I can say two cloves of garlic, but what should I say if it's a whole piece of garlic? <S> The "whole piece" of garlic is called a "head" or "bulb," so you'd use one of those terms instead of "piece," which could be ambiguous. <S> This will be situation-dependent. <S> If you're going the shopping and are asking how much garlic someone wants you to buy, you'd ask "how much" or "how many heads/bulbs" because you're not going to closely examine each head as you buy it to try to figure out how many cloves it has in it. <S> But if you're helping someone cook and they ask you to peel the garlic for the recipe, you'd probably ask "how much" or <S> "how many cloves" they want you to peel (and even if you ask "how much," they'll likely answer in cloves).
| A "whole piece" of garlic is called a head of garlic .
|
"extremely harder" vs "extremely more hard"? Is there a good grammatical reason that my English-as-my-first-language ears finds this sentence incorrect: I find listening to French extremely harder than reading French. but this sentence correct: I find listening to French extremely more hard than reading French. ? (I'm assuming other native speakers of English would hear the correctness of each sentence similarly to me. It also interests me that "I find listening to French worryingly harder than reading French" sounds okay to me). <Q> I don't think that there is any real difference between extremely harder and extremely more . <S> In both cases, you are combining a non- gradeable adverb with a comparative. <S> The real solution is to use a gradeable adverb like much ... and because it's gradeable, you can apply futher adverbs like very to emphasize your point <A> I don't think the reason is purely a grammatical one. <S> For one, sentences don't sound right when the other version is more widespread. <S> Then there's semantics. <S> The word "extreme" has a sense of absoluteness, superlativeness, and "adj. <S> + er" is a comparative form, so there is a contradiction here right off the bat. <S> This is why "worryingly harder" sounds OK—there is no superlative sense here to clash with the comparative form. <S> But then the question is, why does the second version (with "more hard") sound acceptable? <S> This is an actual phenomenon that gets discussed by linguists in my language—there will be differences of degree of meaning depending on whether the analytical or the synthetical form is used. <S> (Both of my native languages also have both an analytical and a synthetical form for the comparative/superlative form of adjectives.) <S> A synthetical form has a more "concentrated" meaning; in an analytical form, it becomes a bit "diluted". <S> And then it simply comes down to the feeling that a competent speaker would have about one form or another, because there is no, um, mathematically stringent logic to why one would be different from the other. <S> They are both comparative. <S> But, since the comparativeness hasn't vanished, you are really better off without the word "extremely". <S> If you want to show just how much harder it is for you to listen than to read French, expand your sentence and say, "it just kills me", or "drives me crazy", or something. <S> Finally, by way of a general observation (on the basis of my native language/s), no, you should not expect that your feeling of correctness will always coincide with another native speaker's feeling of correctness. <S> Editors fight over word and syntax choices all the time. <A> You can say 'extremely hard' or 'much harder' - <S> but you can't mix the two into 'extremely harder'! <S> Why? <S> ~ <S> whereas 'extremely' suggests that you - reached the limit - reached <S> the extreme - hit the wall - and... stopped . <S> So that's why they sound wierd or wrong when mixed together <S> - it's the conflict between movement and the movement is over which sounds incongruent. <S> Both of your sentences are grammatically incorrect by the way, in my view, but you might hear the second one in spoken language. <S> Correct examples could be: "I find listening to French much harder than reading French." <S> "I find listening to French extremely hard, compared to reading French." <S> Note:In the second example, I added 'compared to' to replace the 'than', so that we could use your 'extremely' without having to use the (incorrect) 'harder'. <S> As 'harder' is a word that already carries the meaning of comparison (in the 'er' - which means 'getting more so') - without the 'er' we are missing that element, and so need to then say explicitly that comparison is going on. <S> The reason why 'worryingly harder' works - is because they are both going on - both <S> 'worrying' and 'harder' carry a sense of movement - so there is no conflict there!
| Because 'harder' has a sense of movement - the hardness is increasing I think that this is because the analytical form (two words instead of modifying one word with a suffix) mitigates the sense of comparativeness.
|
What does "like few others" mean? I don't really know about the meaning of "like few others" in the first sentence: AMP is an organisation like few others . We enjoy a culture that recognises individuality yet encourages collaboration, giving real meaning to our work and making a difference to our people and our customers. And there's the second sentence I saw online: This was some beautiful morning and what a job they’ve done, like few others have been able to do. Comparing these two sentences, I don't know if the use of this phrase are the same. Please teach me if you know anything about it. <Q> Literally, this phrase means "unusual," since "like few others" is logically the same as "unlike most others." <S> That is, the person or thing you are talking about is not similar in some way to the other people or things that are in the same category. <S> In addition to that literal meaning, the phrase like few others is almost always used in a positive sense. <S> So your example: ... <S> what a job they’ve done, like few others have been able to do. <S> can be read to mean the same as: ... <S> they have done a better job than most other people could do. <A> When X is like few others , it usually means X is among an exclusive or difficult-to-achieve upper rank of something. <S> The two examples you provide are the same. <S> The first is being used in a corporate marketing sense, so AMP may in fact be like a lot of other organizations, but the text is trying to entice potential candidates with flowery language. <A> Consider this comparison <S> : He is a mountain-climber like few others. <S> He does not use bottled oxygen. <S> others there refers to other mountain climbers . <S> He is being compared to other mountain climbers. <S> There are not many mountain climbers who forego bottled oxygen, at least when climbing very high mountains. <S> He is not like most climbers. <S> He is like few climbers. <S> Now consider this comparison <S> : It was a clear morning, and what a climb he made — like few others would have been able to do. <S> His climb and the climbs of other climbers are being compared. <S> His climb was like the climbs of few others: "a climb ... like [the climbs] (that) few others <S> [that is, few other climbers] would have been able to do." <A> Few others are like it. <S> Not many others are like it. <S> There are not many others like it. <S> It is unusual.
| Not only is this person or thing unlike most others, they are also better in some way than most others.
|
Must Have with probable condition Can we use the must have with ' I guess ' for the past actions? Example: I guess you must have watched that video twice. Is ' I guess ' valid here or should we replace it with ' I believe '?. <Q> Yes, it's perfectly normal to use "I guess" with "must have". <S> The former indicates that you are expressing a loosely-held personal opinion ("to form an opinion of from little or no evidence" according to Merriam-Webster ): <S> the latter indicates that the opinion concerns something that, based on the available evidence (which may be scant, especially if used with "I guess"), probably happened in the past. <S> “ <S> This his day off?” <S> “No. <S> I guess he must have called in sick or something.” <S> Fair Game- <S> B.W. Battin <S> I guess is informal US english: You could also use I suppose , which is common in British and American english. <S> I believe is also possible, but it sounds quite formal in both American and British english. <S> This NGRAM shows the relative frequencies of use. <A> The only thing to worry about is what exactly you're trying to say with that statement. <S> We use the construction must have when we have a pretty strong reason or evidence to believe that something is true, but we're not one hundred percent sure whether it's actually true. <S> For instance: It's funny that you remember so much. <S> Ha ha. <S> I guess you must have watched that stupid video twice. <S> Here, the fact that the person I'm talking to remembers so much from the video suggests that they might have watched the video not just once, but twice. <S> Although we're not one hundred percent sure whether that's true, what we can gather from the available evidence allows us to come up with a pretty good guess that it may in fact be true that they watched the video not just one time, but two times. <S> So, I guess , in this particular case, actually sounds like a better choice of words than I believe . <S> I believe is very similar to the expression <S> I think , to the point that in everyday conversation they can be sometimes used interchangeably. <S> When you say that you think or believe that something is true, it's not a wild guess. <S> Quite the contrary, there is an element of certainty in what you're saying. <S> That's why I believe wouldn't work as well as <S> I guess in this situation. <S> To sum things up, a lot depends on context. <S> The devil is in the details, as they say. <S> You just always need to be a little bit more precise with whatever it is that you're trying to say. <A> You must have put the papers elsewhere. <S> - probably you put them elsewhere. <S> I guess that you put the papers elsewhere. <S> - I think that it is possible that you put the papers elsewhere. <S> Whereas: <S> My guess is (I guess) you must have put the papers elsewhere. <S> - you probably put the papers elsewhere <S> and I think it is possible that it is true.
| You can certainly say I guess in this situation. Using " I guess " implies a certain percentage of possibility whereupon with " must have " it refers to the possibility of a probability.
|
Can uneasy be used as a mixture of awkward and difficult? Imagine you're reading a book about something you don't understand much, like Latin or organic chemistry. Now imagine the text of the book itself is pretty clear but there are huge Latin quotes/chemistry equation in between sentences, which mean you're always looking for the next bit of text and you have trouble getting in the flow. You could say that this book is a somewhat difficult read, or an awkward read (I think you could say that at least). Could say that this book is an uneasy read? I know this isn't the normal meaning of uneasy, but would it work? <Q> No, you can't: uneasy <S> does not mean the opposite of easy . <S> According to the Oxford Dictionary , there are two meanings: Causing or feeling anxiety; troubled or uncomfortable. <S> (of a situation or relationship) not settled; liable to change. <S> The first definition does mention causing , but the main use is feeling , so a person might feel uneasy while reading the book, but you would only describe a thing as uneasy if it's obviously something that might cause unease, for example "an uneasy silence". <S> You couldn't really apply it to a book, though. <S> The meaning itself is not quite right, too: <S> reading a ghost story might make you feel uneasy, but not a maths book. <S> The maths book might, however, be difficult, demanding, or taxing. <S> difficult : <S> Needing much effort or skill to accomplish, deal with, or understand. <S> demanding : (of a task) requiring much skill or effort. <S> taxing : <S> Physically or mentally demanding. <A> No, "uneasy" is not a synonym of difficult. <S> The dictionaries I have checked give definitions related to discomfort or anxiety. <S> For example, the Oxford Dictionary Online offers Causing or feeling anxiety; troubled or uncomfortable. <S> (of a situation or relationship) not settled; liable to change. <S> As a Southeastern US native speaker, I would understand what you mean, but consider your word choice incorrect. <A> You can , but it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. <S> An <S> Reading a book that goes into explicit detail about war crimes, for example, would make most readers uneasy and reluctant to keep reading. <S> On the other hand, most people would not feel the same way reading a textbook, no matter how difficult the subject -- but it's not impossible .
| uneasy read is a book that gives you feelings of unease , meaning it makes you feel anxious , uncomfortable , disturbed , or even nauseated .
|
Which one makes sense? I want to tell someone that I have a feeling that started as of the beginning of February and I still have it, so which one is correct and why. I was having this feeling from/since the very first day of February I have been having this feeling from/since the very first day of February <Q> I was having is rather ungrammatical with since (which calls for a perfect tense), and I have been having <S> implies a repeated action (or, in other words, that you have had this feeling multiple, separate times). <S> Since you want to say that the feeling has consistently been with you from February, it's better to use Present Perfect Simple. <A> The first reads a little awkwardly because was having is completely in the past, and you say that you still have it . <S> The second is grammatically fine, but just doesn't sound like conversational English; it sounds like something one might say to one's doctor ¹ to describe a pain one's been having . <S> The other reason it doesn't quite work for the context you describe, is that the have been having this feeling suggests a repeated event. <S> Otherwise one would usually just say I have had this feeling since… <S> or I have been feeling like this ² since… <S> or simply <S> I have felt like this ³ since… <S> As such I would suggest using one of these three; I posted the first but on reflection the third one seems more concise. <S> ¹ Anecdotal evidence, from me. <S> ² <S> Present perfect continuous from English Grammar <S> Today <S> (Cambridge): <S> We use the present perfect continuous for a single activity that began at a point in the past and is still continuing but please do read the whole page (this can also used for repeated events). <S> ³ <S> Present <S> perfect simple from same source: <S> We use the present perfect simple to refer to events in the past but which connect to the present <A> 1) I was having this feeling as of the first day in February [or first of February] <S> but now I don't have it anymore . <S> 2) <S> I've been having this feeling as of the first day in February and still have it . <S> [focus on the fact this is not necessarily continuous from the time it began and the present; it could be off and on starting in the past and continuing. <S> Is that clearly expressed? ] <S> 3) <S> I've had this feeling since the first of February <S> and it just will not go away. <S> [focus on the fact it started in the past and it still there. <S> It is not off and on over that time and now.] <S> 2 and 3 are correct. <S> The differences in meaning between 2 and 3 a tricky but true.
| I'd say: I've had this feeling since the very first day of February. With from it makes some sense, but isn't what you want to say; since is appropriate for something that is still going on.
|
What is the use on rather in the following sentence "This is a rather old house? I came across a following sentence: "This is a rather old house". I could not visualise what "rather" is doing to the entire sentence. Is it just as equivalent as "This is an old house" or does rather adds different meaning to the entire sentence? Is it used as adverb, here rather is not a comparison I think. Rather, is it added to say "too old" or "not too old"? <Q> According to Collins Dictionary, we use rather to indicate that something is true to a fairly great extent , especially when we are talking about something unpleasant or undesirable. <S> Here are some examples: <S> I'm afraid it's rather a long story. <S> He's rather an unpleasant man. <S> That's rather a difficult book - here's an easier one for you. <S> It is a rather grey, colourless city, with few interesting sights or historical monuments. <S> Note that with a/an we usually use rather a <S> /an + adjective + noun , but we can also use a rather + adjective + noun (like in your sentence <S> This is a rather old house ). <S> So, This is a rather old house <S> means <S> This house is quite old or This house is pretty old . <S> If you say This is a rather old house <S> , you sound less straightforward than if you say <S> This is an old house . <A> Rather, quite, pretty, jolly and <S> what are all adjectives of indiection that are important to master if you want to sound proper. <S> In British English, politeness is expressed by being as indirect as possible. <S> At it's extreme, all other speach is dropped leaving just these adjectives. <S> E.g. the singular response: "Quite." <S> Encompasses the full character of the speaker and his/her opinions on the matter. <S> If greater force is intended, then this can be detected by a slight raising of an eyebrow in the speaker's shadow. <S> More seriously these words are hard to understand if you don't know the speaker, social environment or wider context of the statement. <S> It can either be an intensifier or a diminuitive. <S> If I want to express an opinion but worry that it might offend (and talking about age is a sure one), I would use "quite", "rather" or "somewhat" to take the edge off it. <S> If I wanted to give praise, but was of the type to rarely do so, I would use "quite" or "rather" and those that knew me would understand that greater force is intended than if I'd left it off. <S> Inflection can also help a great deal. <A> So, a rather old house is not as old as an old house, while a very old house is older than an old house. <S> As Enguroo points out, people often use rather in this sense to equivocate a bit (especially the British). <S> A rather interesting book is a book that one wants to avoid saying is simply interesting, so as to avoid stating a position of complete disagreement with someone who finds the book boring. <S> Consider these two conversations, between persons A and B: <S> A. <S> I found that book interesting. <S> B. <S> I found it boring, actually. <S> In this case, A can only agree to disagree, or reverse his position. <S> Now: A. I found that book rather interesting. <S> B. <S> I found it boring, actually. <S> A. <S> Well, of course it has its boring moments. <S> Here, the fact that A found the book only rather interesting means that he didn't find it entirely interesting. <S> He has room to suggest that he shares some part of B's boredom.
| Rather is often used -- as it is in your sentence -- to diminish, qualify or moderate the strength of a statement.
|
How do we address our hair - it or them? So i was talking to a friend and had to mention that this is the first time I have let my hair grow so long and going to cut them/it in summer. What is the correct(grammatically) way to describe the above sentence? <Q> Always refer someone's hair, in its totality, as a single unit. <S> I had my hair cut. <S> It was too long. <S> My hair is getting long. <S> I should have it cut. <S> I had my hairs cut. <S> No <S> My hairs are getting long. <S> No <S> Your hairs are blonde. <S> Refer to a subset of someone's hair as hairs, a hair, or as hair. <S> A hair got in her eye. <S> (just one) <S> Some hairs got in her eye. <S> (many) <S> Her hair got in her eyes. <S> (an unspecified amount of hair) <S> The stylist had to go back and cut a few hairs he missed the first time. <S> I have a hair that grows faster and is longer than the rest of my hair. <S> You have some blonde hairs in your mustache. <S> Also acceptable <S> -- You have blonde hair in your mustache (means the same thing). <A> Your hair is long means all or many of them are long. <S> In the same way you are getting all or many of them cut. <S> A haircut means having some or all cut just enough to suit the needs of fashion. <S> When telling someone you had a haircut they may attempt a joke by asking "Which one?". <S> The context will usually make it clear that you are concerned with one or the headful of hair. <A> The ambiguity is caused by the fact that hair is the word for the singular strand of hair and also for many strands of hair referred to as a group. <S> Although the second case may seem like a plural, in both cases you are actually referring to a single unit, a strand or a group, so it is most appropriate.
| Never refer to someone's hair, in its totality, in the plural.
|
Difference between May Have and May Be Which one is better and correct answer for below question?Can we use May have for current possibilities? Que : Where is your boss ? Ans 1 : He may have left for the day. Ans 2 : He may be left for the day. <Q> May have + past participle refers to something that happened in the past: <S> may be refers to something that is happening now. <S> He may have left for the day - past <S> He may be in his office - present <S> Note that maybe (without the space) can be used to intruduce doubt into a sentence. <S> It as an adverb, so it can be used in three positions: <S> He went out for lunch <S> Maye <S> he went out for lunch <S> He maybe went out for lunch. <S> He went out for lunch, maybe. <S> left for the day <S> has a lasting effect, so you can't just use simple past: you have to use present perfect <S> Maybe he has left for the day <A> "He may be left" is ungrammatical. <S> Your first sentence, "he may have left," is the correct way to word this. <S> You're exactly right that we can use "may have" to describe current possibilities, but the most important part is that "to be left" is just not said that way. " <S> He may be gone" is a more grammatical phrasing with a similar meaning, though I would still prefer "he may have left." <A> Q: <S> Where is your boss? <S> A1: <S> He may have left for the day. <S> This response does answer the question. <S> The "have left" is an active voice and perfect aspect construction. <S> The subject represents a semantic agent or actor , even if the action itself is only hypothetical or proposed. <S> A2: <S> He may be left for the day. <S> This response does not answer the question. <S> Or, perhaps it does, <S> but if it does it offers a completely different kind of answer. <S> The "be left" is a passive voice and indefinite aspect construction. <S> In the passive voice, the subject does not represent an actor or agent. <S> In this sentence, no actor appears. <S> The subject represents a semantic patient . <S> He didn't leave. <S> Someone left him. <S> Without further context, the fact that someone left him tells us nothing about his location. <S> With the right context, it might imply that he will remain here for the rest of the day. <S> Perhaps his chauffeur left him, and that chauffeur won't return until the end of the workday. <S> A3: <S> He may be gone for the day. <S> This response does answer the question, simply and directly. <S> The structures of A2 and A3 seem to be the same, but the verbs involved behave differently. <S> The verb "to leave" is transitive -- so strongly transitive that it always implies a patient. <S> The verb "to go" is intransitive. <S> It doesn't imply a patient. <S> It doesn't accept a patient as a direct object. <S> The subject remains the actor , even in a passive voice construction. <S> There is a world of difference between "He may have left" and "He may be left". <S> In all of these cases, "may" indicates a current possibility. <S> He may have left for the day. <S> It is currently possible that he has left for the day. <S> He may be left for the day. <S> It is currently possible that someone has left him for the day. <S> He may have gone for the day. <S> It is currently possible that he has gone for the day. <S> He may be gone for the day. <S> It is currently possible that he is gone for the day -- that he went somewhere else for the day, or that someone has taken him from here for the day.
| There is very little difference between "He may have gone" and "He may be gone".
|
Usage of 'the most important being...' Paper is made from many materials, the most important being trees. It is from my TOEFL preparation book and I know what it means throughout seeing the translation in my language. But I don't understand that why it put 'being' after adjective which is important. I think that the meaning of sentence should be: Paper is made from many materials and the important thing is trees. not: Being trees is important material for making paper. Do you understand my question? Please help. <Q> Paper is made from many materials, <S> the most important being trees. <S> You're right about this: I think that the meaning of sentence should be 'paper is made from many materials and the important thing is trees.' <S> But you're wrong about this: <S> I don't understand that why it put 'being' after adjective which is important. <S> Here, the most important is a noun phrase even without any noun in it, and the noun phrase acts as the subject of the participial clause "the most important being trees." <A> Paper is made from many materials, the most important being trees. <S> Above sentences are linked. <S> First one says that paper are made from more than one material. <S> So there should be multiple sources.(usually two or more). <S> From that set of materials, Trees are the mostly used, often used material. <S> in the sentence, <S> If you say, paper is made from many materials and the important thing is trees. <S> It means paper id made from few materials and trees are important for some related reason. <A> You are very close with this: paper is made from many materials and the important thing is trees To improve: paper is made from many materials and the most important [material] is being trees <S> Present continuous is used because the action in not only generic, but it is still true while speaking. <S> After we lose is , we get the original sentence. <S> It can work <S> equally well reversed (with slightly modified grammar): <S> paper is made from many materials, trees being the most important [material] <S> As to the why of this, maybe a better prepared friend can help.
| most important being trees , means, From the each material that can be used to make paper, Trees are the most common and widely used material.
|
Can commas be left out? In the following sentence, can commas be left out? Latin, still taught in many parts of the world, is a dead language. <Q> It would become a run on sentence by combining too many verbs. <S> I'd reform the sentence rather than just dropping the commas. <S> Something like "Latin is a dead language but is still taught in many schools." <S> Commas should be thought of as breaks in speech. <S> If you read your sentence aloud, only stopping for punctuation, then you can get a better sense of where you should be putting periods and commas. <A> You shouldn't leave out the commas. <S> It would make the sentence harder to understand. <S> The phrase "still taught ..." is an addition. <S> You should separate it from the rest of of the sentence. <S> In speech you would use intonation to separate the phrase. <A> Imagine reading the following in a monotone - with no pauses: <S> Latin still taught in many parts of the world is a dead language. <S> Try reading it aloud now. <S> How does it sound? <S> Isn't it hard to understand? <S> Don't you wonder "what is 'Latin still taught'? <S> " <S> How easy is it to discern the relative clauses? <S> What are the clauses? <S> Is: 'parts of the world is a dead language' a clause? <S> Is: ' <S> Latin still taught in many parts of the world' a clause? <S> Think about - where you want the pauses to be - and - what separates the clauses? <S> What you already have is perfectly clear: <S> Latin (pause)still taught in many parts of the world (pause)is a dead language. <S> (stop) <S> So: "Latin, still taught in many parts of the world, is a dead language. <S> " <S> ...is easy to read, it's easy to hear the clauses - and thus, also easy to get the meaning. <S> You don't have to pay for the commas you use, and they are not going to run out - <S> so why not use as many as you want and need? <S> I would leave it as is.
| I would not remove the commas in that sentence as it stands. Commas are not there to decorate, or to confound you - they are there to help the reader both to read the sentence easily, with pauses in the places that you intend - and also, they help to divide up logical clauses or 'chunks of meaning' in the sentence - again, so that your words may be easily understood. Instead of using commas you could choose to use brackets () or dashes — —.
|
A job interview "with" or "at"? I'm wondering if you could tell me which sentence sounds more natural. I'm going to have a job interview with a clothing company today. I'm going to have a job interview at a clothing company today. Thank you! <Q> However, there can be a slight amount of nuance when using with versus at . <S> This is mostly due to cooperation and how much you feel like you're "on the same team" as the company. <S> Just as you work with your colleagues, you can interview with a company. <S> I'm interviewing with Google : Implies that you're working to get a job at Google, a big company. <S> It's identifiable and carries a sort of affection, as if you're already with them. <S> I've heard this used primarily in the context of starting a long career or being at a very respectable or recognizable company . <S> I'm interviewing at McDonald's : Implies that you see yourself working at the location, but not that you necessarily are close to the company. <S> I've heard this more common when referring to jobs that aren't the end goal in a person's life. <S> These jobs are usually "just a job" and a way to earn a paycheck. <S> A stepping stone, not a final resting point. <S> In your example, you said "a clothing company," which, intentionally or not, removes some of the closeness in your context. <S> If you were saying this verbatim, I would go with at <S> ( I'm going to have a job interview at a clothing company today ) because you haven't given the name of the company directly. <S> It doesn't give the closeness that with gives, but you've already distanced yourself slightly from the company by not giving its proper name. <S> I've also heard at used more in the context of a failed or disliked interview in past tense. <S> For example: I interviewed at Google, and I didn't make it past the second interview. <S> I interviewed at McDonald's, but the conditions didn't really give me the impression that I should work there. <S> Since the job wasn't attained, the implied closeness isn't needed. <S> Many people want to distance themselves from unsuccessful attempts or careers that didn't speak to them. <S> All of this being said, however, I'd like to reiterate: both are technically correct and commonly heard . <S> However, if you're trying to convey a tiny bit more information, you can do so by intentionally adding distance or removing it. <A> The first one IMO with flows better, and I don't think it implies the clothing company is taking the interview alongside you. <A> At X would be a place. <S> At X can also be used when X is a company, since many companies have offices, buildings, or campuses -- things that are places. <S> At X would never be a person, though. <S> At X also means the focus is more on where you are having the interview as opposed to who you are interviewing with. <S> Since larger companies tend to have a more impersonal interview process where you might be waiting in a room, having to take significant time to park, etc. <S> - the focus would be more on the place than your actual interviewer - thus at X could carry the implicaton you are interviewing with a large business or firm.
| With X would be a person or company. Both of them are syntactically correct, and I've heard both. Depending on the magnitude of the job, saying that you're interviewing with a recognizable company by name might convey more importance than at .
|
answering "Yes" or "No" for a question "She doesn't hate me, right?" I am not a native English speaker. It is very confusing how to answering "Yes." or "No." for a negative question with "right?" added at the end. Tom: She doesn't hate me, right? Tom's Friend: 1. Yes. 2. No. Let's say, Tom's friend said "yes". If the "yes" is for the part of the question before "right", it means she hates Tom. But if the "yes" is interpreted as an answer for "right?" part, it sounds like she doesn't hate Tom. Which is right?A lot of thanks to you for the help. <Q> I think 'right' is a red herring. <A> This article might help: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv330.shtml if you want to confirm a negative statement, you say no <S> and if you want to disagree with a negative statement, you say yes. <S> You didn't know that Wendy married Brian after all, did you? <S> No, I didn't. <A> Because a simple "yes" or "no" answer to a negative question can mean anything, negative questions are difficult to answer even for native speakers. <S> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she? <S> Friend: <S> Yes. <S> Tom <S> : Wait, yes she does hate me <S> or yes she doesn't hate me ? <S> It can get even more confusing. <S> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she? <S> Friend: <S> No. <S> Tom: Are you saying she doesn't hate me <S> or she <S> doesn't not hate me ? <S> Friend: <S> I have no idea what you're asking anymore. <S> The correct answer to your question is that you should avoid saying simply "yes" or "no", at least if you want to be clear: <S> Tom: She doesn't hate me, does she? <S> Friend: <S> Yes, she doesn't hate you . <S> But she doesn't really like you either. <S> You have to wonder why English speakers bother asking negative questions when they are so easily misunderstood, but the language is the way it is. <A> When the question is She doesn't hate me, right? <S> the idiomatic response will contain either "right" or "wrong". <S> Any mere negative or affirmative will be unclear, an ambiguity that is the stock-in-trade of bad comedy: <S> Yes. <S> -- <S> Yes she does <S> or yes she doesn't? <S> But "right" is unambiguous. <S> Right. <S> would mean the answering party concurs with the statement, "She doesn't hate you". <S> Wrong would mean the opposite.
| With or without 'right', 'huh', 'eh', or 'does she' or whatever tag they put at the end, always go with 'yes' if you mean 'yes, she hates me', and 'no' if you mean 'no, she doesn't hate me'.
|
the doubled "to" after "get used" I was solving a test and came across the following task Don't get used to _____ spoiled all the time. A) getting B) get C) to get D) to getting I was sure that the correct answer should be A, but the textbook says that D is correct. I'm not a native speaker but doubled "to" seems a bit stange to me. Could you please help me to figure out why that option is really correct (if of course it's true)? Thanks in advance! <Q> The doubled "to" is not English. <S> The book is wrong. <S> [The "get" passive is English. <S> Ignore the irrelevant comments]. <A> The test question should probably read: <S> Don't get used ______ spoiled all the time. <S> In this form, all four options make sense and they're testing whether you can recognize that the form "to getting" is necessary rather than just the bare " Don't get used getting spoiled all the time. <S> So, the answer is incorrect due to this small error, making A the correct answer (because the "to" is already included in the question text). <A> The phrase "Don't get used to to getting spoiled all the time. <S> " is incorrect English. <S> It is the most obviously incorrect answer, since gerunds don't use an infinitive particle "to". <S> The phrase "Don't get used to getting spoiled all the time" Is correct grammar. <S> The pattern is "used to (noun phrase)" where here the noun phrase is a gerund. <S> An infinitive would not be used here. <S> (C is wrong). <S> B is a trick, it hopes that you will think that "to" is a particle requiring a bare infinitive, B is also wrong. <S> but you may be better using "Don't get used to being spoiled all the time" (and avoiding the repetition of get) <A> The test is wrong. <S> Given the incomptetent composition of the proposition, the least objectionable poor English would be anwered by A. The individual that composed the proposition with 'get used' as part of the wording is likely over-paid. ' <S> I would have crossed out the entire test element and re-written it; preferably with 'Do not become accustomed to being spoiled...'
| My guess is that there's a typo in the question itself. Getting spoiled' as a stative condition is acceptable as an attribute in vernacular conversation but generally, in proper English, should be reserved to fruits, vegetables and meats.
|
Using of "that" with the meaning of "this" or "it" at the beginning of a sentence "We must rid our bodies of every muscular contraction. That will give the body a better chance to rest"... Why did the author use "that" instead of "this" in the above sentence? Is this just a style or their preference? <Q> Quite simply, that is used to refer to what immediately precedes it. <S> It is a way to situate or locate or point to something: these are called deictic pronouns. <S> Deixis in English can be tricky. <S> So, it's not a grammar thing; it's a discourse marker and meaning thing. <S> This is in addition to grammatical considerations. <S> And it's quite important in how English works. <A> In the example sentence, "that" is a demonstrative pronoun. <S> The choice of which to use is simply a matter of personal preference or style. <S> Demonstrative pronouns in spoken English are often accompanied by a gesture to make clear the antecedent of the pronoun; such pronouns are fine in written English as long as the antecedent is clear, as it is in the example given in the question. <S> This discussion of demonstrative pronouns might be useful: http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/parts-of-speech/pronouns/what-is-a-demonstrative-pronoun.html <A> The discussion referred to by @Maciej Stachowski is indeed good. <S> But it is almost always true that when either "this" or "that" is used, a source of doubt and misunderstanding is created if it is not completely clear what it is that is being referenced by "this " or "that". <S> So, in the example quoted what does "that" refer to? <S> Muscular contraction? <S> No. <S> In that particular case "that" refers to the ridding of our bodies of every muscular contraction. <S> It is a good exercise to think what noun should follow "this" or "that" or "it" in any sentence that begins with either of those words. <S> It is very easy to write sentences that show that this can lead to a problem for the reader in understanding. <S> That will help the reader with it. <S> If your reader might have any doubt about what is being referred to, don't use those words on their own.
| "This" is also a demonstrative pronoun, and in the example sentence either "this" or "that" is grammatically correct.
|
Is it "Whose fault is that?" OR "Who's fault is that?"? I wrote: I read nearly all the contents of the websites about the war between the Nazi and Russian armies. I don't know who's fault was that! Hitler or Stalin? Was it whose fault or who's fault ? What is the construction and grammar of each? <Q> I don't know who's/whose fault was that! <S> Hitler or Stalin? <S> Who's is the contraction of who is or who has. <S> Second, the sentence is not in the interrogative. <S> So there should be no sign of interrogation (?). <S> The sentence should be rewritten as follows: <S> I don't know whose fault that was, Hitler's or Stalin's. <A> The primary thing to know here is that: <S> Who's is a contraction for " who is " or " <S> who has " ( mostly followed by " got " ) <S> Whose is a possessive pronoun. <S> So, to understand, that's what you get with each: <S> Who's fault? <S> - Who is fault? <S> Whose fault <S> ? - Fault of which person? <A> I believe it should be whose fault that was , and also Hitler's or Stalin's? <A> Where did the OP read this comment? <S> Users should always cite their sources. <S> These type of spelling mistakes are very very common, especially in social media. <S> I call this example a spelling error rather than a grammatical one because "whose" and "who's" are pronounced identically . <S> The unknown author of the unverified sentence should have spelt (spelled if you're an American speaker) <S> it whose . <S> By the way, the punctuation is also a bit off, but let's presume the author says "Hitler or Stalin?" <S> with the intonation rising as if he were asking the full question, "Was it <S> Hitler's or Stalin's [fault]? <S> ". <S> If we write the full form we get the following <S> I don't know who has fault <S> was that! <S> Hitler or Stalin? <S> (NO) <S> I don't know who is <S> [who's] fault <S> was that! <S> Hitler or Stalin? <S> (NO) <S> Both are very ungrammatical. <S> No.1 makes no sense whatsoever. <S> The auxiliary have should be in the simple past or past perfect, e.g. "I don't know who had (had) the most fault. <S> Hitler or Stalin? <S> No.2 is also grammatical, the first auxiliary should not be in the present tense as if the dictators were still leading their countries today. <S> Note the second auxiliary that follows ( was ) is in the past tense, so in the same sentence we have an "is" and a "was". <S> The only way to make that sentence grammatical would be to add the preposition at between the auxiliary verb and the noun fault and modify the predicate <S> I don't know who was at fault there . <S> Hitler or Stalin? <S> (YES) <S> In brief, the correct spelling is the determiner <S> whose , that means “ of whom or which (used to indicate that the following noun belongs to or is associated with the person or thing mentioned in the previous clause).” <S> adding the possessive apostrophe to the proper nouns: Hitler and Stalin would be advisable in my opinion, but not strictly necessary. <S> I don't know whose fault that was. <S> {Was it} Hitler's or Stalin's ? <S> (YES)
| First off, you need the possessive pronoun of who in front of the noun fault; that's whose, not who's.
|
"I had read the book last year" wrong? I think this sentence is grammatically wrong, but there's one thing... If I say "I read the book last year" I think that I was reading it but I had not finished reading (in the last year).But If I say "I had read the book last year" I think that I was reading it and I had finished reading.So there are two actions in the past - finished and unfinished. How to express them correctly in this simple case? <Q> The simple past (and this example) means you finished reading the book last year. <S> I read the book last year. <S> If you don't mention another activity that you were doing at the same time, then the past continuous implies you might not have finished it. <S> I was reading the book last year. <S> However, if you want to be completely clear, you have to outright <S> say so. <S> I was reading the book last year, but I didn't finish it until this year. <S> The past perfect is simply incorrect unless you talk about another event that happened in the past after you read the book: I had already read the book last year before it was assigned. <S> Note that this means that both events happened last year. <S> If you place "last year" at the end of the sentence (modifying "was assigned"), it changes the meaning: <S> I had already read the book before it was assigned last year. <S> This means it was assigned last year <S> and you had read it at some point in your life before that. <S> If you read it last year and want to talk about something that happened this year, you can use either past perfect or simple past, because the adverbial phrases already clarify the chronology of events, thus either of these would work: I had read the book last year that was assigned in the course I took this year. <S> I read the book last year that was assigned in the course <S> I took this year. <S> In summary, both the simple past and past perfect imply that you finished reading the book. <S> Use the past or present continuous to imply that you haven't finished it. <A> No, you're confusing two different distinctions. <S> What I think you're going for is the difference between <S> I was reading the book last year <S> and I read the book last year. <S> The first is treating your reading it as an extended activity (it doesn't necessarily mean that you didn't finish it during last year, but that might be the case). <S> The second is regarding it as a completed action. <S> You could use that even if it took months: the difference is in how you are choosing to talk about it, not in any objective difference in what happened. <S> The distinction in the words you are using is between: <S> I read/was reading the book last year. <S> and I had read/been reading the book last year. <S> This is the distinction between the simple past and the past perfect (and is indpendent of the choice of simple or continuous, which is why I have put both option in both sentences). <S> The difference is that if you use the past perfect, you are looking at the event from some point before now, but after the reading. <S> If you have not already established the "story time" from which you are regarding it, then there is no point in using this form, and it would be confusing. <S> A context where you had established the "story time" would be: <S> Last night my friend asked me about his favourite book. <S> I had read the book last year, so I could answer him. <S> Even in this context, "I read the book last year" would not be wrong: it is almost always a stylistic choice whether to use the past perfect or not. <A> Neither formulation expresses what you are trying to express. <S> Both of those expressions implies that that book was completely read in the past. <S> Your understanding of the use of "had" in pluperfect constructions is basically correct in typical cases - but unfortunately (at least I would argue) that the verb "read" does not behave well with that tense distinction. <S> You either read something or you did not, and you cannot "unread" something you read. <S> e.g. "I started to read..." or even just "I started ...".
| To really capture the sense that you began but did not complete the book, essay etc...you need to use a compound verb using "started" or "began"
|
Is that appropriate to use "Sad" when someone says "I cannot come"? In situations like One of my colleague message me saying, I'm not able to join this week lunch One of the speaker message me saying, I'm not able to join the conference this time Is it appropriate to "it's a sad news" or "Sad to hear that" ? I think "Sad" is for more serious situations like "accident", "Funeral" etc. but in this kind of situation what is the appropriate way to express the feeling? <Q> "Sad" is okay. <S> You will find it more often expressed as "I'm sad to hear that. <S> " As there will be a change in tone, you'll often hear "Oh,.." placed in front to mark it. <S> Sad isn't really strange but if it doesn't feel right to you don't use it (it is meant to express your feelings after all). <S> More often you may hear "shame", which is a bit more neutral: " <S> Oh, that's a shame" <A> Your intuition (feeling) is right; "sad" is too strong. <S> Usually, we use "That's sad news" or "I'm sad/sorry to hear that" when we hear that someone died or became very sick. <S> For example: A: "I can't go to the party today. <S> My father has pneumonia, and he's still in hospital. <S> "B: "I'm sad to hear that. <S> I hope he gets well soon. <S> " <S> What you can say here is, "That's too bad," or "That's a shame. <S> " We often follow this with an optimistic phrase, like, "I hope you enjoy your evening," or, "Maybe next time!" <A> It's appropriate to use if disappointment is the thing to express. <S> Disappointment can be judgemental and negative (e.g. failing to do something required), or an expression that you would wish circumstances would be different (such as when someone you want to come to a party can't make it). <S> Plain old "sad" with <S> no other words can come off as snobbish or sarcastic. <A> This is one of those idioms that grow, like Topsy, and either survive or die eventually. <S> The more conventional expression would probably be " <S> I'm sorry to hear that" or "I'm sorry you won't be here. <S> We'll miss you, and I hope you're all right." <S> In other words, showing concern for the person involved, showing him or her that he or she is important (at least to you, the speaker). <S> Perhaps this usage has gained currency since President Donald Trump began using it as a one-word sentence in terse electronic Tweets to show his response to something that he deplored or felt was unfortunate.
| Sad when used like this will mean disappointed .
|
“The white and the black dogs” or “the white and the black dog” Suppose that there are two dogs. One is white and the other is black.Which one is grammatically correct? the white and the black dogs or the white and the black dog Should I use singular dog or plural dogs ? <Q> "The white and the black dog.." Reason : <S> Although there are 2 dogs here, they have different properties. <S> Your statement seems to be incomplete, it should start with something say for eg. <S> : <S> There were two dogs among them, the white dog and the black dog, playing together with the ball. <A> To make the other correct you could add a comma "the white, and the black dogs" to signify that the dog is not white and black. <A> If there are two dogs, one of which is entirely white and the other of which is entirely black, the only way to be completely clear is to repeat the noun: the white dog and the black dog To me, this doesn't even make sense: the white and the black dog <S> Although ellipsis is possible if you put the noun after the first adjective (although I still think it's usually preferable to repeat the noun) <S> : <S> the white dog and the black This means one dog <S> that has both black and white coloring: the white and black dog <S> This means many dogs that have black and white coloring, some of which may be entirely white or entirely black: the white and black dogs <A> Both structures are grammatically correct, but the former is what you want, I think. <S> "The white and the black dog" is correct because here, ellipsis just dropped the "dog" after "white". <S> "The white dog and the black dog" is the full or "original" phrase, and it's definitely talking about two (and only two) distinct dogs. <S> "The white and the black dogs" is grammatical but messy. <S> Maybe it can be parsed as [[the white and the black]AdjP dogs]NP (where "the white and the black" is one chunk modifying "dogs"). <S> That still doesn't say how many dogs there are. <S> Maybe one of each colour, but maybe more. <S> More confidently, I can say it can be read, "the white dogs and the black dogs" (because of ellipsis like above) where we have a minimum of 4 dogs (2 or more white, 2 or more black), or even "the white (dog) and the black dogs" Where we have at least 3.
| "the white and the black dog" is correct.
|
Meaning of the verb "tease" in context I have come across a sentence with the word that I cannot quite understand in a video . Here is the sentence: So what is exactly media literacy? We are going to talk more about this in our first episode next week, but here in the preview I will at least tease that definition. I have looked up all the meanings of tease in a bunch of dictionaries but none fit. However, it feels it means to explain the definition. Tell me please If am right. <Q> M-W <S> This meaning most often has a specifically sexual reference, and the dictionaries you consulted may define it in that sense; but in marketing and communications it is quite commonly used with non-sexual reference: to arouse interest in a product by offering a glimpse of what is offered. <S> That's the sense here: the preview will provide a brief explanation or example of media literacy which will be developed and defined more fully next week in the first episode. <A> I think this could be considered industry jargon, which is why you may have had trouble finding a suitable dictionary definition. <S> Consider these quotes: <S> Getting listeners to keep their radios tuned to your entire newscast... <S> that's the function of leads and teases . <S> (Source: Leads & Teases at newscript.com ) <S> A teaser is a television strategy for attracting the audience's attention and holding it over a span of time. <S> There are two types of news teasers. <S> The first is best described as a headline, which contains the essential information about a story. <S> The second type of teaser is more vague and leaves the reader wondering what exactly the news is about to report. <S> Source: <S> Teasers at museum.tv ). <S> Ask most TV news producers about writing teases <S> and you might see their eyes roll and hear them groan. <S> That's because teases are an essential part of producing a compelling newscast, yet many producers hate doing them ... <S> because tease writing has less to do with pure journalism and has more in common with TV commercials. <S> So producers who aren't properly trained aren't very good at teases. <S> (Source: Glenn Halbrooks, The Balance ) <S> So, in broadcasting, a "tease" (noun) is something said by a host to help prevent the audience from going somewhere else on the TV or radio during a commercial break, and to "tease" something (verb) means to do that for this purpose. <A> It's quite possible the author of that meant tease as in tantalize, or a teaser, but on reading it, I think another definition fits. <S> That would be (from Oxford dictionary ) <S> (tease something out) Find something out from a mass of irrelevant information. <S> This is related to the definition of tease that means to disentangle/separate something (such as wool) into its separate strands. <S> Interpreted this way, in the quote you give, the author is saying that in the preview, they will be pulling out some strands of the definition of "media literacy". <S> Here is a similar usage to your quote: <S> The Denver Post <S> To complicate matters, as well as tease the definition of ghost, Ting-yin’s former love (Lawrence Chow) arrives. <S> (there is an actual apparition mentioned, but the former love is also a sort of ghost, pulling out another strand of the definition of "ghost")
| One of the meanings of tease is to tantalize especially by arousing desire or curiosity often without intending to satisfy it —
|
Which of the nouns is more appropriate for couple that are not married? (spouse, partner, mate) If I am talking about my girl / woman, then if I'm married I can say simply "my wife". But if I'm not married what I can say? Iv'e checked the definition for spouse , but it's for "a person's husband or wife ". I understand that it's not for the one that a person live with without marriage. Then I've checked the definition of " mate " and it's "UK informal word used as a friendly way of talking to someone, especially a man". In this word there are 2 problems: 1. it's informal. 2. it's mainly for women. It's not interchangeable between the genders. Then I've checked the definition of " partner ", and it's "the person you are married to or living with as if married to them , or the person you are having a sexual relationship with ". So it seems that this the only formal one noun for referring to both genders while living without marriage ("living with as if married to them" as Cambridge says). Is that correct? <Q> The proper word to use if you are just dating, or getting to know someone is usually boyfriend or girlfriend . <A> Yes, for "living with someone as if in marriage", "partner" would be a correct word. <S> Sometimes, when people want to sound more high-flown, they might say "my significant other" That would encompass the situations of living together and being in a serious relationship without specifying much of anything. <A> I agree with the existing answers but wanted to add a bit of information. <S> In the 10-20 years leading up to gay marriage in the US, spouse was used by those in the know as a way of generalizing the husband/wife concept. <S> In other words, gay people in quasi-marriages would call the partner their spouse , and out of solidarity with gay people who weren't able to get married, those in different-sex rlationships would also say "spouse." <A> This is really difficult territory. <S> These days "partner" can be used to connote significant other, even if the parties are married, and is frequently so used by the parties themselves. <S> But partner has very many meanings and connotations. <S> When I was a partner in a professional firm, social events were sometimes held to which "partners' partners" were invited. <S> They couldn't invite wives or husbands, because some partners were female and some were male, and they couldn't invite just spouses because some partners were unmarried or were married to someone whom they definitely would not wish to bring to the party. <S> The Question is framed in terms of what "I should say". <S> That is much easier because you can choose: girlfriend, boyfriend, partner, fiancé(male) or fiancée(female). <S> I have certainly known couples cohabit for years as fiancés. <S> The problem comes when you want to refer to somebody else's paramour. <S> There is no universal solution to that. <S> Not even paramour, which personally I rather like. <S> Using your wiles you just have to find out, somehow, what term would be acceptable to them.
| If you are going to get married (engaged), then you would call them your fiancé (male) or fiancée (female).
|
Are the terms "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" limited to some age in the spoken language? Are the terms " girlfriend " or " boyfriend " limited to some age in the spoken English? I'm asking it because the word " girlfriend " is a closed compound noun which literally (in the narrow meaning of these two components of this closed compound word) means a friend who is a young (girl). The same for " boyfriend " which means a friend who is a young (boy). Now, so far as a non native English speaker I've not noticed using of both after some young age, and if it's used in old age it may be to me a little weird. But my personal impression of it may be wrong since it's not my native language. By checking in Cambridge dictionary I found that the definition of girlfriend is "a woman or girl who a person is having a romantic or sexual relationship with". From this definition I understand that it is not only for girls but also for women. Isn't it in the colloquial English? <Q> There is variation in how people use these words and the meanings are shifting. <S> In the past it was rare for an older person to be in an open, romantic relationship with someone, unless they were married. <S> Older people had husbands, wives but not girlfriends or boyfriends. <S> So these words were limited to young people. <S> Now it is more common for people to stay unmarried. <S> There is no upper limit. <S> But the words boyfriend/girlfriend may suggest a less serious relationship. <S> Some people prefer "partner" to boyfriend/girlfriend as it sounds more serious (it also avoids having to mention the gender of your partner if you don't want to share this) Boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/husband/wife can all be used by both gay and straight people. <S> Note that, especially in American English, women will call close female friends "girlfriends", even when there is no romantic relationship. <S> However, men tend not to refer to male friends as "boyfriends", they use "mates" (in British and Australian) or friends" or sometimes "buddies". <A> I've heard these words (boyfriend/girlfriend) applied to people in their fifties. <S> So yes, they have expanded to cover people of all ages. <S> The 2015 edition of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage notes, boyfriend, girlfriend. <S> While some traditionalists still view them as informal, these terms are now widely accepted for people of any age. <S> Companion and partner are also acceptable. <S> When possible, follow the preference of those involved. <A> In the US at least, there's currently no age limit, although the older the person is, the more likely we are to hear other terms such as partner or significant other . <S> There are other possibilities such as fiancé/fiancée , common law wife/husband , other half , sweetheart , romantic interest , special friend . <S> Fifty years ago, mature adults with a love interest didn't used to use girlfriend/boyfriend for the love interest. <S> Previously one might have said gentleman/lady friend . <S> Notes: <S> What you said about girlfriend meaning "a friend of a young woman" isn't right. <S> Thus, for a heterosexual couple, one will hear My son and his girlfriend .... <S> For a gay couple, one will hear My daughter and her girlfriend .... <S> There's another meaning of girlfriend : female friend of a female. <S> Example: <S> Sonia, didn't you say you were going shopping for a new dress with some girlfriends this afternoon? <S> The male equivalent to this is guy friend or bro (which is short for brother ). <A> There are a couple of things going on here. <S> One is that compound words don't always derive their meaning purely from their components. <S> For example, "homemade" means something made using relatively simple tools by one person or a small group, as opposed to something made in a factory. <S> It is OFTEN something made in the person's home, and I presume that's where the word comes from, but no one would say, "That's not homemade because you made it in the church basement, not in your home." <S> So while "girl" normally means a young female and "boy" a young male, "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" are used to refer to a romantic partner of any age. <S> And by the way, a "boyfriend" is mostly definitely not "a friend who is a boy". <S> If two boys are friends, then assuming they are not homosexuals, they would NOT be called "boyfriends". <S> Calling them "boyfriends" would be understood to mean a romantic or sexual relationship, not two buddies who play rugby together. <S> "Girlfriend", on the other hand, IS often used for (heterosexual) female friends. <S> Women regularly refer to female friends as "my girlfriends". <S> And second by-the-way, it is generally considered insulting to call an adult male a "boy". <S> It is understood to mean that he is immature. <S> But in many contexts older women are called "girls" with no insult intended. <S> I'd guess that's because women tend to view "looking young" as a positive thing, that they've managed to hold on to their youthful beauty, while men tend to see an implication of immaturity as a stronger negative. <S> There are exceptions, like if a group of male friends go on an outing together this is often called "a night out with the boys" or similar phrases. <A> In current usage, a woman may have a 'Girlfriend' of her own age, without any romantic connotation whatsoever. <S> But if a man or woman has a 'Boyfriend' it implies a romantic relationship. <S> There's also a Black Urban (is that the P.C. way to describe it?) <S> usage where a woman will greet another as 'Girlfriend!'.
| A person may use the words boyfriend/girlfriend at any age.
|
Does she have or has she got? Which one is correct? I'm not sure which one is correct. I had read that "does have" is more likely used in American English and "has got" in British English. But which one of these is correct? What kind of hobbies does Jessica have? What kind of hobbies has Jessica got? <Q> is more in use. <S> What kind of hobbies has she? <S> What kind of hobbies has she (got)? <S> is mainly considered to be BrE. <A> Here is "Have you got a hobby?" <S> in a book by a British guy (I think Scottish). <S> Here is "What hobbies does she have?" <S> in a book by a British writer Louise Beech . <S> Here is "What hobbies has he got?" <S> in a book by an American journalist (from 1969). <S> However, your question with "has Jessica got" does sound a bit unnatural, and I'm just going to throw out some guesses as to why that might be. <S> The thing is, "'s got" as a synonym for "have" has become something of an ungrammatical idiom, to the point that it's now OK to ask, <S> "What do you got here?" <S> (meaning "What do you have <S> here?")—although <S> it is, of course, very much a colloquial expression. <S> Twisting and turning it back and forth into different positions in the sentence trying to adhere to the rules of grammar does seem to blur the lines between "get" as in "obtain something" and "have got" as a synonym "have". <S> Leave "have got" to simple sentences like "I've got/ <S> She's got" or a simple question "Have you got?" and don't shun sentences with "does she have." <A> Both are grammatical, but, for whatever reason, the "does he have" form is considered more "elegant" than the "has he got" form. <S> It's less a question of which is "correct" and which fits how you choose to speak. <S> What kind of dog does he have ? <S> (more formal/polite) <S> What kind of dog has he got ? <S> (less formal/polite) <S> These days, of course, there is a dismal lack of eloquence even at the highest levels of government, so we all may have to reevaluate our standards.
| Both the usages are correct but what kind of hobbies does she have
|
Past perfect tense and Time expression Can we use Time expression while forming past perfect tense in any context? e.g. (a) Yesterday we had gone to mall. (b) Last year court had directed police to arrest him. (c) We had gone to the movies last night. https://www.englishgrammar.org/correct-sentences/ <Q> The past perfect indicates that an action started in the past and ended in the past before the more recent present. <S> Yesterday we had gone to <S> (the) mall. <S> But today we will do something else. <S> Last year court had directed police to arrest him. <S> But he is on the loose. <S> This year the court directed something else. <S> We had gone to the movies last night. <S> But tonight we will do something else. <S> What happens after the past perfect event is of course dependent on context. <A> In the link provided you can find the following corrections : <S> We went to the movies last night. <S> I spoke to them about my holiday. <S> (The past perfect tense is not used to say that something happened in the past. <S> It is used to indicate the earlier of the two past actions.) <S> Quite like the explanation given for #3, the reason for the correction in #2 is that it is the only event being discussed. <S> There sentence reports an event that occurred in the past, so past simple should be used. <S> You can think of the past perfect as a way to describe a "past of a past", or a past event with a state of completeness (perfect) at an earlier time. <S> The earlier time can be specified with a time expression. <S> For example: When I talked with my sister she suggested that we have our family gathering in the same restaurant we had gone to last year. <S> At the time we talked, the fact that we visited that restaurant was already established. <S> Yesterday, the police arrested the man who had murdered his wife a week ago. <S> At the time of the arrest, the murder was already a fact. <A> When I talked with my sister she suggested that we have our family gathering in the same restaurant we went to last year. <S> Yesterday, the police arrested the man who murdered his wife a week ago. <S> I don`t think the past perfect is necessary, the definitions of time make it clear which event happened first. <S> I would opt for simple past.
| If you use past perfect on its own without specifying a more recent situation it can often imply a contrast to the past event.
|
Meaning of the verb "span" in context I have come across the sentence that I cannot get. it is from Crash Course Astronomy (it is at around 1:40 ). Here is the sentence: Oxygen tends to glow green, but to a lesser extent give blue light too. Other elements span the spectrum in colours they give off. Some dictionaries say span means to include something, but still I cannot get. Could you please rephrase the sentence for me please? <Q> "Span" as a verb means to include, especially to include over some range or across boundaries. <S> Like we might say, "Possible values span the range from 1 to 10", meaning that the "values" can be any number between 1 and 10. <S> In this case, there are many colors that an element could give off. <S> Some elements give off only one color, others "span" many colors. <A> to span something is like a bridge: it goes across a particular area. <S> Other elements go across the spectrum in the colours they give off. <S> To span: to go from from end of something to another side. <S> Like a bridge: a bridge spans a river. <S> It goes from one side of the river to the other. <S> Now, substitute spectrum for the river. <S> The colours go from one end of the colour spectrum to the other end. <S> Humans can only see part of it. <S> It is called the visible colour spectrum. <A> Elements (in space) give off different colours of light. <S> So the different colours of light given off by different colours extend across the spectrum from Red to Blue <S> It just means that all the different colours are given off by some elements in space.
| One meaning of "span" is "Extend across".
|
Expressions used to boost someone's energy/enthusiasm in doing their work Suppose you see someone you set to doing something are doing it half-heartedly, without much if any enthusiasm. What could be the expressions to boost their energy/enthusiasm? Searching for the English equivalent, I came across the expression "take the gloves off", which, in my opinion, could work for the job that doesn't need gloves to protect palms doing it. Also I found the expression "pull up (one's) socks" which to me seems somewhat odd to use addressing to someone who's working barefooted and without socks on, say, standing in water doing their work. In addition, I was thinking of "Roll up your shirt-sleeves!", but again, one may do their work naked from the waist up. So, are there English expressions, idiomatic or slang, with the same meaning but without mentioning any pieces of clothing? <Q> First of all, there would be nothing wrong with using "Let's roll up our shirt sleeves," even if the workers were shirtless. <S> That has become a figurative expression, not a literal one, and rarely are actual shirt sleeves rolled up when people say it. <S> That said, the idiom seems to mean, "Let's get underway ," more so that in means, "Let's work hard. <S> " I think hard work is implied, but this isn't really something you say to people who have already started working. <S> One idiomatic expression I can think of would be: <S> Let's put some elbow grease into it! <S> I like how American Heritage defines elbow grease (emphasis added) <S> : elbow grease Strenuous physical effort, as in You'll have to use some elbow grease to get the house painted in time . <S> This term alludes to vigorous use of one's arm in cleaning, polishing, or the like. <S> It soon was extended to any kind of hard work , and Anthony Trollope used it still more figuratively <S> (Thackeray, 1874): <S> "Forethought is the elbow-grease which a novelist ... requires." <A> Another idiom to spur people on is : to put one's shoulder to the wheel Also, <S> dig deep . <S> For competitions, or even some hard task. <A> I personally like the expression to pull one's weight . <S> It's very common to hear this one used at the workplace or in any situation that involves a bunch of people working together towards a common goal. <S> The idea with this idiom is that when you say it to a person, what you're doing is that you're accusing them of not doing their share of work the way they're supposed to be doing it. <S> I think it's close enough to what you're looking for. <S> Here's an example: <S> Hey, buddy, I really need you to start pulling your weight . <S> Otherwise, we'll never get this project done. <S> Another common one that I can think of would be to take the bull by the horns . <S> I'm not sure how precisely close it is to what you're requesting, but it sure is a good way to encourage someone to do whatever they're doing with more enthusiasm and passion: <S> By the dictionary I linked you to above, it's defined as an expression used to tell someone to make more effort to do something. <S> The following example would be the typical way you would see it used in everyday conversational English: <S> Come on, man, put some muscle into it ! <S> We have to get all this mess cleaned up before Mom comes home or <S> we're gonna be dead! <S> This one is really nothing more than a variation on the expression to put some elbow grease into it .
| But I think the expression to put some muscle into it would be just what the doctor ordered! Hey, buddy, it's time to take the bull by the horns and get this damn thing over and done with!
|
I make ten phone calls (in) a day I was just taking this grammar test and there's this question on it: Which of these sentences are correct: I make ten phone calls a day. I make ten phone calls in a day. Aren't they both correct? I make ten phone calls a day probably means I make 10 phone calls per day, and I don't know how to describe what the other sentence means other than just to use I make 10 phone calls in a day. Is there a difference in their meaning? <Q> Changing the content may make this clearer. <S> If I asked you how fast you ran the 100 metre dash, you may say "I ran ten metres a second" but you wouldn't say "I ran ten metres in a second". <S> The former talks about what you did throughout the race while the latter talks about what you did in one second of the race. <A> Sentence #1 is clearly correct and natural. <S> I wouldn't say that #2 is grammatically incorrect <S> (I can imagine contexts where it would be OK), but it does sound a bit off. <S> I think the reason is that the habitual aspect of "I make" conflicts with the specificity of " a day". <S> To see this, let us put both sentences in the past tense, and consider: 3: I made ten phone calls a day. <S> 4: I made ten phone calls in a day. <S> What do these mean? <S> #3 talks about a habitual past action: <S> "Back then, I was such a good salesman -- I made ten phone calls a day, and my boss always told people I was his most valuable employee." <S> In contrast, #4 talks about one past action on one particular day : " <S> I was a pretty good salesman back then, but then this one day I was simply on fire: I made ten phone calls in a day!" <S> From this we can see why #2 doesn't quite work: " <S> a day" here suggests a perfective aspect (one event which is completed), but "I make" is a habitual present. <S> You could say "I can make 10 phone calls in a day", though. <S> (By the way, as a native speaker, your analysis feels totally natural to me, including your difficulty in putting your finger on how exactly to describe what #2 means -- I went through precisely the same thoughts.) <A> I make ten phone calls a day. <S> This means that every day I make ten calls. <S> It may be an approximation or average. <S> It describes a continued experience, and would be an answer to the question "how much do you use the phone in your job?". <S> It is a meaningful statement for many people. <S> I make ten phone calls in a day. <S> This would make sense as an answer to the question "if you have to make ten phone calls, how much time does it take? <S> " It does not describe a continuous experience and does not mean every day . <S> It is probably not a sentence many people would use. <S> Since this is a test, the likely answer is #1.
| Both sentences are grammatically correct but the first one makes much more sense.
|
Word for unused in a while? I'm looking for a word which can fit the gap in the sentence: "My french is a little bit ______ since I haven't used it in a while" I came up with poor but hopefully there's a more appropriate word. <Q> Make no mistake about it, by far the most idiomatic way to say that is with the word rusty : (of knowledge or a skill) impaired by lack of recent practice <S> Something that's rusty has been affected by rust. <S> This is just like a piece of metal that has been lying around your backyard unused for a long time. <S> And what happens to metal when it's under constant exposure to the atmosphere? <S> It gets covered with rust. <S> The same thing can happen to your language skills if you haven't been practicing them for a while—they might get rusty. <S> Examples: <S> My French is a little bit rusty since I haven't been using it for a while. <S> My Spanish is a bit rusty these days because where I live there is nobody to practice speaking it with. <A> The word commonly used in BrE is "rusty" because the steel tool you don't use becomes rusty. <A> The word "rusty" provided in other answers so far is probably the most idiomatic for the specific example provided. <S> An alternative more generally is the adverb neglected (or the verb to neglect ). <S> "My French skills have been a little neglected . <S> Sorry if I get a word wrong." <S> "Please excuse the mess; I've been neglecting my chores." <A> How about neglected ? <S> Dictionary.com - neglect <S> v. <S> 2. <S> to be remiss in the care or treatment of: to neglect one's family; to neglect one's appearance. <S> may be more literally appropriate and translate better in other situations. <S> As noted in the accepted answer, when metal objects are neglected (especially outdoors), they become rusty , which is the source of the idiom.
| As already noted, "rusty" is probably most appropriate (though idiomatic) for the example sentence given, but neglected
|
Does the word "Bill" in meaning of "banknote" exist or common somewhere? I saw in my a dictionary that one of the meanings of "bill" is a banknote. Because I don't such using I've checked also Cambridge dictionary mainly us uk usually note a piece of paper money : As I understand, the meaning of "a piece of paper money" is banknote. )If it is, I really don't understand why they don't write simply banknote.). My question is if it is common somewhere to use "bill" in meaning banknote? *n.b. Anyway I understand that the most common meaning is a paper with request of money, like monthly expenses of having apartment (electricity, water etc.) <Q> Yes, it is common in AmE in expressions like five/ten-dollar bill : (North American English) <S> (British English note) (also banknote especially in British English) <S> a piece of paper money - a ten-dollar bill (OLD) <S> See also Google Books <A> Bill is standard in the US when speaking of a banknote of a specific denomination : <S> I gave him a one-dollar bill, two-dollar bill, five-dollar bill, ten-dollar bill, twenty-dollar bill, and so forth . <S> Colloquially, however, denominations above two dollars are ordinarily referred just by the number <S> I gave him a five, a ten, a twenty, and so forth . <S> A one-dollar bill is ordinarily just a dollar bill . <S> The two-dollar denomination is so rare that there is rarely any occasion to name it, but it will ordinarily be named in full: <S> Hey, whaddaya know, I got a two-dollar bill in change! <A> Google Ngram Viewer shows that 'dollar bill' is used more than 'dollar note', and 'pound note' is used more than 'pound bill'. ' <S> Dollar <A> In the UK we pay bills with cheques . <S> In the US they pay checks with bills . <S> The two words, however spelt, cheques and bills, refer to different kinds of monetary obligations recorded on paper, in the days when people did not have credit cards. <S> In BrE a bill is a demand for payment not a means for paying. <S> It is absolutely never a bank note, whatever your dictionary may say. <A> Bill is one of those words that have many meanings. <S> This is really specific to American English; in the U.K., you'd say "a ten pound note." <S> (My answer is really based on American English.) <S> In crime movies, when someone demands a ransom, you can often hear: a million dollars in small bills <S> Here , the Lifehacker website advises people to always carry $20 with them in small bills. <S> And yes, bills are those "invoices" you get every month for your utilities like electricity and the like. <S> You could hear a phrase like: He had to get a better-paying job because he had trouble even paying his bills. <S> When you hear "pay your bills", it's about those "invoices." <S> A phrase with the word "pay" where "bill" would mean "banknote" would have to be "pay with a bill." <S> E. g., <S> After we finished our meal, we paid with a hundred dollar bill. <S> (again, here it is the "banknote") <S> At the restaurant, when you are done with your meal, you'd say to your friends, <S> Let's get the bill. <S> This is again an "invoice" from the restaurant to you stating the amount of money that you should pay. <S> In the UK, one would say, "let's get the check." <S> Other meanings of the word bill are: — a poster with an advertisement that you put on the walls (in New York City, you will often see on fences that, e.g., surround a construction site, signs saying "Post No Bills" —meaning "do not put up advertisements"); — a specific law or a draft law.
| Yes, in the US, it is the standard description for a banknote: a five-dollar bill If you are in the UK nobody would understand you if you referred to a ten pound note as a "bill".
|
Not in this corner I'm curious to know how native speakers of English say it this situation: There are four corners. A person is looking for something but he's told that he is looking in the wrong corner. The idea is to say that the person ought to look elsewhere (different corner). I was thinking of a few ways to say it: You ought to look in a different corner. You ought to look in another corner. You ought to look in one of the other corners. You ought to look in some other corner. Maybe there is a better way? I wouldn't want to mention opposite corners or specific corners like: corner by the window or corner by the door. Edit : I need to tell a person to look exactly in a corner but not in the one he's looking now. Phrases like: Try looking somewhere else, Look elsewhere - are too general. For this not to sound silly, take the example of several books. What if you're searching for something in the wrong book. <Q> Not a native speaker here, but the most natural sentence seems to be, "Try looking in a different corner. <S> " <S> "Another" is more often an equivalent to "one more in this collection of objects" (ru: "еще один"). <S> Yes, it does have a seme of being "other", but there is a very strong connotation of "the next one in a row..." <S> (e. g., "to get another slice of pie " — meaning "one more"). <S> When you start typing "try looking in ...." in Google search, it gives a prompt, "...in a different spot." <S> So your best bet is "a different corner. <S> " <S> But, especially in AmE, "in a different X (place, corner, room, etc.)" would be possibly the most common way of saying it. <A> If it's obvious the only options are the corners, then you could simply say "Not this one" or "Try another". <S> You don't need to specifically reference them. <A> You could say Not in this corner. <S> In context that would mean, "What you're looking for is not in the corner you're looking in at the moment, but is to be found in one of the other ones. <S> " At least that is the very strong implication of this . <S> Does your listener/reader really need to be told to look ? <S> Aren't they engaged already in the act of looking for something?
| "Try looking in other corners" and "in another corner" is also possible.
|
"to be jealous" Vs. "to envy" - what is the difference? What is the difference between " to be jealous " and " to envy "? I always used both interchangeably but I was told that actually there is a difference between these two. I opened the dictionary (" jealous " and " envy ") and checked the definitions which each one of them looks correct also for the second word, and I still don't understand what is the difference between them in practical use. <Q> The following in an extract from an interesting piece by M-W about the difference in usage and meaning between jealous and envious in which they state that despite the two terms tend to overlap in usage, there is a difference in the meaning they carry, as explained below: <S> Some people have a view in this matter that is similar to that expressed by the noted lexicographic scholar, Homer Simpson: “I’m not jealous! <S> I’m envious. <S> Jealousy is when you worry someone will take what you have ... <S> envy is wanting what someone else has. ” <S> Others, however, do not make this distinction, or differentiate between these two words in another fashion. <S> Let’s look at some of the ways that jealous and envious overlap. <S> ............ <S> So while jealous may be used to mean both “covetous” and “possessively suspicious”, envious is only in the first of those two senses . <S> Which of course raises the following question: given that jealous has more meanings than envious, does the word envious feel envious or jealous (or both) of its synonym’s greater semantic breadth? <A> I have always interpreted jealousy to be more bitter than envy, and also describe a more negative attitude or behaviour. <S> While envy would imply a more innocent wish to have something that someone else has, jealousy would imply an active feeling of bitterness or even malice. <S> Just my opinion. <A> When used to describe the desire for what someone has, jealous often suggests a stronger emotional intensity than envious . <S> The picture quality of a superior television may be enviable, but it doesn't suggest that someone would be emotionally distraught over not having it. <S> Jealousy has a connotation of frustration bordering on anger. <A> To be envious is to wish you had something that someone else has. <S> This includes having their whole situation. <S> You can envy someone for their job, their lifestyle, whatever. <S> "Jealous" is definitely sometimes used with that exact same meaning. <S> You might hear an exchange like: Person A: "I've got tickets to Hamilton next week." <S> Person B: <S> "Ooh - I'm jealous!" <S> In my experience, children know and use the word "jealous" in this way, and don't use "envious." <S> "Envious" is a word you tend to learn as you get older. <S> However, "jealous" has a larger range of meanings, often fitting in the broad category of wanting to guard what is your own. <S> Very commonly, it refers to being excessively possessive of your partner in a relationship. <S> But you can also find such expressions as "a jealously guarded secret."
| Envious is often used to describe an awareness that what someone else has is desirable.
|
Interchangeability of "such" and "which" Can anyone shed some light on the interchangeability of these sentences: "... speaking of which" .. "speaking of such" I used to think that they are always equivalent and therefore interchangeable but I haven't seen the latter in a while so I'm not sure about its usage. I'd appreciate some examples. <Q> It is obviously spoken language and comes at the beginning of a new sentence, or could conceivably be placed in a sentence in a dialogue. <S> Speaking of such can be used in phrase such as; Speaking of such matters can be difficult. <S> But the meaning is not the same as the idiomatic phrase: Speaking of which etc. <A> An example of the first could be <S> I received an email about sproggling today, speaking of which, only yesterday sproggling was mentioned in a lecture. <S> The second usually has a subject, such as this <S> I have received a lot of emails about sproggling, mungling and stimming. <S> Speaking of such matters would need some research. <A> Speaking of which is relative, like with which in <S> I have a wok, with which I cook sometimes. <S> Nowadays you might be more likely to say “that I cook with”, and analogously “that I'm speaking of” <S> (when I say the following). <S> I've never used speaking of such , but it seems to me more defensible structurally as the beginning of a sentence. <S> It's the same <S> such that occurs in the phrase as such (when that phrase is not a sloppy substitute for therefore ): <S> I am a member of the club and as such [=as a member] I have access to its facilities. <S> Speaking of which makes syntactic sense (to me) only as a continuation of the preceding sentence, so it shouldn't be used to begin a sentence in formal writing, in my humble opinion.
| Speaking of which is used by a speaker to refer to a topic that has just been mentioned either by the speaker or someone else.
|
"What is it like?" Vs. "What does it look like?" Is there any difference between " What is it like? " and " What does it look like? " I'm asking about cases where we describe things that are not people. For example: What is Canada like ? What does Canada look like ? Are those two sentences the same? <Q> What is Canada like? <S> This can be answered in many different ways. <S> It is a super broad question. <S> People could reply: "It's very cold and rich". <S> Or they could reply "it's full of beautiful trees and hills" or they could reply "it's very liberal" etc. <S> There's numerous ways you could answer this question. <S> More likely than any English speaker would ask you to be more specific if you asked this question. <S> What does Canada look like? <S> This is a more specific question. <S> You are asking about how it looks to the eye. <S> Some responses to this would be more like: "its very white and full with trees", "it has beautiful sights" and so on. <S> What is it like is super broad, but what does it look like is asking how it looks to the eye <A> Yes, there is a difference between them. <S> They are not the same. <S> What is it like ? <S> It's very general question about a thing and it may include many planes such as look, smell, sound, feeling. <S> compared with <S> What does it look like ? <S> It's very specific because it asks about a look only rather than a sound, a smell, a feeling. <A> Your answer lies in the exact wording. <S> What does X look like? <S> You are explicitly asking about the look or appearance of something. <S> You are using look to mean: to appear or seem <S> If you took this question literally, your answer would focus on the appearance of Canada. <S> It looked beautiful: there was such a great balance between urban architecture and green spaces. <S> However, you could interpret <S> look more figuratively. <S> This would depend on context. <S> For example, if you are talking about global economies and someone asked what Canada looked like, your answer could be about the financial landscape of Canada. <S> Person 1 <S> : The stock market has been so strong in the US lately. <S> What does Canada look like? <S> Person 2: Pretty similar with the exception of the bumps in the oil industry. <S> Your first question is more general and is a better starting point for a general discussion. <S> If I had a friend returning from a foreign trip, I would start with the general question. <S> For example: Person 1: <S> What was Europe like ? <S> Person 2 <S> : It was great - so different from North America. <S> I loved the music and theatre scenes, not to mention the beautiful scenery! <S> Person 1: <S> Oh, yeah? <S> What does Europe look like ? <S> Person 2: <S> Beautiful green meadows with mountains in the background. <S> It's exactly as you see in the postcards. <S> The conversation starts with generalities. <S> Person 2 can talk about various aspects of her/his experience in Europe. <S> Person 1 asks specifically about looks when the topic comes up.
| Those are very different questions.
|
Does the word "considerably" make sense in "considerably understandable English"? I was writing a message to someone who judged my grammar and I apologized and made it clear that English is not my native tongue. My apology went a little like this: I do apologize if my English has confused you in any way. I did believe I had considerably understandable English. He simply responded by saying I do not because "considerably" means "large amount" and that I used the word incorrectly in the sentence. Did my sentence really not make sense? <Q> "I did believe my English" isn't good "American English" because we would say "I believe(d) that my English" or "I thought that my English". <S> It is awkward. <S> It is difficult for me to explain why, but that was a dead giveaway on the language being a second or third language <S> and I can see how that could cause confusion as we create meaning not only by words but how they are assembled. <A> The key word that is missing here is "by" a large amount or to a certain degree:I speak considerably better Spanish than ....... <S> My English is considerably more understandable than ........ <S> Better to say: I did believe my English was (quite) understandable. <S> Hope this helps <A> I had considerably understandable English <S> You've correctly used the adverb instead of the adjective, and your interlocutor has missed that. <S> It looks to me like you are using "considerably" because you want something stronger than "mostly understandable" but not as strong as "perfectly understandable". <S> This is a reasonable use of the word. <S> It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason, though I am currently unable to think of a better word. <S> Do note that you do not have to write perfect English for your English to be perfectly understandable. <S> It's an appropriate phrase if you want to imply that any failure of communication is the readers fault. <A> As in the definition of Cambridge for consider: to spend time thinking about a possibility or making a decision: So in your phrase "I had a considerably ...." wouldn't match except youwant to express that your skill and expirience in English is on an excellent level. <S> In the same way you could say (wrong in your case) that you have a great knowledge, considerable for an employer who is seeking an expiriencedEnglish speaking assistant ect... <S> simply use "I thought that my English is understandable for most people"or <S> "I must admit that my English is not the best" <S> but I try to improve it.
| It's not wrong, but it's a bit clunky.
|
What is the difference - 'is doing' vs 'does'? Could you please explain what is the difference between the followings and when one of them should be used instead of the another? My brother is doing a degree at university so I don't see him very often, unfortunately. My brother does a degree at university so I don't see him very often, unfortunately. <Q> Neither of these are correct. <S> Usually you would instead write: <S> My brother is getting a degree at university, so I don't seem him very often unfortunately. <S> is getting implies the action is still in progress. <S> He is still in the action of getting the degree. <S> I followed your sentence structure, but I think it would be better written: <S> My brother is getting a degree at university, so unfortunately I don't see him very often. <S> This sentence just flows a little nicer than the original. <A> I would like to add that "my brother is getting a degree" is a temporary situation, usually lasting a few years and that is why the present continuous is required. <S> The present simple is used for permanent situations. <A> For the record (as a native English speaker) I don't think there is anything wrong with saying <S> "My brother is doing a degree" . <S> The phrase " getting a degree" would be more likely to be used when referring to future plans. <S> For example "My bucket list includes getting a degree" rather than something which is happening in the present.
| In the present tense you would say "I am doing a degree".
|
American equivalent of British "takeaway" What's the American English equivalent to the British "takeaway" when referring to prepared meals that are intended to be eaten elsewhere? <Q> At least, that's what I've most commonly heard <S> my American and Canadian friends say when talking about a prepared meal that you take home with you or someplace else instead of eating it where you bought it. <S> I guess the reason it's called takeout is because you literally take it out of the building. <S> Examples: <S> I would like a medium French fries, a bottle of coke and a hamburger. <S> Make it takeout, please. <S> Although that would probably work, a more common way to say it would be make it to-go : <S> I would like a medium French fries, a bottle of coke and a hamburger. <S> Make it to-go, please. <S> I think you use takeout more in other contexts like <S> I got takeout for dinner last night . <S> Not when ordering. <S> It depends on the type of restaurant too. <S> For example, if you go to a fast-food restaurant, you would ask for to-go. <S> If you go to a casual dining restaurant, you might ask for takeout. <S> At a very fancy restaurant, you only eat there and taking it home isn't an option. <S> Pizza is a special case though. <S> If you go to a pizza place, you order carry-out. <A> We usually call it carry out , take out , or to go here in America. <S> Example: <S> Would you like that meal to go or to stay? <S> This phrase is most commonly used when you are at a fast food restaurant, and they ask you whether you wish to dine there, or take the food with you. <S> I also see this used if you are seated at a restaurant and you want to take home some leftover food. <S> You might say: can I get a to go box, or can I get this to go? <S> Is that carry out or dine in? <S> Is that take out or dine in? <S> These are two phrases you might more commonly hear <S> if you are ordering at a restaurant, they might ask you if you wanted to just pick up a meal you ordered, order a meal to take home, or eat there at the restaurant. <A> It can vary in the United States, but in general, for fast food it's referred to as "To go". <S> For example, when you order at McDonald's, the cashier will ask "Is that for here or to go?". <S> For places where you typically call in to place your order, and either pick it up yourself, or have it delivered (Chinese, pizza, etc.), it's called "takeout" or "delivery", respectively. <S> For example, if someone says "I'm going to grab some Chinese takeout", they place their order, then go pick it up at the place. <S> I think this is the closest parallel to the British "takeaway". <S> If they said "I'm going to have some Chinese delivered" or "Want to get some Chinese delivery? <S> " they place their order then have it delivered to their home. <S> Some regions use "carry-out" instead of "takeout". <A> "Takeout" is referring to food that is not consumed in the place <S> it's prepared" "To Go" and <S> "Takeout" refer to the same thing, but are used in different contexts. <S> At the point of actually ordering, "To Go" is used to communicate that the food should be packaged for travel. <S> This makes the food "Takeout". <S> So basically "Takeout" food is "To Go" and "Dine <S> In" food is not "To Go" <A> In the UK "takeaway" often refers to what in the US is called "delivery". <S> Someone brings the food to your house. <S> So, "carryout", "to go", "delivery". <S> Doggy bags are for leftovers. <S> No one orders a meal in the form of a doggy bag.
| As far as I know, that would be called takeout (sometimes referred to as takeout food).
|
This is one of the {most/.} well-known methods used to solve this problem Which one of the following sentences is true or more common? This is one of the most well-known methods used to solve this problem. This is one of the well-known methods used to solve this problem. I want to say that almost every one knows this method. Can we just remove most ? Is there a better expression to say this? <Q> The superlative of "well" is "best": <S> A swims <S> well. <S> B swims better. <S> C swims the best. <S> You should then say: <S> This is one of the best-known methods used to solve this problem. <S> Note: I reply to your comment with this graph ("best-known" expresses the same concept as "well-known" in the superlative, which is what you seem to want): <A> In speech, however, "best-known method" may be heard as "best known method", which instead means "the best of all the methods which are known". <S> Simply for disambiguation while speaking, I would definitely use "most well-known". <S> In fact, while "better-known" and "best-known" are undoubtedly more common in writing than "more well-known" and "most well-known", as Gustavson's graph indicates, they're both just a little bit more formal than I would hear in everyday usage. <S> Wiktionary lists both forms, but I'm afraid I can't find a more definitive source. <A> You can also use: <S> This is one of the more well-known methods used... <S> This phrase is often found in contexts like this. <S> An example, from a textbook: One of the more well-known fractals is the Cantor set. <S> Source: Elements of Quantum Optics . <S> Using <S> more instead of most gets us away from the hair-splitting angst some might have when you use "most".
| Both "most well-known" and "best-known" are completely unambiguous in writing, and mean the same thing.
|
ESL: Should I memorise definitions? As I mentioned, english is my second language. I'd say I'm intermediate at reading, writing and speaking basic english. But I have a very limited vocabulary. So I'm learning new words. From another question on this site, I found vocabulary.com which is somewhat helpful. My question is if I encounter an unfamiliar word, say while reading something, do I just look up the word in the dictionary and move on? I doubt the I'll learn the word like this even if I'm stumbling on the word frequently. Should I memorize the definition of the word? Also many words have multiple meanings, which makes it difficult to remember all of them. Also from a couple of sources, I was suggested that I should remember the word as it is and not translate it in my native language. What would be a good strategy for me? <Q> I've not tried to learn another language before, but I do have some advice from friends who have, and some of my own experience on expanding my vocabulary. <S> One important thing is to first try and figure out the definition of the word by the context. <S> You are more likely to remember the word should a similar context ever occur. <S> If you are going for a high-brow vocabulary, reading works with a progressively higher level vocabulary would be helpful as well. <S> Secondly, it helps to remember phrases rather than specific words. <S> When you are learning new words, If you try and remember the phrases they are used in, you may find it easier to use that phrase rather than that individual word. <S> I've read several studies that suggest learning phrases is far easier than indivual word. <S> Here's an informational page on that from FluentU: <S> https://www.fluentu.com/blog/learning-vocabulary-in-another-language/ <S> Finally, try practicing using the words you learn. <S> Whenever you have the chance to implement a new word you learned into conversation or writing, try to do so. <S> Don't be scared to be corrected. <S> This will help you to better learn how to use that word. <S> You know what they say, if you don't use it you lose it. <A> One other thing to add, is to try to create your own dictionary. <S> A lot of words can be linked together by a common theme. <S> You can categorize them, like fruits, or link them by writing one word in the middle of a sheet and writing all other words related to the word in the center, around it. <S> i.e. 'Bank' in the center, and then 'teller', 'mortgage', 'loan', 'finances' around it. <S> Or 'sounds', in the center and 'clatter', 'roar', 'clunk', 'sputter', 'rattle', etc. <S> When learning a new word, learn U & C, correct pronunciation, part of speech, a good example or two, and the definition of the word in the context you ran into it. <S> If it's a verb look up all the tenses. <S> Only use a dictionary that has all the above information. <S> Try to create an example or two where you might speak it. <S> The last one is very important. <A> In addition to the excellent advice in Element115 and Basl 's answers, I recommend that you analyze how the unfamiliar word is built from word roots and affixes. <S> The total number of word roots, prefixes, and suffixes is much smaller than the total number of words that can be built from them. <S> Thus, it is much easier to memorize approximate definitions for these parts of words than it is to memorize all the words. <S> Knowing the parts of words will help you guess at the meanings of unfamiliar words. <S> It won't let you know "for sure" what an unfamiliar word means, but it will give you a guess that you can confirm in a dictionary. <S> When you do look up the word in the dictionary, you will probably get positive feedback about how good your guess was. <S> For example: <S> unfamiliar = un ( not ) <S> + familiar familiar = family + <S> y->i + ar ar = <S> al (adjective ending) + <S> (l->r) <S> So unfamiliar is an adjective that describes "someone or something you have not been around a lot". <S> approximate = <S> ap + <S> proximate <S> ap = <S> ad ( toward or next to ) <S> + (d->p) proximate = proxy ( substitute ) + <S> y->i + mate (verb or adjective ending) <S> So approximate is either * <S> a verb that means "make a close substitute" for something, or * an adjective that means "is a close substitute" for something.
| Look at the dictionary to assure you're correct, but learning words based on context can be helpful.
|
Confusion regarding usage of rather What is the difference between following sentences: This is venerable rather magnificent institution. and This is venerable and rather magnificent institution. Also, can I use rather in this way: "this is auspicious rather felicitous occasion". <Q> This is venerable rather magnificent institution <S> is wrong for grammatical reasons. <S> It is also ambiguous even if we fix the errors in grammar because it could be made grammatical in two completely different ways. <S> For example, This institution is venerable rather than magnificent is grammatical and equates to <S> This institution is venerable but not magnificent <S> But the following revision is also grammatical <S> This institution is venerable and rather magnificent which equates to <S> This institution is venerable and somewhat magnificent. <S> Somewhat and <S> not are quite different meanings. <S> The problem is that rather than is a conjunction that means but not . <S> But rather used as an adjective means to a partial degree . <A> The institution is a rather magnificent and venerable institution. " <S> to a certain or significant extent of the " The institution is a magnificent institution rather than a venerable institution. <S> "indicates your preference of adjective "Careful of the use of "This" as a pronoun. <S> Separating it too far from the noun it replaces (the antecedent) can make it ambiguous. <S> https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/proref.htm <S> This is auspicious rather felicitous occasion. <S> (This the pronoun has no antecedent <S> so how do we know if this means occasion?)This occasion is a rather auspicious and felicitous one. <S> ("One" is the indefinite pronoun and "this occasion" is <S> the antecedent)This occasion is an auspicious occasion rather than a felicitous occasion. <S> Not sure if that is what you meant in the sentences <S> their meaning was not clear <S> but maybe that will help. <A> What the two sentences have in common is that neither is correct usage. <S> In both cases, a definite article is needed after the verb. <S> Accounting for this, the first sentence needs a comma after "venerable", which will effectively behave as an "and". <S> This is a venerable, rather magnificent institution. <S> This is a venerable and rather magnificent institution. <S> I would expect the first to be spoken in a more personal, affectionate tone of voice than the second.
| As for the difference in usage, there is little difference.
|
What do you call the "collars" of a bathrobe? In other words, what do you call these? (Each individual side?) <Q> Most generically, they would be called lapels (the left lapel and the right lapel). <S> There are different types of lapels such as notch lapels, peak lapels and so on and so forth, but they're all lapels. <A> That entire feature inside your circle is sometimes called a shawl collar . <S> If you were shopping for such a garment, you would tell the salesperson that you wanted a bathrobe "with a shawl collar". <A> Personally I'd call it a collar , but I've never sewed anything in my life. <S> I also just learned that sewed and sewn <S> are interchangeable!
| And, to the best of my knowledge, it's absolutely irrelevant whether it's a coat or a bathrobe that you're talking about—they're still called lapels. According to the people at this site , who have sewn, it's called a collar panel .
|
British as an adjective Can you say: British residents=UK residents 1.Are these two synonymous with each other? 2.Is ''UK'' also a formal adjective here? <Q> 1 British and UK are not quite the same thing. <S> However in casual use people don't always pay attention to this distinction, so some people will use the terms interchangeably. <S> 2 <S> In the noun phrase "UK residents", UK is a noun adjunct , not an adjective. <S> It is not grammatically correct to say "Fred is UK", because UK is not an adjective. <S> It is grammatical to say "Fred is British". <A> Generally if you say I am a UK passport holder. <S> I am a British passport holder. <S> It will be understood to mean you have that little red booklet (for now). <S> If you say I am a British resident. <S> I am a UK resident. <S> It means you live somewhere covered by the jurisdiction of the passport: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. <S> Saying " I'm a British resident " usually refers to England since it is the majority population and otherwise one would say I live in Scotland. <S> I live in Wales. <S> I live in Northern Ireland. <S> for reasons of local pride and feelings towards the English. <S> You can also say I'm a Brit <S> but not I'm a UK <S> you will need to say I'm from the UK. <A> This is a really complicated area because residence, domicile, and nationality have distinct technical meanings, and also because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is both a legal concept and a geographical expression. <S> So I could be a British resident without having a British domicile or without having British nationality. <S> I could even have a British domicile without being a British resident. <S> As to geography, "Great Britain" is the name of an island comprising three nations: England, Wales and Scotland. <S> " <S> Northern Ireland" is a part of the island of Ireland which is also part of the United Kingdom. <S> If you are speaking of residence, then that is administered for the whole of the UK in the same way. <S> So in that context British resident is a synonym of UK resident. <S> But that emphatically does not mean that British and UK are synonyms more widely. <S> It all depends on the precise terms in question.
| The full name of the UK is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island , so these two terms have slightly different meanings since "British residents" doesn't necessarily include Northern Ireland.
|
Is "warn from" grammatically wrong? SENTENCE: "The ministry of health warns from the consumption of melon fruits" My colleagues and I are debating whether or not "warns from" is grammatically correct. I googled the phrase and although, "warned about", "warned of", and "warned against" popped up, "warns from" never did. But I'm thinking, maybe it's just not colloquially used but still grammatically correct? <Q> You will find that language changes. <S> There are constructions which are possible from a rules base but may not be used since people do not think in rules when they talk. <S> Not sure what the technical term is for this. <S> And then there are often used expressions which fall outside the rules that are often used and these are sometimes called idioms . <S> What is important is to be understood . <S> Your phrase warns from is not used, or if it is would be considered to be nonnative, eventhough it is understandable. <S> warns about warns against would be better. <S> The ministry of health warns about the consumption of melon fruits <A> However, in contemporary English , we are normally warned off or warned from {a place or particular path}, that is, told to stay away from it because of some danger or some other set of malign or unprofitable circumstances. <S> We might be warned from a poisoned well . <S> A ship might be warned off a sandbank . <S> We might be warned from a particular career . <S> The warning is an attempt to avert us from a literal or figurative path. <S> But we are not normally warned off eating or warned from eating melons. <S> Rather, we are advised|warned against eating fish high in mercury, or we are or warned not to eat fish high in mercury. <S> We can be steered from eating fish high in mercury. <A> Saying what preposition goes with what verb and with what meaning is not a matter of grammar, but of usage. <S> At least in the US, warn against is both idiomatic and clear <S> when the intended meaning of warn is to advise against. <S> And against is almost certainly the clearest choice for the intended meaning of the sentence that you are asking about.
| It is idiomatic to be warned from or warned off .
|
Does "I'm on it" mean "I'm doing it" or "I'm going to do it"? This is a simple question. As the title says, what would it mean in this given context: A: Can you check this? B: I'm on it. In this case, when B says " I'm on it ", does he mean he already started the checking and is continuing it, or he will be checking it sooner or later (but not sure when he will be checking it)? What is B trying to convey exactly here? Thanks! Updated with my research on the web. It seems to me that the phrase could be interpreted either ways. What do your native speakers think? <Q> According to the Cambridge dictionary, on it means informally doing something that needs to be done, or trying to solve a problem. <S> In my experience it doesn't imply one or the other. <S> In fact, the joke is that when your boss asks you how something is coming along and you say "Don't worry, I'm on it," it could both be interpreted to mean that you'll start immediately but also that you were already working on it. <S> The joke then comes from the boss interpreting the latter when in reality the situation is the former, essentially giving a false impression without having to directly lie. <S> If you want to clarify, then you would have to explicitly ask, "Do you mean 'You are doing it already' or 'You are going to do it?'" <A> And, probably, you are doing it now! <S> Hey, what about the essay? <S> Well, I'm on it! <S> This means the other person has <S> already started writing the essay. <S> However, this also depends on the task! <S> Say, if the project is very big, you may have started it but currently, you are not doing it! <S> Then too, you use 'on it.' <S> Hey, what about that big engine project to be submitted? <S> Yeah, I'm on it...will submit soon. <S> This does not mean that the person is fixing a screw in his machine at the time of having a conversion. <S> But, overall, he's on the project these days . <S> Another definition by UrbanDictionary : <S> A phrase used by an individual in a group suddenly determined to resolve a task or meaningless puzzle (that the others are too lazy to accomplish), usually in attempt to glorify their image or make them feel valuable to that group. <A> Yes, it usually implies that the person who says it is either already actively working on a problem or just a few seconds away from beginning to start actively working on a problem. <S> Think logically about it for a second. <S> If something is on the table or on the news, it's not in the process of getting there. <S> It's already there! <S> So, if somebody tells you that they're on it, you can pretty much consider whatever they're doing done. <S> Take a look at this example: — I need you to make two copies of this document for me real quick. <S> — <S> I'm already on it! <S> Consider it done! <S> He has not done it yet, but the idea here is that you can rest assured that he will. <S> It's as though the problem has already been taken care of even though he's actually only beginning to take care of it. <S> Also notice that although the fact that the problem is ALREADY in the process of being taken care of is implied, nothing prevents you from using the adverb already again for emphasis.
| I'm on it means that you have already began the task. In other words, it could mean either interchangeably.
|
"We are foreign" or "We are foreigners"? How should it be said correctly when referring to our origin in the current country that we are in? I have two choices between adjective to noun and I'm not sure what I should use. "We are foreign " or "We are foreigners "? The contexts are as follow: We are in a country which is not our origin. We are in a place (even in our country of origin) where we don't belong to. We ask our children to foreigners or people who are foreign. I saw in my neighborhood a person that's not local. (He is foreign or foreigner). <Q> We are foreigners. <S> is usually what you say when you are in a different country than your native country. <S> Foreign is more general . <S> It can be used to mean strange or unfamiliar, as well as a slew of other definitions. <A> I don't like the connotation of 'foreign' or 'foreigners' in the English language (particularly in BrE) when it comes to country of origin, other posters have already stated but I also wanted to reiterate it. <S> Depending on the context you can say: I'm an international/overseas student from X (country) <S> I'm originally from X <S> I was born and raised in X Or state your nationality directly: <S> I'm French/German/Chinese/Indian <S> Do go with something that feels natural to you but <S> the answers here have given you various ways that feel idiomatic in which to specify where you are from. <S> EDIT : <S> Following on from a suggestion in the comments, I'd like to expand a bit on my reasoning above. <S> In the UK, owing to political circumstances, words such as "immigrant" and "foreigner" have acquired generally negative connotations (with headlines such as <S> these being a fairly common occurrence). <S> Speaking a foreign language can be derivisely dubbed as "speaking foreign" and you'd seldom encounter the words "foreign" or "foreigner" in positive contexts (for example, when emphasising positive contribution or impact from overseas nationals <S> different words are preferred in neutral texts). <S> This is in contrast to other languages where the word for something "foreign" or "a foreigner" have generally neutral connotations. <S> As a foreigner, I avoid such terminology when referring to myself and opt for different ways of indicating my background. <A> They are two different ways to convey the same meaning. <S> There may be a very slight difference in meaning because "foreign" can mean "strange or atypical" in addition to meaning "not accorded legal citizenship" whereas "foreigner" just means "non-citizen." <S> But in the context that you are discussing, that difference is not relevant. <S> Either choice will work. <A> Technically either one is correct, but between the two, I would go with "foreigners". <S> Both sentences basically mean the same thing, but the second sounds more natural. <S> Also the first one sounds almost like you're saying something about yourself personally, as well as your country of origin. <S> But usually one of the most natural ways to say this would be something like, " <S> We are from another country." <S> It is very common to hear phrases like this: <S> Where are you from originally? <S> Are you from Australia? <S> I'm from Texas originally. <S> This doesn't just work with countries, but also with states, regions, etc. <S> Another thing that's really common, mainly if you're talking about your country (which you are, in this case), is to just use the adjective of your country. <S> You could say something like, "I'm Chinese," and it would sound very natural. <A> As other answers have stated, both phrases convey the minimal information " <S> We are not natural citizens of this place." <S> If that is all you intend to convey in a casual exchange, the phrases are equivalent. <S> However, there are additional weak implications that accompany each phrase. <S> They are unlikely to be noticed in casual conversations, especially if english is not a native language, but could have meaning in a setting where people are expected to choose their language carefully, such as a legal proceeding. <S> "We are foreign. <S> " implies we are foreign to 'you', according to your rules. <S> It applies to the group as a single whole. <S> One person speaking for the group can truthfully declare that everyone in the group is foreign as long as he believes that fact to be true, regardless of his knowledge that one or more members of the group may not consider herself a foreigner. <S> "We are foreigners. <S> " implies that each of us consider our self to be a foreigner, by whatever standard each of us choose to use. <S> The truthful speaker must believe that every person in the group individually consider themselves foreigners. <S> Credit to Baldrickk for initially calling out the difference in a comment. <S> Neither phrase implies that members of the group are from the same origin. <S> Other suitable candidates do convey this, "We are French." <S> Therefore, by choosing these general phrases over the more specific; both topic phrases weakly imply that members of the group may be from different origins. <A> foreign is an adjective and means literally "from a distant land" and it can have the extended figurative meaning "strange or unfamiliar". <S> foreigner is a noun and means "someone who is from a distant land". <S> In modern geopolitical terms, in a world of nation-states with guarded borders, a foreigner might live only 5 miles away from you. <S> The geopolitical term is foreign national . <A> To me, it depends on whether you are asking in order to use 'foreign' and 'foreigner' correctly, as an exercise in a lesson, or whether you are asking how you should answer in real life. <S> In real life, you may want to say something like, I haven't been here long, if you want to explain why you don't know something perfectly yet, but if someone is asking you, I would think that you aren't obligated to answer them, and can ignore their question! <S> If it's the first case, either the way you used the adjective or the noun is correct, though of the two I would prefer using the noun.
| Foreigners is a noun specific for saying that you are from another country other than the one you're in.
|
Is there a word that means "to throw to the garbage"? I thought of discarded and getting rid of . But I wonder if there's a more specific word. Example sentence: I searched for the soap, finally discovering that my girlfriend had __. <Q> Although not exactly a single word, the phrasal verb to throw away is as specific as it can possibly get when describing a situation where you want to get rid of something that you no longer need. <S> It strikes me as a little bit odd that you've never heard of this, rather basic, English expression before. <S> I'm pretty sure you have, though. <S> You just forgot. <S> Examples: <S> Did you throw the papers away ? <S> Why did you do that? <S> I still need them! <S> I'm going to throw away all my broken toys. <S> What do I have to keep all that junk for? <S> I was looking for this soap everywhere, only to discover that my girlfriend had <A> You might be thinking of throw out (definition 1b): <S> I searched for the soap, finally discovering that my girlfriend had thrown it out . <A> If you need a single term you may use discard though it sounds less colloquial than “throw away”: <S> If you discard something, you get rid of it because you no longer want it or need it. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> I searched for the soap, finally discovering that my girlfriend had discarded it. <A> There are several ways you can express this: to throw away to trash to dispose of to dump to scrap <S> Yes even, to discard <S> "To dump" and "to trash" are somewhat informal, though so long as you're not writing a thesis, you should be fine.
| thrown it away .
|
"Do you like movies, do not you?" Correct? In writing, contraction should be avoided, right? However, I feel strange to see "do not you" instead of "don't you". I wonder if native speakers use "do not you" in writing instead of using "don't you". Thank you in advance! <Q> "You like movies, do you not?"or"You like movies, don't you?" <S> The second option is more of a rhetorical question, in which the person asking knows the answer before it is given. <S> The first is seems like a more typical question, and is slightly more formal. <S> "...do not you?" is never correct. <S> Use " <S> ...do you not?" <A> As @Robusto started to point out in the comments, no native speaker would ever use the phrase "do not you". <S> We almost always use "don't you". <S> As @user8577930 mentioned, there is the phrase " <S> do you not", but this is very rarely used. <S> When people say you should avoid contractions in writing, there are three things to remember: <S> It's perfectly fine grammatically to use them. <S> They're just saying that it's bad style to use them in writing, but that is a traditional rule that is probably slowly going away, especially on the Internet. <S> The phrase "don't you" is in the second person. <S> Usually when people say you shouldn't use contractions, they are talking about when you are writing something formal in the third person, not the second. <S> They are talking about when you write things like formal books, encyclopedia articles, etc. <S> In that case, you need to write in the third person anyway, which prevents this problem. <S> But there are types of formal writing that should usually be in the second person: a letter to a government official, an instruction manual, etc. <S> If it's still formal, and if it's not on a website or piece of software, usually you should still avoid contractions. <S> (This is when you might say "do you not".) <S> But when you're dealing with something less formal (such as a blog on your website), it is just not the kind of writing that these people are talking about, and contractions are not an issue. <A> For example: "Don't you like movies?" -> "Do you not like movies?" <S> "You like movies, don't you?" <S> -> "You like movies, do you not?" <S> "Why aren't you staying?" -> "Why are you not staying?" <S> "You're sad, aren't you?" <S> -> <S> "You're sad, are you not?" <S> In sentences like these, it's definitely more common to use the version with a contraction than to use the version without. <S> You could also rephrase the question to avoid the negation ("Do you like movies?"), but that changes the nuance a bit: the original sentence has a stronger implication that you're assuming the person likes movies, or that you think the more correct/accurate answer is that they like movies. <S> There are other ways to phrase it that convey similar meaning, but they're usually longer, like: " <S> Am I correct in thinking you like movies?" <S> This may vary somewhat by industry, though.
| When used to form a question, "do" goes before the subject while "not" goes after it. Nowadays contractions are commonly used in "semi-formal" communications like business emails and blog posts, so personally I think you only need to avoid them in very formal situations such as a resume / cover letter, or a legal document.
|
Can I use "my team" even if I'm not a manager of the team? Considering that I'm a member of a team and there is a manager, is it OK to say "my team" like "My team did that work"? Or should I speak "our team" instead? When I talk to a member of the team, it looks OK to say "our team", however, when I talk to people outside the team, I always feel strange as the team is not mine nor ours. <Q> My team (at work) accomplished our goals this year. <S> My team (at work) <S> accomplished my goals this year. <S> As a team member or manager one would say the first sentence, as an owner or vision setter you would say the second sentence. <S> And then consider <S> My team won the championship. <S> The team that I play on won the championship <S> My team won the championship. <S> The team that I support (but not play on) won the championship. <S> bith sentences are exactly the same, but the surrounding context is necessary to the understanding. <S> The possesive is used to show a closer association to something which may include ownership but not necesarily. <A> My [noun] can be used to express anything you are a part of or belong to.- objects- organizations, companies, associations- states of mind- etc. <S> The main point is this: "My" does not mean that "you have to own" the object as in My book. <A> Its most certainly acceptable and would not cause confusion. <S> Using "my" in that context doesn't necessarily imply ownership, but rather relationship. <S> Similar to how you'd say "my flight was late", its not "your" flight as in you own the flight, but its the flight you took, making it "yours". <S> Saying "my team" doesn't imply you own the team, but rather shows a relationship (you're on the team, making it "your" team)
| It is acceptable to say my team to express your close association with that group of people and it gets used in different ways
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.