Split (1)

train · 95.7k rows

source stringlengths 620 29.3k	target stringlengths 12 1.24k
Is infinitival "TO" a preposition? Is infinitival "to" a preposition? I have a sentence which is ending with an infinitival "to". It seems to me that to end up a sentence with an infinitival "TO" is not as bad as with what I call a prepositional "TO". Isn't it? Compare: I was lied to . and I did that because they want me to . <Q> If you look up the word to via Google (I used the search term "to definition") <S> - Google gives the part of speech of the "infinitival to" as infinitive marker - basically putting it in its own category. <S> That's probably the proper thing to do. <S> The idea that English sentences should not end with prepositions comes from a time when it was fashionable to try to understand English in terms of Latin word functions. <S> While there's a lot of English words with Latin roots, English grammar itself is Germanic based and very different from Latin, so applying the same concepts on a grammar level isn't necessarily valid. <A> No, infinitival to is a subordinator . <S> It derives historically from the preposition to <S> (notice the strong similarity in meaning between <S> I went to the doctor and <S> I went to see the doctor ) <S> but long ago lost its prepositional properties. <S> It is now unique: no other item has exactly the same properties. <S> Modern grammar takes it as a member of the subordinator category - a special marker for VPs of infinitival clauses. <S> (note: ' <S> marker' is its function in the clause.) <A> 1) To is always a preposition and nothing else . <S> However, it is used in a variety of ways. <S> 2) <S> - I was lied to . <S> ACTIVE: <S> X lied to me. <S> to me is a prepositional phrase, it is not a to-infinitive. <S> The sentence is also passive. <S> She was read to . <S> ACTIVE: <S> X read to her every night before bed. <S> In a passive sentence, as the two above, you do not need to use the pronoun if the pronoun that comes after to is understood by the speakers and the original action verb "takes" to. <S> To lie to <S> ** <S> someone \|\| to read to someone \|\| to adhere to something \|\| 3) <S> I did that because they wanted me to . <S> I did that because they wanted me to do that . <S> wanted me to = <S> they wanted me to do that . <S> Certain verbs do not call for repeating the main verb. <S> They are called verbs of emotion and the to is left at the end of the sentence without repeating the verb, in spoken English. <S> Need, want, love, like, hate, prefer, (verbs of emotion) and also certain others like advise or tell or ask and other action verbs (but not the verb suggest). <S> (Sorry, I don't have an entire list for you.) <S> You do not need to repeat an infinitive clause if there is no auxiliary used after the to: You should not call me again. <S> I told you not to [call me again]. <S> I prefer to leave early. <S> Do you want to [leave early]? <S> I want to watch that movie on TV right now. <S> Do you want to [watch that movie again]? <S> They told us to stop by their house. <S> Did they tell you to [stop by their house]?BUT: <S> I wanted to have forgotten that by now. <S> Did you also want to <S> have forgotten that by now also?	Infinitival to is really more like an article or determiner.
What is the name of such a "lamp"? What is this kind of lamp called? To call it simply a " lamp " doesn't makes sense to me, nor to call it a " chandelier ", since I've noticed that "chandelier" refers to an impressive group of lamps which hang from a ceiling. I would like to know what this usual kind of lamp facility is called? NB honestly I don't know what to call it even in my native language. <Q> As you noted, "chandelier" does normally refer to larger, more ornate pieces than this, despite its literal meaning of "candle holder". <S> In general, a light that is fixed is called a "light fitting" or "light fixture" (in contrast to desk lamps, or standing lamps that are pieces of furniture and can be moved). <S> A light fitting could be a "ceiling light", a "wall light" a "floor light". <S> This is a ceiling light. <S> John Lewis (a department store chain in the UK) describes this particular style as a "multi-armed ceiling light" https://www.johnlewis.com/browse/furniture-lights/ceiling-lighting/multi-armed/_/N-7cq4Z1z0hyhp <S> This one, in particular, is a 5-arm ceiling light <S> Thus, there is no specific name for this type of light fitting, but they can be described using common words. <A> A type of lamp which does not hang low from the ceiling is called a semi-flush ceiling light , Semi-flush is a ceiling light that attaches to the ceiling with a stem or part that creates a gap between the ceiling and the light. <S> The adjective twisted describes the form of the glass shade and … there are two types of ceiling lights. <S> The one is flush , and the other is semi flush . <S> Flush ceiling lights are lights that are close to ceiling fixtures. <S> In other words, they are close to ceiling lights. <S> In fact, most of them have no gap between the fixture and the ceiling. <S> These ceiling lights are designed to look modern and functional. <S> They offer a consistent and exact level of brightness, whether it is warm or white. <S> On the other hand, semi-flush ceiling lights or semi-flush mount lights are those that have wider gaps between the fixture and the ceiling. <S> If close to ceiling lights or those that are close to ceiling fixtures emulate the moon or the sun, semi flush lights emulate the classic chandelier. <S> Nevertheless, both types can be made in various designs that can perfectly fit any interior. <S> [source] The adjective swirl is used to describe how the arms cross each other Note that the number of light bulbs is described 3/5/6 or 8 light , thus the ceiling lamp posted on the OP's question is a (modern) 5 lamp semi-flush ceiling light. <A> The particular word chandelier basically means candle holder , but for most people evokes as you say a large, ornate fixture. <S> That may change, but in the meantime I stick with the more generic light fitting for any lamp holder , and I'd have said multiple light fitting, but it does appear the industry has settled on multi (-) arm (ed) to describe these things. <S> I wish we could resurrect manifold ¹ [as the adjective] for this <S> , it’s the perfect word <S> — it means something has multiple parts, and often refers to something with a branching structure, such as an exhaust manifold ². <S> ¹ <S> a pipe fitting with several lateral outlets for connecting one pipe with others; especially : a fitting on an internal combustion engine that directs a fuel and air mixture to or receives the exhaust gases from several cylinders ² <S> the manifold that receives the exhaust gases from each of several engine cylinders <A> In AmE, and no doubt elsewhere too, the terminology for lighting fixtures is quite varied and specific to the industry. <S> Not every style has a widely used generic name, or fits neatly into a category. <S> Phrases that would come in handy for you trying to describe this image to a company over the phone, if you were shopping for such a light, say: It's not a pendant style ceiling lamp; that is, it doesn't hang down from the ceiling on chains. <S> Rather it has five rod-like but undulating polished metal arms each of which terminates in a frosted sconce . <A> While all the suggested terms are accurate and accepted, it is perfectly fine these days to call any multi-armed ceiling lamp a chandelier, no matter how fancy or plain. <S> To say otherwise is wordy and overly specific. <S> The main difference is between lay speakers and professionals. <S> They would want to distinguish it from a more formal chandelier, which might have additional hanging pieces like strings of crystals that might may need space accommodation and expense. <S> Watching the remodeling shows on cable TV, any multi-armed lighting fixture can be and is often referred to as a chandelier by professionals and lay people alike. <A> I think that the most generic way to refer to this type of ceiling light fixture would be a simple-style 5-light chandelier or a simple-fashion living-room chandelier . <S> At least, that's what most online furniture stores call it ( simple-style chandelier ). <S> Although it might not sound like it, it is still a chandelier, <S> any way you slice it. <S> Just a more modern version of it, I guess.	A designer or lamp manufacturer would refer to such a lamp generally as a fixture because all built-in lighting is referred to as a fixture.
What are the combinations of "there-is" or "there-are" called in English grammar terms? What are the combinations of " there-is " or " there-are " called in English grammar terms? For example: There is an apple on the table. I am looking for a specific term for these expressions (as well as for the same in past tense such as " there was " and " there were "). Normally in many of languages, unlike in English these two combinations are expressed in one specific word. <Q> There is called a dummy subject. <S> There are apples on the table. <S> There is at least one entire book on the subject: <S> Existential Sentences in Englis h (RLE Linguistics D: English Linguistics) <S> 1st <S> Editionby Gary L. Milsark (Author) <S> dummy subject existential sentence <S> In English grammar, an existential sentence is a sentence that asserts the existence or nonexistence of something. <S> For this purpose, English relies on constructions introduced by There (known as the "existential there"). <S> From David Crystal's, Making Sense of Grammar . <S> Pearson Longman, 2004 <S> The term existential sentence is an attempt to capture the meaning conveyed by the following type of construction: <S> There's a strange cat in the garden <S> There were lots of people in town. <S> There weren't any apples on the tree . <S> There appeared a bright star in the sky. <S> The word there comes first . <S> . <S> .. <S> It is then followed by the simple present or past tense of be , or <S> a small range of 'presentational' verbs, such as: appear , arise , ascend , come , emerge , erupt , exist , float , occur , spring up , stand . <S> The noun phrase following the verb is usually indefinite, as shown by such words as a and any . <S> . . . <A> The constructions "there is" or "there are" are called expletive constructions or expletive syntax . <A> It is called " existential clause ", " existential sentence ", or " existential construction " or simply existential . <S> This terms refer for all tenses of the existential clauses, such as: there is, there are, there was, there were, there will etc. <S> Existential (n. & adj.) <S> (A grammatically marked structure) <S> typically used to express a proposition that someone or something exists. <S> An existential construction (also called a there-existential) typically conforms to the following pattern: there + ( auxiliary / raising verb ) + be + notional subject. <S> The unstressed pronoun <S> there is a dummy subject called existential there. <S> Here are some examples: <S> There is an emergency <S> There must be a God <S> There seems to be no solution <S> These are called bare existential clauses , which do not have a nonexistential counterpart (cf. <S> * <S> An emergency is). <S> An extended existential clause contains additional material (called the extension), such as a locative (1) or temporal phrase, a relative clause, a to-infinitive, or an *-ing clause: <S> There is a mouse in the loft <S> There was a fire last week <S> There has been nothing in the papers about this <S> Can there be life on other planets? <S> There’s one student who brings her dog to class <S> There is a great deal of work to do <S> There was a fox running down the street <S> (The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. <S> P.147)	There is and there are [ there exists etc.] are called existential sentences or utterances.
What is the term for a list of people who have permission to access your data? I was going to wrote a code to display notice to user if the process to download a list of people who has permission to access the current user's data, like this: "Unable to load permission list " But then I felt it weird. But to write it fully as: "Unable to load a list of people who has permission to access your data " also feel too long and too verbose. Is there any shorter and better alternative to this? <Q> The term permission list sounds like a list that contains all possible permissions that one can choose from with regard to a particular system. <S> For example, a Unix file permission list would be a list that contains all possible variations one can come up with to specify which users or system processes are granted access to his or her files. <S> If you're at all familiar with Unix systems, this would be a set of permission bits you attach to a file that limits other users' access to it for reasons of security. <S> And that's exactly what an ACL that other people here have been talking about is. <S> I think, in your case, however, these would sound a lot better: <S> Unable to load the trusted users list . <S> In the field of information systems, trusted or authorized users would be users who have been given permission to use a certain functionality of the system by granting them a set of permissions that allow them to do that. <A> With respect to a computer file system an access control list (ACL) specifies which users or system processes are granted access to objects, as well as what operations are allowed on given objects. <S> ( The source .) <A> You could also use Whitelist Definition from Wikipedia	Unable to load the authorized users list .
Meaning of “the first year it has featured anywhere on the list” I read in an article in the Daily Mail listing the most violent cities in the world. The article had a picture caption which says: Los Cabos, in Mexico, was ranked as the most violent city in the world, the first year it has featured anywhere on the list Sounce: Daily Mail news article I am having trouble understanding the meaning of “the first year it has featured anywhere on the list”. <Q> From the URL, the article is talking about a list of the 50 most violent cities. <S> Presumably this list is updated annually, with cities moving on and off the list from year to year as they get more or less dangerous. <S> That is, in years prior to this one, it was at worst the 51st most violent city. <S> The article is mentioning this to emphasize a very sudden and large increase in violence. <S> Last year, Los Cabos was safer than at least the 50 cities that made last year's list. <S> This year, violence is so bad there that it jumped ahead of all 50 of those cities all the way to the most violent city spot. <A> Within the context of the article The 50 most dangerous cities in the world Means that in previous years the city Los Cabos hasn't been in the top 50 and therefore not on the list. <S> However, this year, is the first time it has appeared on the list. <S> It's even more extraordinary that, according to the article, that it is the most violent city in the world and has gone straight to the top. <A> feature (v): Have as a prominent attribute or aspect; Be a significant characteristic of or take an important part in. <S> The sentence says that Los Cabos now prominently appears at the top of the list of most violent cities in the world. <S> This is unusual because, in past years, it wasn't even on the list (it "didn't feature anywhere on the list") <S> Related examples: <S> This is the first time in thirty years that the TV network has featured this program as part of their regular schedule. <S> The designer came from nowhere and now her work features among the most popular fashions this year.	The further implication is that the violence being tabulated is for the current year (or the most recent year for which statistics are available). The is the first year that Los Cabos, Mexico, is anywhere on the list , meaning that last year (and all other years previously) it was not one of the 50 most violent cities.
What is the meaning of "There is nothing so bad that it couldn't be worse"? What is the meaning of " There is nothing so bad that it couldn't be worse " ? Does it mean "The situation is not so bad. therefore, the situation couldn't be worse" or "The situation is so bad. therefore, the situation could be worse"? For example, A: I have no money. B: The situation where you do not have money is not a bad situation. Therefore, it will not get worse. You have no debts! Does "The situation where you do not have money is not a bad situation. Therefore, it will not get worse. You have no debts!" mean "There is nothing so bad that it couldn't be worse" ? <Q> Consider the pattern <S> so {adjective} that ... {something is impossible} <S> The tea was so hot that it could not be drunk. <S> The hedge was so tall that it could not be jumped. <S> The candy was so hard that it could not be chewed. <S> It is impossible to do these things because the tea is so hot, the hedge is so tall, and the candy is so hard. <S> The degree of heat, height, and hardness reaches or exceeds a threshold so that those actions are impossible. <S> Now consider the pattern <S> not so {adjective} <S> that ... {something is impossible} <S> The tea was not so hot that it could not be drunk. <S> The hedge was not so tall that it could not be jumped. <S> The candy was not so hard that it could not be chewed. <S> It is NOT impossible to do these things, even though the tea was hot, the hedge was tall, and the candy was hard; the tea was still drinkable; the hedge was still jumpable, and the candy was still chewable, because their degree of heat, height, and hardness was not so great that those things were impossible. <A> It means neither. <S> This phrase is often shortened to "it could be worse"...meaning if you lose your job, your spouse, and your house on the same day it could always be worse - you could die. <S> It's about changing your thinking after bad things happen and making your thoughts more positive. <A> It is a saying frequently used around NASA to drill in the importance of calmly thinking through a problem instead of just taking wild guesses as to potential solutions.	The saying, "there is no problem so bad you can't make it worse," actually means that as bad as things may seem, if you act foolishly in response you could still make things worse.
Is there any phrase for the German "Föhn-Wind" in English? In the German language there is the word "Föhn" meaning a special type of warm wind where those who are sensitive to weather changes have huge problems, like migraines, etc. Regardless where I searched though I found no English translation for this. Is there anything that could be used (word or phrase) to describe the Föhn-wind? <Q> German native speaker here. <S> In its glossary of meteorology, the American Meteorological Society simply uses foehn/föhn ( also used in the UK ; the article even mentions the Foehnkrankenheit (sic!)): <S> [...] the phenomenon has been linked to depression, suicide, madness, headaches, sleeplessness and crime waves. <S> Same goes for Wikipedia . <S> A look into Google Books confirms that the word is used inside many English-language books. <S> A similar phenomenon in the US and Canada are the Chinook winds , which might have the same effect (though it is stated that there is no clear evidence): <S> Chinook winds have been blamed for increases in several medical conditions including migraines, strokes, and even sudden infant death syndrome. <S> The glossary article linked above also names a few other variants found throughout the world. <A> (Dictionary.com) <S> Foehn: a warm dry wind blowing down the northern slopes of the Alps. <S> It originates as moist air blowing from the Mediterranean, rising on reaching the Alps and cooling at the saturated adiabatic lapse rate, and descending on the leeward side, warming at the dry adiabatic lapse rate, thus gaining heat. <A> There is no direct translation into English, possibly because it sounds like a local name for a fairly common weather phenomenon. <S> For example, here in Southern California we have the "Santa Anas", a dry wind that blows from the Santa Ana desert out over the ocean, and is unfortunately common around late summer / early autumn when everything is already very dry. <S> Small blazes, that would normally be easily extinguished, quickly turn into out-of-control wildfires when the Santa Anas are blowing, which happened with numerous fires just this past year . <S> Elsewhere few people would know what a "Santa Ana" is, or why it's important to life here, but will understand if you describe it. <S> In the same way the Föhn-Wind is what those in that area call something that may have other names in other regions of the world : The Brookings/Chetco effect, Chinook, Kumagaya, Puelche, Wuhan, Viento del Sur, Nor'Wester , and many others. <S> Note that "Föhn" (or "Foehn") may be in the dictionary, but then so are many other names of winds from around the world. <S> Knowing these may get you many points when playing Scrabble, but you'll still probably have to explain them in casual conversation. <A> Foehn is the international agreed term for winds that are warmed and dried by descent. <S> Foehn is used everywhere in scientific literature. <S> A reason for this is that foehn-research has a long history in Switzerland and Austria where people speak german (Föhn). <S> However, other terms exist for the same phenomena. <S> In the Rocky Mountains its chinook, in Argentine zonda, in the Andes puelche, Poland calls it halny wiatr... <S> There are many other words, but it is always the same phenomenon. <S> I know this, because I am writing my master thesis about foehn. <S> About the well-being of people during foehn: There has been intensive research to find a link between foehn and illnesses (headache, migraines etc). <S> But until today, nobody has found a statistically significant link. <S> There is no proof, that foehn makes people ill or feeling bad.	I think the more common English spelling is: Foehn or fohn: a warm, dry wind descending a mountain, as on the north side of the Alps.
What is an idiomatic way to tell someone to put their hands on someone's eyes in order to not let them see? I would like to know how do you say this action in common spoken English. Suppose that someone puts their hand on someone's eyes in order not to let them see. So, someone is ordering someone else to this action: A. Put your hand on her eyes. B. Blindfold her with your hand. C. Catch her eyes off ... So what's the way saying it? <Q> I think the simplest, yet most idiomatic way to say that in English would be this: Cover her eyes with your hands. <S> Or, as was suggested by brichins down below, the sentence can be made even shorter: <S> Cover her eyes. <S> if it's implied that it is your hands that you're going to use to cover her eyes. <A> "Put your hands over her eyes" would be most natural to me. <S> ("Over" seems more natural than "on" <S> but I can't really explain why. <S> Perhaps "on" feels like you're saying to touch her eyes, which would be painful.) <S> If you said "blindfold her with your hand(s) <S> ", that would be understood perfectly. <S> "Catch her eyes off" makes no sense to me <S> and I wouldn't be able to guess what you meant. <A> None of your examples feel natural to me. <S> As an American in the western U.S., we would simply say "close your eyes," it being implicit that the eyes may need to be covered (by one's hands or something else) to ensure the necessary blindness or surprise. <S> It is a common enough concept in my area that a surprise should be met with covered eyes that I don't hear people say anything more explicit. <S> If the situation requires the eyes to be covered by hands (whether it be a playful moment with a child or an intimate moment with a lover), I'd use "cover your eyes." <S> Again, the use of hands being implicit. <S> It would be tedious to say "cover her eyes with your hands" as it suggests there are multiple ways to cover the eyes and the most appropriate <S> is with your hands. <S> This would be highly circumstantial. <S> Ignoring situations with sexual overtones, I could see using it at a child's birthday party where a blindfold was used by children striking a piñata — until one with a runny nose took a turn, afterwhich the blindfold couldn't be used. <S> You might then ask a second child to "cover her eyes with your hands" to take the place of the blindfold. <A> As an American (who has lived in the midwest and east coast), a common phrase I would use is Shield her eyes! <S> to indicate covering their eyes so they cannot see. <S> This has the same meaning as "cover", but the use of "shield" adds a sense of urgency or need to avoid danger. <S> Because it sounds exaggerated, I most often hear this in playful and joking contexts. <S> (For example, I was very shy and modest when I was younger, and a friend teased me by saying "oh no, shield your eyes!" <S> when two characters had a PG kissing scene in a movie.) <S> Note that "shield" can also mean "protect" in a purely functional sense, as in the case of debris or wind, which does not necessarily imply that the person is unable to see. <S> The context should make it clear which is meant, but to avoid ambiguity or for a more serious situation, Cover her eyes! <S> is appropriate and to-the-point. <S> It would seem a little strange to specify "with your hands", since that is already the most likely method of covering someone's eyes. <S> But if you would like to specify, Put your hands over her eyes. <S> is a natural way to phrase it, since the use of "put" requires that you explain what you are going to use, rather than tacking on a prepositional phrase to the "cover" sentence. <A> I'm reminded of one of my favorite songs by Weird Al <S> (Everything You Know is Wrong). <S> In the song you hear the lyrics: " <S> When suddenly a guy behind me in the back seat Popped right up and cupped his hands across my eyes" It's a variation of the other answers here, but especially the word "cupped" in this case sounds like the right way to me. <S> Also, I think where space is at a premium in song lyrics, if there were a shorter way to say this, he likely would have used it. <A> As a Mississippi native, to ask a person to do this to themselves: Hide your eyes! <S> To ask someone to do it to someone else: Hide her eyes! <A> Not appropriate for the particular case in question, but closely related: <S> There's a little rhyme you say to small children: <S> Open your mouth And close your eyes, <S> You're going to get A big surprise! <S> When the child closes its eyes, you pop a sweet into the child's open mouth.	If asking a third person to cover the second person's eyes, it would be most natural to say, "please cover her eyes."
Is the using of "present" and "gift" considered a matter of style? When I give for free something to someone, can I simply consider it as a present or a gift and it is a matter of style only? If I'm not mistaken, in the past I was told that there's a difference between them (obviously in the context of giving someone something for free), but I don't remember what it is. <Q> In many cases they are synonyms, however a present is usually something that the giver has deliberately selected for the recipient. <S> You can also call this a gift , but the word gift can be used for less selective things as well. <S> If I buy a box of chocolates and give it to my mother on her birthday, then that could equally well be called a present or a gift . <S> However, if a fast-food restaurant is giving away a toy in every child's meal, then that could be described as a "free gift with every purchase," but you would probably not call it a present from the restaurant, because the restaurant did not specifically select a personalized toy for each child. <A> The etymology of "gift" relates to something given to another person. <S> This would be something freely given, regardless of the relationship between the two people, and not necessarily for any reason. <S> Indeed, there may be no other specific person involved ("she has a gift to play the piano," "it was a gift from the company," etc.) <S> The etymology of the noun "present" in the context of "to give someone a present" relates to something presented to another person, such as an award or commendation. <S> It is implied (and here's the fun part) that the presenter is present when the present is presented. <S> ("It was a present from his father," "she received the present from her supervisor," etc.) <S> The word is so much more complex than "gift" that it is little wonder over time the two have become colloquially synonymous. <S> Thanks to that colloquial usage, the difference between the words is subjective. <S> "Birthday gift" and "birthday present" are synonymous. <S> A wealthy individual or organization would give a "gift" to a charity (or a "donation" or even a "presentation"), but never a "present." <S> In this very formal, business context, "present" is inappropriate. <S> As I think about this, I wonder if "present" can be considered a slang term, an informalization of "to present" or "presentation." <S> It is, perhaps, because of this that you generally do not hear it used on formal occasions. <A> A gift can be (but does not have to be) something very grand, such as a $50million contribution to a university from an illustrious alumnus. <S> A present is usually something more modest and personal, between two people. <S> A gift can be large or small, public or private. <S> A present is rarely grand, and is usually between two people and is a token of affection, often on a special occasion. <S> He gave his wife a gift\|present on her birthday. <S> The alumnus gave the university a large gift. <S> The alumnus gave the university a large present. <S> not idiomatic; the word "present" would be unusual there <A> The meanings of the nouns "present" and "gift" are very similar. <S> "Gift" has some abstract meanings that are not shared with "present": GOAL! <S> A gift for #LFC in the opening few minutes. <S> @22mosalah keeps his cool and finishes for his 20th @premierleague goal of the season. <S> Spurs did not actually give Liverpool a present. <S> They made a defensive error so the goal was very easy to score. <S> You could not replace "gift" with "present" in this example. <S> When we give the gift of kindness, we're choosing to be the best version of ourselves. <S> Again in an abstract sense, use "gift". <S> On the other hand The kids were downstairs and ready to open their presents before their parents were even out of bed. <S> In a very concrete sense of a box with a gift in it, use "present". <A> Present means something presented . <S> Gift is an ancient past participle of given , i.e. a thing given . <S> So, they are about as exact synonyms as you can get. <S> If something is not handed over in person <S> it could be argued that present is inappropriate, but it hardly matters. <S> It could still be presented by someone other than the buyer , after all. <S> This is most likely to apply to a "leaving present", such as from co-workers. <S> It does seem there are conventions, <S> e.g. <S> Christmas and Birthday presents ; and we always use gifts <S> to mean talents , but in that case it's partly because the equivalent presented things would be a bit of a mouthful, and partly because you don't receive those at a presentation , whereas seasonal gifts most people do receive in person (even if from the postman, there's usually an unwrapping :o)). <S> Yes, it's largely a matter of style.	In most cases of modern usage, "present" would be more appropriately expressed as "gift."
Is "expanding" an adjective? I came across this sentence on a Britannica page : The titles of Jakobson’s works indicate the expanding scope of his research Why is expanding used here instead of expansive ? Is expanding a commonly used adjective? Any difference from expansive ? <Q> Expansive means the scope of his research is already large , while expanding means the scope of his research is still continuing to grow larger. <A> If the scope of Jakobson's work is expansive , then we'd expect the titles of his works to cover many different subjects - that is, the scope is very large. <S> If the scope of Jakobson's work is expanding , then we'd expect later titles to cover more subject areas than the earlier ones do - that is, the scope gets larger over time. <A> Looking up expanding on Wiktionary we see: <S> Verb expanding present participle of expand <S> The page for Glossary: participle says: participle A form of a verb that may function as an adjective or noun . <S> English has two types of participles: the present participle and the past participle. <S> In other languages, also future , perfect , future perfect participles. <S> So, to answer the question title, all participles, including expanding , may act as adjectives. <S> expanding means it's still growing ( present participle). <S> The main meaning of expansive is "comprehensive".	Expansive means "very large", while expanding means "becoming progressively larger".
How do you call it in English when the foam loses its volume? In my language (Russian) there are at least 3 words that can be used for the process of foam losing its volume (for example, in a beer mug) and going away. But none of the dictionaries I use give any kind of translation corresponding to those meanings of these words (regarding beer foam going away with time). One of the problems is, as I see in the articles about beer foam, that the English internet suggests to either serve the beer without the foam at all or with little foam, and gives advice for that, or to remove it after serving if you fail. But what you would typically see in a Russian bar is a bartender pouring some beer in your mug, waitng a bit for the foam to lose some volume, then pour in more beer until the needed volume of the liquid is served, so I can't even find the word in the English articles about serving beer. Anyway: how do I call the process of foam losing its volume, or waiting for it to lose the volume? <Q> As has been noted, a specific term does not appear to exist in English. <S> I think the simplest way to describe this is to use go down , for example: <S> I'm going to wait for the head to go down before I finish pouring. <S> If I were writing formally I would use "recede", as is used on the wikipedia page on beer head English ales, and particularly Irish stouts, tend to form a small but dense and long-lasting head. <S> The beer glass is three-quarter filled, then allowed to settle , then finally topped off. <S> They will do that by pouring more beer into the glass, causing the bubbles to overflow. <S> But if you are served a beer that has too much foam on top <S> you can ask the barperson: <S> Can you take the head off that for me? <S> Lagers are often served with no head at all by holding the glass at an angle while pouring. <S> Anyone interested in beer foam should read A Leike's seminal paper: Demonstration of the exponentialdecay law using beer froth <A> We say say " the head went flat ". <S> If the Catholic Church lost control over the printed word with the invention of the printing press — the technological weapon that ensured Luther's success — it lost control over beer with the rise of hops. <S> " <S> The head went flat on monastic beer," says Bostwick. <S> "Did Protestantism explicitly promote hops? <S> I don't think so. <S> But did it encourage the use of hops? <S> I would say, yes, probably." <S> [emphasis added] <S> When you have a mug under the tap and the beer foams up in the glass, you can wait for the foam to settle before pouring more. <S> Some beers foam far less than others, and sometimes the foam is artificial from nitrogen delivery systems or from CO 2 added to it. <A> You could say something like <S> The foam deflates . <S> I am waiting for the foam to deflate. <A> Disappear, dissipate, evanesce, shrink, subside could each be used in the proper context. <S> I personally would use "flatten" only with respect to foam on drinks. <S> I am going to see how "evanesce" goes over at the local bar though.	Again personally, I would probably use "shrink" or "subside" if foam was still present and "disappear" if the foam was entirely gone. The foam on a beer is called the head .
Deducting an advance from an expense: what (verb) happens to the expense? In a company, someone receives an advance payment for expenses he has to make, let's say $200 for hotel costs when traveling on a business trip. During the trip he pays a larger amount ($300) for his hotel. Now he comes back at work, with the $300 hotel bill, and he submits his expenses, stating that he still wants to receive $100. If I phrase that in one direction, I would say: He deducts the advance from his expense . But what is the verb to use in the other direction? What does he do with his expense when (at the moment) he deducts/subtracts the advance from it (in the books)? What verb do I fill in when he uses a computer program to calculate his final expenses (the $100): The expense is .... with/from/to the advance . In my language, Dutch, we would say verrekenen , i.e. something like 'recalculate'. This question talks about the nouns advance and balance . Can balance be used for the verb too? <Q> He goes back to work, submits his expenses and says: I would like a $100 reimbursement . <S> He received $200, and spent $300. <S> The difference is said to be reimbursed. <S> The company had given him an advance. <S> He now wants to be reimbursed for the $100 over the advance. <A> The question is a bit confusing because "deduct the advance from the expense" is appropriate in one circumstance and "deduct the expense from the advance" is appropriate in a different circumstance. <S> Both make sense in the context of determining who owes whom how much. <S> It is hard to imagine any circumstance other than that of repayment in which the sentences even make sense. <S> The amount of the expense is unaffected by the amount advanced. <S> And the amount advanced is unaffected by the amount of the expense. <S> In short, two different verbs are not needed. <S> If the total advanced exceeds the total of expenses incurred, deduct the expenses from the advances to determine the amount repayable to the employer. <A> He applies his expense to his advance and determines he needs $100 reimbursement. <S> Using the definition of apply that means "bring to bear". <S> I don't think English has a word for this that is as exact as the Dutch word, outside of mathematical reasoning (-advance +expense <S> = -/+ reimbursement of employee; which would yield -- "He adds his expense to his advance to determine if he needs to reimburse the company or if the company needs to reimburse him.") <S> The + and - of expense and advance are interchangeable as long as one is + and one -. <S> Generally speaking the mathematical reasoning won't be understood since the listener won't be adding a -(neg) to either expression and would add both values thereby incorrectly determining the employee is owed $500. <A> In your example, your person was advanced $200 from his company <S> he deducted the $200 advance and added $100 to pay the hotel <S> when he returned he will be reimbursed $100 from his company in accounting terms <S> $200 was credited to your person by the company, <S> then he was debited $300 for the hotel, ($200 <S> debited from the advance and $100 <S> debited from the person), and will be credited $100 by his company to makeup the shortfall	If the total of expenses incurred exceeds the total advanced, deduct the advances from the expenses to determine the amount repayable to the employee.
What is the difference between ing form verb and verb in meaning in this paragraph? Can I replace the verb+ing form sentences below with verb form sentences? If I replace it, It's like The 9.0-magnitude quake triggered a tsunami that devasted northeastern Japan, killed nearly 16,000 people and caused a nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power's Fukushima Daiichi power plant. Are the sentences impossible?Then, what is the difference between two expressions in meaning (killing vs killed, causing vs caused)? <Q> Yes, you could, although that would slightly change the meaning of the sentence. <S> verb + <S> 'ed' is the past tense verb + 'ing' is present tense <S> They further explain what happened. <S> In contrast if you used the suffix -ed for both, the sentence would be more of a enumeration of things, which were caused by the tsunami. <A> Grammatically, you can make those changes and give the sentence a parallel structure. <S> However, if that's what you wanted to do, I would recommend using an Oxford comma before the conjunction <S> and : The 9.0-magnitude quake triggered a tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan, killed nearly 16,000 people, and caused a nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power's Fukushima Daiichi power plant. <S> That's the way a similar sentence is punctuated on this website , which explains parallel constructions: <S> This afternoon, Harry played tennis, returned overdue library books, and ate a mushroom and pineapple pizza. <S> However, I prefer the original: <S> The 9.0-magnitude quake triggered a tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan, killing nearly 16,000 people and causing a nuclear disaster at Tokyo Electric Power's Fukushima Daiichi power plant. <S> That wording suggests that the quake caused the tsunami, and, in turn, the tsunami caused the nuclear disaster and the deaths of 16,000 people. <S> Your suggested revision, however, suggests that the quake was the direct cause of all three calamities – that wording might be more appropriate if, say, many buildings collapsed during the quake, causing most of the deaths. <A> If you say "devastated... killed... and caused," they are treated as separate actions. <S> If you say "devastated... killing... and causing," the actions in gerund are treated as linked to the first verb, simultaneous with it, or caused by it.	As it stands right now "killing" and "causing" stand in relation with "devastated".
Prepositions, using the words "on" or "at" Which one of the following statements is correct? Is it possible to please help me with the English rule on this one? The stranger knocked on the door. The stranger knocked at the door. <Q> They do not, however, mean exactly the same thing. <S> He knocked on the door <S> gives a slight emphasis to the physical act of knocking by focusing on the object subjected to the knocking. <S> He knocked at the door <S> gives a slight emphasis to the social act of waiting for an invitation to enter the premises by focusing on where the act occurred. <S> For example, it would sound very odd to say He knocked at the door and then immediately kicked it open. <A> They are both correct and basically mean the same thing, but, from a more technical perspective, there is a small, I'd even say tiny, difference between them: <S> The stranger was knocking on the door itself. <S> The stranger was (possibly) knocking on something else while he was standing next to the door. <S> In the second sentence, at specifically expresses the location where the knocking took place. <S> It happened near the door where the stranger was standing. <S> It could have been the door, but it might just as well have been something else that the stranger was knocking on. <S> This is in principle similar to how we use the preposition at when talking about places as locations. <S> For instance: I'll meet you at Bob's. <S> The location is Bob's place (the house or apartment where he lives). <S> That's the place where the act of meeting you will take place. <S> Take a look at these examples <S> : He knocked on the door in hopes that someone would open it. <S> He got so scared that he could barely move when he heard a loud knock at the door. <S> In the second sentence, we don't care about the fact that the knock was on the door. <S> For all intents and purposes, it might have been something else other than the door. <S> We're more concerned about the location where it happened—where the sound of knocking came from. <A> If you hit a door, window, etc., especially several times, to attract someone's attention, you can use the preposition on or at after the verb/noun "knock". <S> There's no difference in meaning. <S> For examples: He knocked on/at the door. <S> I heard a knock on/at the door.	Both are correct and, absent additional context, are very close in meaning.
Can a person hit home? I watched a movie with a couple of charaters and I couldn't really relate to any of them, except for one, because I felt such people with this type of personality can't exist; they are just too perfect to be real and I think they came across as pretentious. There was just one character who acted like a normal human being with flaws in character. Can I say something like this about him? Unlike the other characters in the movie, John really hits home. I searched it online and I just found things, Ideas, and remarks used with this idiom. <Q> It would be more idiomatic to use the expression rings true , which means "seems to be believable or authentic," and is often used in the context of fictional characters or plots: Unlike the other characters in the movie, John really rings true . <S> The metaphor behind this expression is from the distant past when coins were minted from real gold. <S> A real gold coin would make a resonant ringing sound when tapped with a hammer, but a coin degraded with base metal would make an ugly clunking noise (and to ring false is an opposite idiom that is also in common use). <S> You generally would not say that a person "hits home." <S> However, you are correct that this expression is used for ideas, which could include ideas like the screenwriter's creation of the character or the actor's portrayal of him. <S> So if you really wanted to use "hits home," you might say something like this: Unlike the other characters in the movie, the way John was written [or acted] really hits home. <A> Typically this is some kind of loss or hardship, like for an example the loss of a pet <S> -- you could have loss a hamster, the character could have loss guinea pig. <S> You might say something like "The loss of his pet guinea pig really hit home, and just made me burst out in tears". <S> It doesn't have to be sad, it can be funny or happy or embarrassing, it just has to put you back into that moment of your life. <S> Now, for the actual phrase you want to use: <S> rings true, was realistic, wasn't a cardboard cut out, or was believable. <A> I don't think the expression to hit home is going to work there quite well if what you're trying to say is that the character of John looks believable to you. <S> When something hits home for you, it basically means that you can relate to it. <S> It might make sense if what you're trying to say is that you can identify with John or you see something in the movie that reminds you of your own life. <S> Otherwise, this expression just doesn't quite fit the situation described in your sentence. <S> But I might be mistaken. <S> Why not instead consider using something as simple as an adjective such as convincing which, in the most basic terms, just means believable : <S> Unlike the other characters in the movie, only the character of John looks convincing enough. <S> Unlike the other characters in the movie, only the character of John looks believable .	Hits home means that it had personal significance -- that it somehow reminded you of a similar situation/event in your personal life, and evoked both the memory and emotions involved.
Is "we talk later time" correct in "Until we talk later time, take care."? I know both Until we talk at a later time, take care. and Until we talk later, take care. are correct. But the situation is that when we get to start the talk someday, the talk will take place everyday and the talks will last more than a week, as it will be discussing an important project for a considerable period of time. So regarding the circumstances above, I somehow felt that later time seems to be more appropriate than at a later time , because " at a " somewhat feels that it indicates it is just one time thing. I know I can just use later instead. But I want to know if I can use later time as in the following sentence in order to reflect the circumstances I explained in the above paragraph. Until we talk later time, take care. <Q> You could say Until we talk later, or Until we talk again, though the latter has a suggestion of not knowing when that will be. <S> My suggestion would be: Until our next talk, <A> Your examples sound very unidiomatic. <S> Typically, you'd say something like this: Until next time, take care. <S> We'll talk another time. <S> Take care. <S> We'll talk at a later time. <S> Take care. <S> Or more informally: <S> Talk to you later. <S> Take care. <S> Those are more or less standard ways to end your conversion with someone online or over the phone. <A> Rupert Morrish's answer provides a good alternative. <S> But it's important to understand why "until we talk later time" is incorrect. <S> "Until we talk later" is a dependent clause. <S> It modifies "take care. <S> " <S> In this construction, "until" is a subordinating conjunction which introduces the clause. <S> "We talk" is the subject and main verb of the clause, and "later" is an adverb which modifies "talk." <S> The problem with introducing "time" here is that it does not grammatically fit. <S> "Time" is a noun, but in this construction, "talk" is intransitive. <S> There is simply no room for a noun after it. <S> On the other hand, "until we talk at a later time " uses a prepositional phrase. <S> In this construction, "later" is an adjective, modifying "time." <S> We then use the preposition "at" to connect it to "talk," which is still intransitive and still cannot take a direct object. <S> The "a" is required because the phrase needs a determiner to indicate which "later time" we are talking about. <S> If we don't want to imply that the "later time" is undetermined, we could consider using a different determiner. <S> However, this really only works in the immediate context of discussing the next time we meet: <S> "When are we meeting tomorrow?" <S> "At 3:00." <S> "OK. <S> Until we talk at that time, take care." <S> This is a bit clunky and artificial, but it does work. <S> Note also that we dropped the "later" because the listener already knows it will be at a specific point in the future. <S> It would also be correct, if very slightly informal, to say "until we talk next time . <S> " <S> This is only really allowed because "next time" is a fixed phrase that behaves like an adverb in this context. <A> As many have commented already, it definitely sounds like an idiom. <S> This type of dialectical expression is heard around the Caribbean. <S> It doesn’t appear to be in violation of any rules of grammar but the phrasing is atypical of standard English usage. <S> Your understanding of the phrase, “at a later time”, having a connotation of being limited to one single time is incorrect. <S> It is unbounded in the sense that any and all times that are in the future from this present moment are included. <S> To limit the future to a single occurrence the phrase would need to be, ‘at one later time’. <A> So regarding the circumstances above, I somehow felt that later time seems to be more appropriate than at a later time, because "at a" somewhat feels that it indicates it is just one time thing. <S> But if you tell someone to take care until some time, then that calls for a single time. <S> It would be grammatically correct to say "Until we talk at later time s ", but it is logically suspect.	"Until we talk later time" isn't right.
"entered the room" or "entered into the room"? I'd like to say that "I went into the room" using the verb " enter ". What's correct in the following context? "I entered the room." or "I entered into the room." <Q> The verb to enter , apart from other uses that it might have, is a transitive verb that takes a direct object and does not require the use of a preposition like into . <S> You always enter something. <S> That something is usually some kind of place such as a room, house, building etc. <S> For example: Although it was dark inside, I entered the room . <S> However, do not confuse the transitive verb to enter with the phrasal verb to enter into something which itself can have a number of slightly different meanings. <S> Though, to tell you the truth, all those meanings are just minor variations on the main one: to be an important aspect or factor of a particular situation. <S> For instance: It was only after my miraculous survival of the car crash that nearly got me killed that God finally entered into my life . <S> For more information on how to use this phrasal verb, click on the blue link that I provided as part of my answer. <A> In "I entered the room" enter is intransitive because we can alternatively say I entered there! <S> But when you say I entered the data into the computer, it is transitive! <A>	It is appropriat to use phrase like "I entered the room" instead of "I entered into the room" because Room is a place which shows the status of a covered place which also give us sense the insideness, so there is no need to use into in the middle of the aforesaid sentence.
Two past-tense verbs in one sentence Which one did you bought? or Which one did you buy? Is it okay to have two past-tense verbs in one sentence? <Q> Only the second sentence is grammatically correct: <S> Which one did you buy? <S> That's because it's only helping verbs like do that change their form according to the tense you're using. <S> All subsequent verbs are always either infinitives or bare infinitives. <S> Infinitives are the ones that have the infinitive marker to in front of them (e.g to buy ) and bare infinitives are infinitives without the to (e.g. buy ). <S> For example: I had never seen anything like that. <S> Strictly speaking, words like seen are not past-tense verbs. <S> More properly, they're called past participles. <A> In a sentence it is quite possible to have several clauses in the past tense. <S> I ate cookies and drank milk. <S> I heard that Peter ate the cookies. <S> The cookies that Peter ate were rotten. <S> In all these examples there two clauses. <S> Also in English a single verb phrase can be made with a helper verb (or an auxillary verb) or a modal verb <S> It was eating <S> It was eaten <S> It had eaten <S> It did eat <S> It could eat (etc) <S> In these structures, the helper verb takes the tense (in my examples the helper verb is in the past tense), and the main verb is either a participle (eating/eaten) or an infinitive (eat). <S> These examples all have one clause <S> It is not grammatically correct to have, for example <S> * <S> It was ate. <S> * <S> It did ate. <S> In your example <S> *Which one did you bought. <S> Is not grammatically correct English, and would never be used. " <S> Which one did you buy. <S> " is correct. <A> "Which one did you bought" is not grammatically correct, but I think it's worth noting that you might actually hear something like that in rare cases. <S> It would most likely be playful speech, and it would usually be an exact-echo of something that was just said. <S> For example: Someone enters the room and excitedly says " I bought it! <S> I bought it! <S> I bought it! " <S> the response might be " What did you bought? " <S> That kind of phrasing will crash loudly in the ear of a native English speaker. <S> It will draw a lot of attention to the comment being echoed, or to any other language game being played. <S> In the example above the wordplay emphasizes that you told me THREE times that you bought something - and I STILL have no idea what you're talking about. <S> Or maybe I'm repeating "bought" a fourth time just to be silly. <S> Or both.	The only time when it's actually possible to have two past-tense verbs in the same clause is when you're using one of the several past perfect tenses in English such as the past perfect tense.
How can I intuitively know that the "in" in "in 3 days" means "after"? I learn from answers of this and this question that: "in 3 days" implies after 3 days or approximately after 3 days. It seems very counterintuitive, to a Chinese at least. How can I intuit that the "in" in "in 3 days", which seems equivalent to "*_day"(indicating "first_day" or "second_day" or "third_day") in ["first_day", "second_day", "third_day"], means (approximately) "not in"(precisely "after") that set? This question may seem naive and trivial to most of the native speakers, but maybe someone(especially those kids who are learning English as a foreign language like me years ago) also wants to raise this kind of questions. <Q> Your assumption that "in 3 days" implies after 3 days or approximately after 3 days ... is not true in general. " <S> In" is a proposition that usually implies something being included (in a place, time, group, etc.). <S> "In 3 days" intuitively means something like "within a period of 3 days" to English speakers. <S> But there are subtleties... <S> The context may fix this period to start from the present time, and the event may be a single instant within the time, but it's not always the case. <S> For example: "this car goes from 0 to 55 in 10 seconds'. <S> It is a general statement (not from now), and it takes the whole 10 seconds. <S> How much context is needed depends on the case. <S> If the context does not clarify what "in" means, then the meaning may be ambiguous. <S> Natural languages do not rule out ambiguity! <S> If you hear an ambiguous statement you may ask for clarification. <S> If you make one, you will likely be asked for clarification. <S> to reduce ambiguity. <A> As a native speaker, this is interesting - a use of in <S> I didn't even think about until now. <S> 3 days is a limit. <S> You are going to do something before that limit expires. <S> Therefore you are doing something in the limit. <S> The fact that you won't do anything on day 1 or 2 is implied. <S> If you want to make it clear <S> you mean that you can call on day 1 or 2, within would be used. <A> The bad news is that prepositions are idiosyncratic, and their uses cannot be intuited confidently. <S> Like irregular verbs or spelling, they are learned through practice and exposure, further complicated because their usage differs slightly by locale (e,g, New York, standing on line vs. in line in the rest of the U.S.) and also shifts over time. <S> They do not translate, either. <S> In French you would also say, for instance, en deux jours , but en cannot be directly translated as in ; French employs en <S> where English uses like , at , or by . <S> Similarly, English by is not equivalent to German bei , as some English by expressions would use von or mit in German, and some bei uses are expressed using at or with in English. <S> As your second linked question notes, the intended meaning of in 3 days would depend on context, and you would use additional modifiers or express the idea differently if you needed to be more precise. <S> The inspector is coming in the next three days , for instance, means the inspector should be expected at any time between now and three days from now, whereas The inspector is coming in three days at the earliest of course means just the opposite, that the inspector should not be expected until at least three days from now.	You can use other prepositions like "within", "after", "during", "by" etc.
What does "the Trump suit for the hand" mean? The dealer continues distributing the cards until each player has a total of six cards. The dealer then removes the bottom card from the remainder of the deck and places it face-up in the center of the table to designate the Trump suit for the hand. What does "...for the hand" in last sentence mean? <Q> In most card games, one round of play is called a “hand”. <S> When some condition of play applies only to a single round of play, the condition is valid “for the hand”. <S> In this case, when the dealer turns up the bottom card, it designates ‘trump’ for the current round of play - <S> that is, it “designates trump for the hand”. <S> One round of play - one hand - is what you appear to be calling one "game cycle". <S> For example, a game of Cribbage lasts until one player scores 121 points, but a hand of Cribbage is one deal of cards to each player, plus the subsequent play, until the next deal. <A> A hand is the set of cards that a player receives in a particular round of a card game. <S> It's called a hand because of the simple fact that you literally have to hold the cards in your hand. <S> Here's a picture of a typical hand: <S> In a standard deck of playing cards, there are four suits: diamonds, clubs, hearts and spades. <S> And the trump suit is a suit that has been chosen to have the highest value in a particular round of the game (or for the duration of the entire game, depending on the game being played). <S> In other words, with cards of the trump suit, you will be able to beat any other card of the non-trump suit. <S> If both cards are trump-suit cards, the one with the higher rank wins. <S> So, the phrase the trump suit for the hand means that one of the four suits has been designated to rank above all others for that particular round of the game. <S> Trump suit , by the way, is where we get the expression trump card from. <S> For example: I have a feeling the prosecution still hasn't played their trump card in this trial—I expect a big revelation during tomorrow's testimony. <A> A standard deck of cards has four "suits"; these being Hearts, Clubs, Spades and Diamonds. <S> In some card games (Bridge is a good example), one of these suits will be designated the "trump" suit. <S> (Some other games may have a specific "trump card"; you asked about suits, but the concept is the same either way). <S> There are a number of idiomatic uses of the word "trump" derived from this which are used generally in other contexts. <A> One hand, in card playing games, is the time after the cards are dealt until the cards are re-dealt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_card_game_terms#deal <S> There are various usages depending on the specific game, and regional variations. <S> for instance, some refer to a hand as a single instance of play in a game where each player contributes one card to the middle, then one player takes those cards (hearts, euchre, rook, etc). <S> However these are "tricks", not hands <S> - just be aware that the term "hand" is sometimes misused. <S> In your case, the card placed face up represents Trump until the point in the game where the cards are collected and re-dealt to players. <S> This doesn't mean the gameplay ends. <S> Some games tally points at the end of each hand and deal another hand, <S> continuing play until another goal is met. <A> In the game Bridge, a hand is what you play after shuffling and dealing all the cards. <S> Whatever suit the highest bid is, that suit becomes the "trump suit for the hand". <S> Until that hand is over, cards of the trump suit beat cards of any other suit. <S> (A hand also means the cards that one player receives, but that's not the meaning here; here, it's the entire deal.)	The selection of the trump suit will depend on the rules of the game, but in general, the effect within the game will be that cards from the trump suit will be more powerful or valuable than cards from the other suits, and a player holding cards from the trump suit will have an advantage in the game.
Is you or she followed by is or are in a sentence? I do not know whether you or Arpitha is on duty tomorrow. Is it "is" or "are" after Arpitha? ( Context. There are two technicians- Annie and Arpitha. I am asking Annie. Only one person can be on duty at a time.)Shouldn't it be- I do not know whether you or Arpitha are/is on duty tomorrow? <Q> It's is in this case. <S> Subject is singular because it's either you or Arpitha , not both of you working at the same one. <A> Explanation: <S> The conjugation of "to be" in English is as follows: <S> Infinitive: "To Be" 1st Person Singular: "I" 2nd Person Singular: "Are" 3rd Person Singular: "Is" 1st Person Plural: "Are" 2nd Person Plural: "Are" 3rd Person Plural: "Are" <S> In your sentence <S> "I do not know whether you or Arpitha [to be] on duty tomorrow" , it can be tempting to think that "you or Arpitha" is plural, because it contains two people (Arpitha and You). <S> But in reality it's singular, because only one of you is on duty, not both. <S> Therefore, [to be] gets conjugated as 3rd personal singular, which is "is" . <A> I don't know whether you or Arithra is/are comming. <S> the correct helping verb is "is". <S> When all the elements in a series connected by or are singular, the verb they govern is singular. <S> When all the elements are plural, the verb is plural. <S> Example: <S> Tom or Jack is coming (The Free Dictionary).	The correct answer is is .
meaning of "be knocked off" We are a certain way now because we were knocked off a more fulfilling trajectory years ago by a primal wound. (This is a sentence from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgUlowmSeHo at 2:12) What does "be knocked off" mean here?and how can a noun ( or seemingly an objective) come after a passive verb? Thank you in advance. <Q> For example, the rocket was knocked off its intended trajectory causing it to miss the moon. <S> So, in the example, by suffering this wound, the "we" are not following their intended life plans. <S> The "off" refers to the "trajectory" similar to being "off course" as in not following the intended route. <S> This is not to be confused with being "knocked off" (i.e. murdered) as the film noir gangsters would do if they thought you would "rat them out to the coppers". <A> To be knocked off a path or trajectory means to be bumped by something large enough to cause a Newtonian reaction. <S> The phrase can be used literally or figuratively. <S> A moon can be knocked off its orbital trajectory if a large asteroid hits it. <S> literal A student can be knocked off her career path by getting ill and having to miss a semester. <S> figurative <S> The object of preposition off is the path from which we have been knocked. <S> Compare: <S> The striker had done poorly in the last three games and was bumped from the starting roster. <S> The striker had done poorly in the last three games and was taken off the starting roster. <A> Physical To knock something off somewhere/some path: motion is disturbed, either literally ( a cat knocks the cup off the shelf or asteroid knocked off path ) or figuratively ( the delivery has been knocked off its schedule ) <S> To knock someone flying: literally hit with force ( he nearly knocked me flying! ), or figuratively shock ( when he told me the news it knocked me flying! ) <S> Knock-down (adjective): Gobsmacking/shocking, literally 'you could have knocked me down with a feather'. <S> She was knock-down gorgeous in that dress To knock something over: Push something off balance To knock someone over: <S> Often push someone off balance, but more often hit with a car. <S> *Did you hear Doris got knocked over on that crossing by the school? <S> Illegal Object is knocked off/is a knock-off (slang): synonym for stolen or fake. <S> This toaster has been knocked off of John Lewis , or this Rolex watch is a knock-off Person has been knocked off (slang): synonym for killed. <S> They knocked off that copper for asking questions To knock somewhere over: to break in and steal goods/money. <S> That corner shop got knocked over on Friday Occupation, activity <S> To knock off (slang): Finish work. <S> What time do you knock off? <S> To knock someone up/to be knocked up: (slang, UK) to collect someone to go somewhere. <S> Knock me up in the morning <S> and we'll go to school <S> early Knock it off! <S> : stop that! <S> Sexual (conjuring the image of a bedpost hitting a wall) <S> To knock someone off: (rare) Have sex with someone (implicitly dominant). <S> He's been knocking off that girl from sales <S> To knock someone up/to be knocked up: (slang, US & UK) synonym for get someone pregnant/be pregnant. <S> He knocked up that girl from sales . <S> Knocking shop: brothel Knock <S> , knock! <S> Who's there?	In this context "knocked off" means to cause deviation from the intended course.
Adverbial Adjunct vs Object of Preposition I am analyzing this sentence: "Carlos wrote a letter to his uncle." So far I have: "Carlos" = Subject "wrote" = Predicator "a letter" = Direct Object But I wasn't sure about "to his uncle" Is it an adverbial adjunct or object of preposition? <Q> Carlos wrote a letter to his uncle . <S> Your analysis so far is correct. <S> But the preposition phrase to his uncle <S> is neither an adjunct nor an object, but a complement of the verb "wrote". <S> The preposition "to" makes a contribution to identifying the semantic role of the noun phrase "his uncle" (called the oblique) who is clearly the recipient. <S> But the PP is not itself an object. <S> But they do not occur as PPs with an oblique that marks the recipient of a direct object. <S> Here's a simplified tree diagram of your sentence: <A> "To his uncle" is a modifier that contains a preposition and its object. <S> This modifier might be an adjunct of the predicator, or it might be a modifier of the direct object. <S> That's a negligible difference in this clause, but it becomes noticeable if we cast the clause in the passive voice: <S> A letter was written to his uncle . <S> A letter to his uncle was written. <S> In the former clause, "written to his uncle" is a participial phrase containing the so-called past participle "written" and an adverbial adjunct. <S> In the latter, "a letter to his uncle" is a noun phrase containing the noun "letter" and its two adjectival modifiers. <S> To answer your questions: Is it an adverbial adjunct? <S> Maybe. <S> Yes, it can be analyzed that way. <S> No, it doesn't have to be analyzed that way. <S> Is it an object of a preposition? <S> No. <S> It's a prepositional phrase that contains an object. <S> The object of the preposition is "his uncle", without the "to". <S> The entire prepositional phrase acts as a modifier, not an object, even though what it modifies is ambiguous. <A> I know that I am two years late, but I just googled this "issue" and found this post. <S> I could find a similar example my English professor made, thus I do think that there are many ways of analyzing the same exact sentence. <S> My prof. wrote the following sentence: John read a story to the children - and the parsing is like this: S - V - Direct Object - Prepositional Object. <S> I don't have the guts to call neither your sentence nor that of my professor to be wrong.	The preposition is "to" and the object of the preposition is "his uncle". Adjuncts on the other hand are modifiers that are associated with a wide range of semantic roles including location, manner, duration, condition and so on.
A phrase or word that describes a group of people who are considered the best at something "Seal Team 6" has become synonymous "elite". Is there a more generic term that can be used to describe a group considered the best at something? <Q> Elite is pretty accurate. <S> Premier or ultimate may also work. <S> Or use a term like "best of the best", "cream of the crop", etc. <A> Several things come to mind: Expert, maven, guru, and par excellence to name a few. <S> Also, there's "the best...", as in "the best doctor" or just by itself. <S> Back in the old days we used to use the name "Heifetz"---after Jascha Heifetz, considered by some to be the best violinist that ever was: "He an ok ball player, but he's no Heifetz". <S> and my favorite variation: <S> "You are either Jascha or kasha." <S> (Kasha is boiled buckwheat.) <A> "Seal Team 6" is an EXAMPLE of an elite group. <S> I've never heard it used as a generic term for an elite group. <S> Maybe among your friends and associates people say, "This band is the Seal Team 6 of rock stars!" or some such. <S> If so, I think that usage is very localized. <A> How about the slang word pros which is short for professionals : <S> They're real pros. <S> Another one that I can think of would be experts : <S> They're real experts in English grammar and usage.	But in general terms for a person or group who are the best at something include, "elite" like in your question, "premiere", "the best", "A-team", and "first string".
What is the difference between raw food and ingredients? What is the difference between Raw foods and Ingredients?For examples, meats, vegetables, salt or sugar, sauce and so on.How can I sort those things? Before I cook, I should wash up X first. I should wash up X, before I start cooking. By this, I mean I need to wash some raw foods that are with some dirt like soil, dust or agricultural pesticides or chemicals, but I don't need to wash ingredients like sugar and salt. <Q> In the context of food, "raw" means "uncooked". <S> Ingredients are the things that are combined to make some kind of food, like a cake, a sauce, a chicken dish, meatballs, or a souffle, whether they're something you make or something packaged that you buy at the store. <S> There is no "difference" between raw foods and ingredients because they're two separate concepts. <S> Some ingredients may be raw, some may be cooked. <S> Chocolate chips are an ingredient in chocolate chip cookies, and they aren't raw: the chips themselves were melted before sugar and other ingredients were added to them. <S> The flour is raw. <S> The eggs are raw unless they were pasteurized. <A> Raw food is simply food that has not been prepared (or cooked). <S> Ingredients are the components of a dish. <S> For instance, butter, milk, salt and eggs are the ingredients for scrambled eggs. <S> A good analogy may be that of a residential house. <S> Wood, cement, glass and some other materials are the ingredients that are necessary to build a house. <S> By themselves, they can be raw materials (sand, cement etc.) <S> or materials that have been preprocessed in some way (wooden planks, window panes etc.), <S> but they are all the ingredients you need to build a home. <A> Green Grasso Holm's answer is right, and a good explanation of the difference between the words "raw" and "uncooked". <S> In your particular sentence about washing, I most often hear things like: "I should wash the vegetables before cooking" or " <S> You should wash the produce before starting to cook" Produce in this case is a noun which means fruits and vegetables. <S> Another thing to note is that the phrase 'wash up' is not used with an object. <S> "I washed up the vegetables" is not grammatically correct, it should be "I washed the vegetables." <S> "wash up" can only be used without an object. <S> In this case, what you are washing needs to be implied through context. <S> Here are some examples: <S> "I always help mom wash up after dinner" - Here it is implied through context that the speaker and their mom are washing the dishes and possibly also the kitchen counters, depending on how messy cooking dinner was. <S> "The kids were playing in the mud again, so I told them to go wash up before we had to leave" - Here it is implied that the kids were washing themselves, or possibly just their hands, depending on how muddy they were.	Ingredients can be raw foods or foods that have already been prepared, but the point is that they are the elements you use as part of the process of making a dish.
Is "next" optional in "next Friday"? You must submit your assignments by next Monday at the latest. Is "next" optional in the above sentence? I think by "by Monday" should be clear enough and "next" is redundant. <Q> It is impossible to say whether you can remove next from next Monday without additional context. <S> It may make no difference, but it may make no difference because both are equally weak. <S> Next Monday itself can be ambiguous, as to whether it is referring to Monday next week or the week after that. <S> Monday alone would pose the same problem if you are at a point in the week where next Monday and this Monday would differ, and adds the possibility that Monday or this Monday refers to this past Monday rather than this coming Monday . <S> Even further, if you're referring to something occurring over multiple weeks, you must also distinguish between references to fixed dates and references to points in the cycle, in which case it might not just be this Monday or next Monday , but the next Monday . <S> You don't indicate why you want the shorter form, but do remember that language is not software, or logic. <S> Redundancy is neither inherently erroneous nor inefficient. <S> The language is full of idiomatic pleonasms from advance warning to water hydrant that some people may dislike, but which most others accept without any thought. <A> This is something that confuses native English speakers as it is often used in two different ways. <S> Whenever someone tells me something like "next Monday" I always have to ask if they are referring to this-coming Monday (i.e. the closest Monday) or the Monday following the closest Monday. <S> This is because some people think the closest Monday is the so-called "this Monday" and the following is the so-called "next Monday". <S> Anyhow, to answer your question, yes, It's optional. <A> Hence, it is usually best when dealing with important matters, and especially in written communications, to use a specific date. <S> When speaking I might say Your assignments must be submitted by next Monday, the 23rd July. <S> making my meaning clear. <S> In writing I would use the slightly more formal: <S> Your assignments must be submitted by Monday 23rd July.	As noted in other answers, there is potential for ambiguity in the meaning of next .
"nor is it known" vs. "nor it is known" Which one is right: It is neither known what Jack actually said to Lilly that evening, nor it is known how they broke up. It is neither known what Jack actually said to Lilly that evening, nor is it known how they broke up. Why? <Q> Neither examnple is correct. <S> "Neither" applies mostly closely to what comes directly after it--in this case, "known". <S> Whatever comes before "neither" shouldn't be repeated--it applies to both cases that follow. <S> For example, "It is neither known what Jack actually said to Lilly, nor expected that he was nasty to her." <S> In your examples, both alternatives are governed by "known", so that isn't what's being "neithered" <S> (I made up that word, don't use it). <S> The alternatives are "what Jack actually said to Lilly" and "how they broke up". <S> So the sentence should be " <S> It is known neither what Jack actually said to Lilly, nor how they broke up." <A> It is not known what Jack actually said to Lilly that evening, nor is it known how they broke up. <S> is correct, if somewhat wordy and stiff. <S> It is neither known what Jack actually said to Lilly that evening, nor known how they broke up. <S> is technically correct, but nobody would say it. <S> Somewhat more natural would be <S> Neither <S> what Jack actually said to Lilly that evening nor how they broke up is known. <A> a natural sounding sentence : <S> It is not known what J actually said to L that evening nor is it known how they broke up. <S> OR, if one insists on the neither/nor pair: Neither is what J actually said to L to that evening known, nor is how they broke up [known, optional]. <S> Please note: "it's not known neither etc. <S> " doesn't work.	Starting a sentence with "It is neither known" implies that "known" is one alternative and that the second alternative will demonstrate a contrast to known.
Is this sentence "It does don't have a " correct? Someone reported lack of one column on a table. And I Checked table.I want to emphasize "the problem is true", so I use "It (the table) does don't have a column of XXX". Is it correct? <Q> Slightly wrong. <S> More accurately: It doesn't have the column of XXX. <S> It does not have the column of XXX. <S> The table doesn't contain the XXX column. <A> "Don't" is the contraction of "do not." <S> Remember, it should be "it does" not "it do." <S> The way you say it right now, you say, "It does do not" which is incorrect. <S> I also think that it's more natural to say "an XXX column" instead of "a column of XXX" whenever it makes sense gramatically. <S> I think the clearest way of saying this would be: <S> "The table is missing an XXX column. <S> " <S> If you want to emphasize that the problem is true, you could say: "The report is right. <S> The table is missing an XXX column." <A> You could say the table is missing a column. <S> Or the table is missing the XX column. <S> To provide the most help: The column should have 10 columns. <S> It is missing the fourth column.	Your answer is incorrect, because "does not" is contracted to "doesn't."
How to say a file is very small? Is there a way saying a file doesn't have a lot of bytes? If I want to say: "The smallest app" , when small is regarding file size, how would i say that? <Q> You could say, for instance, a tiny room , a tiny car and, sure enough, even a tiny file , a tiny app or a tiny program . <S> Here are a couple of example sentences: <S> It's a very tiny app that only requires one megabyte of free disk space on your computer to install it. <S> A cookie is a tiny file with a small piece of information which a website leaves on your computer. <A> You could say that the app is small in terms of file size (that is, specifying that we're talking about the file size when saying "small"), or small as measured in bytes (that is, specifying that we are talking about using bytes as a unit of measurement when saying "small"). <A> The most lightweight app ever created The lightest app ever <S> This is marketing lingo; not technical lingo per se.	The adjective tiny is a great, everyday word that you can use to describe something as being very small in size regardless of its nature.
Writing dates in texts I'm learning to communicate in English for a while, but I still have just a basic idea of how its vocabulary and grammar work. When writing I've ended up facing a doubt in the following sentence: (...) for persons that born before Oct 14th '95 Is that right to write a date like that (referring to 10/14/1995) or there are better or more usual ways to refer dates? Thanks. <Q> I would spell out the month. <S> In the US the preferred style is October 14, 1995. <S> We say "fourteenth" but omit the "th" in writing the number in dates. <S> However, if I write the day of the month by itself, then I will use the "th": "I'm leaving for Ohio on the 14th. <S> " <S> I'm not sure about Canada, but other English-speaking countries follow different conventions, generally with the day of the month preceding the month. <A> In Britain we can write a date using an ordinal day number, e.g. 1st October 2018, and in fact Microsoft Word helpfully superscripts the ordinal indicators (st, nd, rd, th). <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_notation_in_the_United_Kingdom <A> Side note: I am American, and <S> European date formatting has always confused me. <S> Keep this in mind. <S> As the other answers have clarified, it depends on where the person you're writing to is from (America vs. Europe & etc.) <S> or where you're learning English. <S> If the document isn't serious, you could write 10/14/95 like you first thought, but if the document is serious, then October 14, 1995 is the proper way. <S> Sorry <S> I couldn't help more, but I hope you found your answer! <A> This wiki article provides a useful summary. <S> As long as it's not ambiguous then most people can work it out regardless of what format you use. <S> 4/9/2015 is ambiguous, because both 4 and 9 can be a month, but 13/9/2015 is unambiguous because 13 cannot be a month. <S> Generally, it is preferable not to use digits in text: "that's the second time you broke the photocopier!" <S> rather than "... <S> the 2nd time...". <S> With dates, there are too many numbers to write nineteen hundred and ninety five, so we use digits for the day and year, but generally we write month names in full, rather than abbreviated or in digits. <S> Note that, for some dates that have a special significance, we generally write the day in full: "the fourth of July" (independence day in America), "the first of April" (April fool's day), "the fifth of November" (bonfire night in the UK).	There are lots of different conventions for writing dates, depending on the country.
What does 'KMA' stand for? I'm not looking for 'kiss my ass' answers. I'm just watching a movie and trying to find out and memorize new phrases. I've come across the abbreviation 'KMA' when the policeman informed the dispatcher that a couple of cops had died. He said: 'Two policemen ... KMA'(and nothing else). I couldn't find the meaning of this abbreviation while was surfing the net. <Q> Bright is set in a dystopic future Los Angeles. <S> In the LAPD radio code KMA means "end of transmission <S> *. – <S> StoneyB <S> It is short for <S> "Keep me advised" <A> Since it was a policeman... <S> "KMA" was the FCC call sign prefix for police frequencies in Los Angeles. <S> You may want to refer to KMA 367 <S> "An Unofficial History of the Los Angeles Police Department's Communications Division". <S> Likewise, other departments had other call signs <S> (e.g. "KMG" was for the fire department). <A> In the context that was given, I don't think they meant KMA - end transmission. <S> Jakoby was describing the two Officers down. <S> I believe he meant to say KIA - killed in action. <S> Throughout the rest of the film they reference those Officers as killed, so I believe KIA is what they meant to transmit, but perhaps in the writing misused the acronym. <A> For many years the base communications call sign for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department dispatch was KMA 628, while the mobile call sign was KA 4306. <S> FCC regulations required that we identify ourselves, so every hour we had to "FCC". <S> A base station dispatcher, known as an RTO (Radio Telephone Operator) or Sheriff's Dispatcher (SD) or, at last incarnation, Public Response Dispatcher (PRD) would go out over the air and ask for any unit or, sometimes, a specific unit, to FCC. <S> The exchange went basically as follows: "Any unit FCC". <S> The field unit would give their call sign and say, "KA 4306". <S> The dispatcher would usually respond, "10-4 Thank you. <S> KMA 628" and then give the time. <S> For example, LAPD was KMA 367 and LASD was KMA 628.	The "KMA" prefix was a law enforcement designation and the numbers distinguished the agency.
A word that means women are only good for making babies? I'm writing a paper right now on the treatment of Aryan women during the Third Reich and one of the key components was having a lot of children to raise the "aryan" or racially pure race. But I for the life of me can't think of a word to represent the idea of women only really being good for making/having kids. The only word I can think of is baby-making machines, but thats hardly eloquent. So any ideas? Basically what I'm trying to say is that women were dehumanized down to the point where they were beyond being encouraged to reproduce but forced. They were only seen in society during the Third Reich as being good enough to have children, as in that was their main purpose. <Q> Pronatalism does suggest government-encouraged procreation, but not "dehumanization of women" -- in fact, pronatalist policies might actually venerate women, especially those who have many more children than average. <S> "Incubator" is, I think, too vague without further context. <A> Although not literally appropriate, Incubator (an apparatus for growing pre-term organisms) is quite dehumanizing. <A> The word I was looking for was pronatalism!"belief that promotes human reproduction. <S> The term is taken from the Latin adjective form for "birth", natalis. <S> Natalism promotes child-bearing and parenthood as desirable for social reasons and to ensure the continuance of humanity." <A> You could say something like: <S> Nazis saw women as nothing more than uteruses. <S> In other words, just a place for babies to grow. <S> Essentially the same expression (but with very different sentiment) is used in the title <S> Women Are More Than Freestanding Uteruses . <S> Another similar (but humorous) example of an expression like this would be this clip from Friends where Joey points to his head and say's it's "not just a hat rack". <S> If you're specifically talking about Lebensborn , which was the program where some "racially viable" women were given financial aid to breed with SS officers, then I'd just use "Lebensborn women".	"Brood mare" is often used for this situation, as is "baby-machine" or "baby-maker".
Pouring rain vs. to pour with rain It was pouring with rain and she was wondering what to do. This is the sentence which I used answering the question Is it grammatically correct to use two past continuous tenses in a single sentence? .The sentence is taken from Grammar and Vocabulary for First Certificat e by L.Prodromou (2005). But one commentator said: This may just be me, but " It was pouring with rain " sounds odd to me - not because of the progressive, but because I would expect " It was pouring rain " instead. In my perception, the idiom "to pour with rain" is just fine. It doesn't sound odd to me. I'm interested in other people's views. Is to pour with rain odd, kind of dated? <Q> You are correct in British English at least. <S> It can "be pouring with rain", the rain can be "pouring". <S> The commentator is wrong " <S> It was pouring rain" does not work. <S> Note that "pouring with rain" is a particular kind of rain; as if someone was tipping it out of a bucket. <S> Its not "fine rain", and its not "spitting" rain and its not torrential necessarily <S> We have as many words or kinds of rain as eskimos allegedly do for snow. <A> Seems like a British English vs American English distinction. <S> "It was pouring with rain" is understandable but does sound unusual to a native AmE speaker. <S> What is "it"? <S> The sky, or perhaps the weather. <S> "It is pouring outside" clearly means "rain," and there's no need to explain "with what?" <S> or "what is pouring?" <S> because there is only 1 possible answer. <S> "It [the sky] is pouring [down] ... rain." <S> "Pouring" is a transitive verb - there must be a stated or implied direct object being poured. <S> The preposition "with" does not modify either the object (rain), or the verb (pouring), so it's unnecessary and can be omitted. <S> If you are pouring water into a glass, or onto a potted plant, are you "pouring with water"? <S> No, that's weird. <S> You're merely "pouring [the] water." <S> "With" does suggest a logical, spatial relationship between the rain and the sky, but that's also obvious and could not be otherwise, so it's still unnecessary. <S> The sky pours rain . <S> It does not ever "pour" anything else. <S> It could "pour [rain] with gusto" or "pour [rain] with fury," but it still only ever "pours" rain. <S> Sometimes it is said to be "pouring buckets [of rain]. <S> " <S> Sometimes <S> "it's raining cats and dogs," but it's never "raining with cats and dogs." <S> What other verbs can the sky perform? <S> It could "dance with light" or "buzz with insects" or "be filled with clouds or stars," ... <S> so in that sense using "with" seems somehow grammatically consistent ... <S> But in these cases the preposition "with" is necessary to explain the logical, spatial relationship between the sky, the object, and the verb. <S> Insects and light do other things in other places. <S> Clouds or stars are only found there, but the sky can "be filled with" many things so in those cases "with" is necessary to specify the object being discussed. <S> If the sky is pouring anything at all, it's pouring rain. <A> Not just a British v American english difference. <S> In Hiberno english i.e. that used in Ireland it always pours rain but never pours with rain.	Of course both are correct.
Can “How to” be a question? Can I use “How to” instead of “How do I” when I ask a question? And will it be grammatical? I often notice some English learners use “How to” when they ask a question. <Q> The expression is used in titles, for example "How to win friends and influence people" In English, a how-question is formed by taking a normal sentence, making a question in the usual way (by applying subject-auxiliary inversion ) and then adding how in front of it. <S> I get a visa <S> I do get a visa - add <S> do because there is no auxiliary verb <S> Do I get a visa? <S> - invert subject and auxiliary <S> How do I get a visa? <S> - add how <A> Are you talking of asking some guy <S> How do I kill an insect ? , versus How to kill an insect ? <S> ? <S> If so, I believe the latter is not grammatically correct. <S> I think How to is used more in titles and such (not in the question form), for example: How to kill all the insects in your house in less than 3 hours . <A> If you are asking the question directly to a person or group of people then <S> How do I feed a lion? <S> is grammatical. <S> However we can also be making the point that it's a problem to do a task and say <S> Ah, but how to feed the lion? <S> That's the question. <S> Here we are not explicitly asking a specific person for an answer, though in conversation we are open to receiving answers. <S> I suspect that these two cases are sometimes confused by non-native speakers. <A> The phrase "How to play tennis" is noun phrase. <S> It does not contain a finite verb and is not a complete sentence. <S> It means "the method of playing tennis" <S> Noun phrases are useful: They can be used, for example, as headings in a piece of writing. <S> They are building blocks of complete sentences <S> He taught me how to play tennis. <S> This is a complete sentence with a subject, verb and two objects. <S> It is not a question. <S> "How" can also be used in questions, but it needs the inverted verb to be a question. <S> How does he play tennis? <A> In English, whether something is a question or a statement can depend on its context or delivery. <S> For example: <S> Salesman: <S> Hey, have I got a deal for you! <S> Customer: <S> Really? <S> Salesman: <S> Really! <S> Sentence 1 is worded in the form of a question ("Have I"), but the intent is to make a statement. <S> Sentences 2 and 3 contain the same text, but #2 is a question while #3 is a statement. <S> "How to" can be used in a question, particularly when someone is asking a question of themselves (e.g. "How to win?"), but its natural function is to cue a reader to expect a heading or title (e.g. How to cook a potato ).	The usage of how to to ask a question is a direct translation from the learner's own language: it is not correct as a question in English. It is not a question.
What do you call a group set up to undermine a political argument? I have come across the following political phenomenon recently and I can’t find the right word for it. Imagine a group of people (say an ethnic minority or gender) who campaign against their mistreatment by the government. Now imagine the government secretly sets up another group populated by people of the same minority (or gender) who supposedly are campaigning for the same cause. But in fact their job is to undermine the arguments against the government and so to discredit the original group of complainants. What do you call such a group? <Q> This is a False Flag operation, almost exactly by definition. <A> Being Spanish, the expression Fifth column comes immediately to mind. <S> It looks like it has been used in English, but I do not know how usual it is. <A> Slightly broader than you asked: (in US) when a powerful group (government, political, commercial, or religious) recruits or employs people to simulate popular support for the powerful group or its position(s) or proposal(s), usually but not inherently by opposing, criticizing, or interfering with the (other) people who criticize or oppose the powerful group, it is called Astroturf or Astroturfing (not always capitalized, sometimes hyphenated). <S> This is a metaphor: actual Astroturf is a brand of artificial grass widely used for sports facilities, and groups or movements truly made up of ordinary people are called 'grassroots' (sometimes hyphenated), so Astroturf-ers are artificial or fake versions of such groups and people. <A> A name for the individuals in such a group, which could be pluralized for the group, agents provocateurs . <A> Maybe, we should call them saboteurs since their job is to sabotage the first group's cause? <S> Here's the meaning of the verb to sabotage as defined by the Collins English Dictionary: <S> If someone sabotages a plan or a meeting, they deliberately prevent it from being successful. <A> I would call a person who works for the government and goes undercover in the group to undermine the group's authority or message an infiltrator , according to Cambridge Dictionary : <S> a person who secretly becomes part of a group in order to get information or to influence the way the group thinks or behaves <S> Attribution: "Infiltrator Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. <S> " <S> Cambridge Dictionary. <S> Accessed March 31, 2018. <S> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infiltrator . <A> Yes, that plain and simple. <S> All the suggestions made so far apply to situations that differ in important aspects from what you want to say. <S> A "false flag operation" is when a group of soldiers (or special forces operatives) of country A perpetrate a violent act making it look like they were in fact <S> soldiers/operatives of country B. <S> It has never (to my knowledge) been used for the situation that you are describing, which is a political trick restricted to civilian life. <S> A classic example of a false flag operation is one that gave the Soviet Union a pretext to attack Finland in 1939 , when "unknown operatives" shelled a Soviet border guard post, and this act was pinned on Finns (giving the Soviet Union the pretext to attack Finland), when in fact it was perpetrated by Soviet operatives. <S> "Th fifth Column" is a term amply present in our political discourse when discussing who is a "useful idiot" who, by his/her/their actions, benefits Russian interests, but again this is not used in discussions that do not involve an external enemy. <S> The "fifth column" may not even exist—it might be an imaginary group of people that is accused of working for a different, purportedly hostile, country. <S> E. g., this article from The New Yorker describes how President Putin of Russia sees people who are dissatisfied with his rule as people who try to sow discord and are thus working for the purportedly hostile West. <S> "Infiltrators" join a certain group—they don't set up a rival group that mimics someone. <S> Etc. <S> etc. <S> People who pretend to be activists (of whatever movement) are just that — fake activists. <A> I'd probably call them entryists . <A> Another term, which is used particularly when the government in your question is the Russian or former Soviet government, is active measures . <S> According to Wikipedia (the quote in the Wikipedia excerpt is from The Mitrokhin Archive ): <S> Active measures <S> range "from media manipulations to special actions involving various degrees of violence". <S> They were used both abroad and domestically. <S> They included disinformation, propaganda, counterfeiting official documents, assassinations, and political repression, such as penetration into churches, and persecution of political dissidents. <S> Example from Wikipedia: Operation INFEKTION was a KGB disinformation campaign to spread information that the United States invented HIV/AIDS as part of a biological weapons research project at Fort Detrick, Maryland. <S> ( link to corresponding Wikipedia page ) <S> Attribution: 1 "Active Measures." <S> Wikipedia. <S> April 04, 2018. <S> Accessed April 04, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures . <S> 2 "Operation INFEKTION. <S> " Wikipedia. <S> April 04, 2018. <S> Accessed April 04, 2018. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_INFEKTION .	The group itself could be referred to using the plural: infiltrators . In your case you could say those part of the government group to undermine the other group are members of active measures against that group. Just yesterday, lazily following the political developments in my country (Ukraine) where a lot of political "innovations", both home-grown and imported, are constantly being tested, I saw a similar phenomenon being called fake activists.
Is the answer "positive" to the question "How are you" - considered acceptable? Is the answer " positive " to the question " How are you " - considered acceptable in meaning of "I am OK"? I have tried to get an answer in a dictionary , but I couldn't find it there, therefore as the last resort I have chosen to use the wisdom of the crowd. Questioner: How are you ? The person who answers: positive . N.B. If you answer I'd like to know whether your answer represents British or American English. <Q> As an American English speaker, it doesn't sound natural to me. <S> Original Conversation <S> Q: <S> How are you? <S> A: <S> * <S> [I'm] positive. <S> In this case, I'd interpret <S> I'm positive to mean that they were certain about something. <S> Since I'm certain <S> doesn't make sense as an answer to the question, I wouldn't understand what was intended. <S> Alternative Conversation <S> Q: <S> How are you? <S> A: <S> I'm feeling positive. <S> In this case, I'd understand that the person was saying they felt hopeful, rather than certain. <S> As pointed out in the comments, this response still only really makes sense when there’s some sort of context that makes it clear what the person is hopeful or optimistic about (ht: topo morto, Mr Lister). <A> The standard answer is "I am fine, thank you. <S> How are you?" <S> Referring to the common answers in "Business" or polite "British English". <S> Answering with "positive" would be suitable to the question <S> "How do you feel about it?" <A> In Canadian English, ' I'm positive ' in response to ' How are you? ' <S> sounds like you tested positive on a medical test. <S> like pregnancy.but without a previous context of a medical test, it's non sequitur.	You can also say: "I'm doing well" or "I'm doing good" (informal).
What is the opposite of hungry? Is there any adjective that means satiety? When you feel hunger you say I'm hungry, what you say when you feel satiety? I know some people say "I'm full". But I wonder if there is a more formal alternative? <Q> If you're just looking for antonyms for hungry , you could use any of the following: <S> I'm stuffed. <S> I'm full. <S> I'm satisfied. <S> Of course, there are other ways to let someone know that you're done eating, such as: <S> I couldn't eat another bite. <S> That meal was delicious. <A> He was hungry. <S> Now he is satiated. <S> She ate a bit off all the plates in front of her until she was satiated. <S> You're probably less likely to hear this in casual conversation. <S> I think of it as being almost more of a medical term, though others can step in if that's regional. <S> Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the noun form, satiety , as: 1: the quality or state of being fed or gratified to or beyond capacity : surfeit, fullness 2: the revulsion or disgust caused by overindulgence or excess <A> Well fed is more a description of overall condition. <S> Eating the required amounts or more over time. <S> The word is either sated or satiated. <S> Neither seen much anymore but still true. <A> More generally, the opposite of feeling hungry would be being well-fed : <S> If you say that someone is well-fed, you mean that they get good food regularly. <S> Example: <S> I never felt hungry when I was growing up. <S> I was always well-fed.	I believe you're looking for the term satiated .
"There will call upon you to-night" British late 19th or early 20th expression? I apologize sincerely as if I am asking here about the Holmes' series quotations. Now, I stumbled upon a "new phrase" to me . Excerpt The note was undated, and without either signature or address. " There will call upon you to-night , at a quarter to eight o'clock [it said], a gentleman who desires to consult you upon a matter of the very deepest moment. Your recent services to one of the royal houses of Europe have shown that you are one who may safely be trusted with matters which are of an importance which can hardly be exaggerated. This account of you we have from all quarters received. Be in your chamber then at that hour, and do not take it amiss if your visitor wear a mask. The "standard" English I have learned for so many years, when you would like to express the existence of something, ( in the future case, ) There will be + noun. Is this as I am asking at the title, the 19th or 20th century British expression or the reflection of the age? <Q> I'm not sure that specific phrase is a late 19th or early 20th century British expression, but the general use of "there will" with anything other than "be" definitely comes across as old-fashioned. <S> As evidence that the construction itself is a little dated, consider the following versions that mean the same thing but sound more modern: <S> There will be a gentleman calling upon you tonight, at a quarter to eight o'clock [it said], who... <S> A gentleman will be calling upon you tonight, at a quarter to eight o'clock [it said], who... <A> The Sherlock Holmes stories were published between 1887 and 1927, and are mostly set between 1880 and 1914. <S> So we can ascertain that this was definitely common parlance at that time, and also significantly before - I was in a production of Much Ado About Nothing (c. 1600) <S> but a month ago and similar grammar was used there. <S> I wouldn't expect to hear it much here in Britain. <S> The only case I might use it would be by accident, if I decided to change my sentence halfway through saying it, or perhaps if I wanted to highlight the event: There will be a meeting of the council tonight. <S> vs <S> There will tonight be a meeting of the council. <S> The second one, in my opinion, puts more emphasis on the meeting itself by getting the time out of the way first. <S> Although your example would place a comma after 'tonight', I think in modern fluent speech a sentence as the one I wrote above would be pronounced as if there was no comma. <S> I think it's safe to date this as early 20th century, although it is by no means <S> deprecated grammar. <S> Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes <A> I found an answer. <S> After having read the book, I found a paragraph in which Watson says the construction of the sentence is not English . <S> Quoting, <S> " <S> Precisely. <S> And the man who wrote the note is a German. <S> Do you note the peculiar construction of the sentence -- 'This account of you we have from all quarters received.' <S> A Frenchman or Russian could not have written that. <S> It is the German who is so uncourteous to his verbs . <S> It only remains, therefore, to discover what is wanted by this German who writes upon Bohemian paper and prefers wearing a mask to showing his face. <S> And here he comes, if I am not mistaken, to resolve all our doubts." <S> Thank you for both of you, but it seems the line about which I asked sounded weird is not the "error" or the "style of the age" of English.	As for modern day English, this kind of construction isn't used much anymore, but is certainly understood.
Arithmetic expressions: singular or plural? Five and two make/makes seven. Five times two is/are ten. Five minus two leave/leaves three. Which ones are correct? Could someone explain the logic behind them? <Q> You will generally hear the singular verb. <S> I doubt that language can be explained in terms of logic. <S> 5 + 2 = 7 means that the two expressions denote the same number. <S> Now obviously, if we look at the left hand side of that equation in terms of the number of symbols used, we see three <S> and, if we focus on the number of symbols, we shall say the numerals for five and two joined by a plus sign represent the same number as the numeral for seven. <S> Note the plural verb. <S> If on the other hand we focus on what the symbols mean, we shall say the number formed by adding five and two is seven. <S> Note the singular verb. <S> The language used tends to follow what we are trying to convey. <S> If we are trying to convey the number represented, we shall use the singular. <A> In at least some cases, correctly spoken English sentences exist using both singular and plural verbs for the same mathematical statement. <S> For example, I would consider all of the following to be correct: <S> Five and two make seven. <S> Five and two are seven. <S> Five plus two equals seven. <S> All of these are ways of expressing the equation 5 + 2 = 7 in words. <S> The plural forms seem old-fashioned to me (possibly due to a public education in the United States, where we consistently would have said five plus two equals seven), but you can certainly find them in literature and song. <S> For example, when Danny Kaye sings "Inchworm" in the film Hans Christian Andersen, the children in the background are singing: <S> Two and two are four. <S> Four and four are eight. ... <A> In everyday language, one and one are two, and two and two are four . <S> The "and" here stands for addition, and grammatically causes the plural form "are". <S> Two and two also make four if you understand this as an addition. <S> Mathematically, two plus two equals four. <S> This is an mathematical statement and the "plus" is part of the first expression that is equal to four (which is the second expression). <S> Similarly, two times three equals six, and three minus one equals five minus three. <S> When you use "is" instead of "equals", as in "one plus one is two", you will be understood, but it is somewhat informal because equality and "being" are different concepts (example: if A and B are two sides of a square, they are equal, but it would be incorrect to say "A is B"). <S> For a longer discussion (and debates) on the role and usage of the verb "to be", see E prime .	If we are trying to convey the number of symbols used, we shall use the plural.
Word request for dishonest modesty Is there a less intense (more causal, less offensive) equivalent single word that means being dishonest in being modest or to show yourself to be modest when, in fact, you are just pretending? <Q> The closest term I can think of is humblebrag , which specifically refers to a statement that appears on the surface to be a sign of humility while actually is a form of bragging. <S> This term is somewhat recent slang and definitely carries a negative connotation. <S> Humblebrag Example: <S> Stephen Fry: <S> Oh dear. <S> Don’t know what to do at the airport. <S> Huge crowd, but I’ll miss my plane if I stop and do photos … <S> oh dear don’t want to disappoint https://twitter.com/stephenfry/status/312172163182518272 <S> If you want to be a little more indirect, you can say someone is being ostensibly self-deprecating . <A> When reading your question, one can't help but think of the word hypocritical : <S> If you accuse someone of being hypocritical, you mean that they pretend to have qualities, beliefs, or feelings that they do not really have. <S> Keep in mind that hypocrisy is a very general term that can be used to describe any type of hypocritical behavior. <S> When you're talking about being hypocritical, you just need to specify more precisely in what respect <S> you think somebody is being hypocritical. <S> For example: John is such a hypocrite when it comes to modesty. <S> He says that he is modest while he is really not. <A> Depending on what you mean by "modest", coy might work. <S> It's often used to describe someone who is making a big show of being shy and modest, either as a way to flirt or as a way to avoid talking about something sensitive. <S> It can have a slightly negative feel depending on context, but isn't always negative. <S> From Dictionary.com: artfully or affectedly shy or reserved <S> ; slyly hesitant; coquettish. <S> shy; modest. <S> showing reluctance, especially when insincere or affected, to reveal one's plans or opinions, make a commitment, or take a stand: <S> The mayor was coy about his future political aspirations. <S> Note that in the "flirting" sense it's most often used about women, for good or ill.	If you're okay with using more than one word, I think the closest phrase for a dishonest form of modesty would be false modesty .
Must, should or cannot be empty? In the context of data that needs to be filled in in a computer program: When a data field must be filled in, what is the best way to phrase this (specifically, in the pop-up window warning the users they forgot to fill it in)? The name cannot be empty. The name must not be empty. The name should not be empty. The name is mandatory. The name is required. The name must be filled in. (Anything else?) Assume adult users. They all seem equally valid to me... <Q> All of the other ones say the same thing, with one exception. <S> The name should not be empty <S> does not mean that it cannot be empty. <S> It is closer to the meaning of <S> The name is preferably not empty. <A> When writing computer software interfaces, user feedback should be as short <S> but as informative as possible. <S> For this reason the most common feedback of this type is "X is required " Side note: <S> as BobRodes suggests in the above comment, a more modern approach is to highlight the field with the missing data and prevent form submission until the field is complete. <S> If there are special restrictions on what kind of data is required, then give targeted feedback to help the user understand what is missing. <S> Examples: <S> Name must be at least five characters long and cannot contain any special characters like "/", "$", "%", "? <S> " etc. <S> Please enter a valid email address. <S> Please select at least one option from the drop-down <A> The field name appears next to the empty field. <S> Not in the sentence. <S> examples abound of this sentence <A> For decades (since the 1960s) the phrase that has been used to describe this situation would go like this: <S> Name is a required field .	I would use The name is required , both because it is the simplest way to say what you are trying to say and because it is the usual way to say it in your use case. This field must not be empty.
Is it possible for the ‘yet’ within ‘Are we there yet?’ to mean ‘still’? Are we there yet ? I know that this sentence usually means Have we got there so far (‘ at this time ’)? and it is even somewhat idiomatic. But ‘ yet ’ has another meaning, ‘ still ’, which may give the sentence the opposite meaning: Are we still there (‘ even so far ’)? Is it totally impossible for the ‘ yet ’ to mean ‘ still ’ in this sentence? If so, why is it? <Q> There is implied meaning and interpreted meaning. <S> Implied meaning is the most direct and simple interpretation of a phrase, and although it could vary from person to person, "Are we there yet?" can have only one obvious implied meaning here, which is "Have we finally arrived? <S> " <S> A phrase can have many interpreted meanings, and while the most obvious is "Have we arrived yet? <S> ", another interpretation (albeit very very obscure) is "And still are we there?" <S> I stress though that it is very obscure simply because the implied meaning covers this interpretation almost entirely. <S> That said, if communication has any importance here, the implied meaning is all you should take into consideration. <A> Asking if we are still somewhere would imply that we've already been there for a relatively long time. <S> So, I can imagine boarding an airplane and dozing off shortly after I get into my seat. <S> I might wake up and find that the aircraft is still on the tarmac, perhaps due to a weather delay or mechanical problem. <S> In a situation like that, I might say bemoaningly: <S> Oh, are we still here? <S> I suppose I could substitute yet for still in that sentence, and change the word order: <S> Oh, are we here yet? <S> I think that's grammatical; however, as others have said, it would sound like I'm auditioning for a Shakespearian play. <S> If we really wanted to use there instead of here , we could imagine it's my uncle Ebenezer <S> who is stuck on the plane, and he just texted me to let me know he is still in Chicago, even though he was supposed to be taking off almost an hour ago. <S> In that case, when I share the news with my family (who are all anxious to see Uncle Ebenezer), one of them might cry out in dismay: <S> Oh, is he there yet? <S> meaning: <S> Oh, is he still there? <S> but again, it would sound dreadfully old-fashioned and melodramatic, and therefore I can only imagine it said that way for humorous effect. <S> Now, as for your wording: because "we" is in the first person, and "there" often refers to some place away from the speaker <S> , I'm having a hard time construing a scenario where the actual sentence would be combine "we" with "there" as you did: <S> Are we there yet? <S> unless there refers to a figurative place rather than a literal one. <S> Perhaps you and your spouse are still arguing about a long-time bone of contention, and you, tired of the argument, say: <S> Are we having this fight yet again? <S> Would could become shortened to: <S> Are we there still? <S> And then: Are we there yet? <S> But if that's the way you said it from the outset, I'm not sure how well-understood you'd be. <S> You might even start another long argument. <A> "Are we there yet" is idiomatic. <S> It suggests that the speaker is assuming the answer is negative (and would be surprised to hear the contrary). <S> If the assumption is that we arrived, the appropriate word would be already : "are we there already?" <S> As Cambridge dictionary notes: <S> Already refers to things which have happened or which people think may have happened. <S> Yet refers to things which have not happened or which people think may not have happened. <S> We are already here (for some time). <S> And if we are expected to leave at some time: We are still here. <S> As a side note, there refers to a place that is not here , and here <S> is by definition where the speaker is located. <S> So "are we there yet <S> " logically invites the answer "no", and any other answer would be surprising; this is part of the idiomatic sense this sentence has. <S> Your question suggests that ‘yet’ has another meaning, ‘still’ This is not exactly correct. <S> In some occasions yet and still may seem interchangeable, but there is still a difference: (Statement A), yet (statement B). <S> (Statement A). <S> Still, (statement B). <S> In both cases, statement B is implied to be true, and be somewhat contradictory to statement A. <S> Using <S> yet emphasises the contradiction, and suggests that statement A is false. <S> Using still diminishes the contradiction and suggests that statement A may also be true. <S> Specific examples: Many people think cellular phones are hazardous, yet there is insufficient evidence of any health problems associate with cellular phone usage. <S> There is insufficient evidence of any health problems associate with cellular phone usage. <S> Still, many people think cellular phones are hazardous. <S> (See " <S> Yet as a conjunction" here and "still in front position" here . <A> Yet and still: basic clarification Is he here yet ? <S> The question implies he is not at a plac e as of a particular time. <S> Is he still here? <S> The question implies he continues to be at a place at a particular time. <S> Therefore, they mean completely different things.	In declarative sentences the distinction is clear: We are not there yet.
What is the actual difference between "dwell" to "live"? I didn't know the word " dwell " till today (maybe it says how common this word is), and after reading the Cambridge dictionary definition of "dwell" ( to live in a place or in a particular way ) this word seems to me as a synonym of "live". Is that correct? For example: I live in England. I live in five-room-flat. Is in this cases the word " live " is interchangeable with " dwell "? <Q> Live is the normal word to describe a place where you habitually reside. <S> I live in London. <S> -cave dwellers [those who live in caves]; city dwellers [those who live in cities] As a verb , it would not be used as a substitute for live except in some literary or poetic narrative. <S> It is rather archaic, also. <S> For example, in various passages in the Bible: English Standard Version Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: "O my people, who dwell [reside in] in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did." <S> ( Isaiah 10:24 ) <S> Here is Emily Dickinson, a great American poetess: I dwell in Possibility <S> I dwell in Possibility – <S> A fairer House than Prose – <S> More numerous of Windows – <S> Superior – for Doors – Of Chambers as the Cedars – <S> Impregnable of eye – <S> And for an everlasting Roof <S> The Gambrels of the Sky – Of Visitors – the fairest – <S> For Occupation <S> – This – <S> The spreading wide my narrow Hands <S> To gather Paradise – dwell in Dickinson poem <A> Dwell is more specific than live ; it means something like "to remain in one specific place ". <S> For example, it would be correct to say <S> He dwells in Folkestone. <S> but not He may only dwell to the age of fifty. <S> In your examples, dwell is correct. <S> It is not very common and sounds old-fashioned, though. <A> Just an addendum to the other excellent answers: Even though "dwell" as a verb meaning "live" is pretty archaic, we still do use the phrasal verb "dwell on" quite often. <S> It means to spend a lot of time thinking or talking about something. <S> A <S> : I can't believe how much I embarrassed myself in that presentation! <S> B: <S> You made some mistakes, but stop dwelling on it. <S> It's over!	dweller is an anthropological and/or sociological word, and a literary word to mean reside.
What do we call the half closing of eyes? It's not under any influence of alcohol! It's just a gesture. Eyes are half closed with creases on the forehead and some tension in the muscles around the eyes. Such expressions are made when you doubt something or find something suspicious. I'm trying a lot but not finding even a single image! Why? Because I don't know what it is called! <Q> In detective stories, you'll often read the expression <S> he narrowed his eyes <S> If your eyes narrow or if you narrow your eyes, you almost close them, for example because you are angry or because you are trying to concentrate on something. <S> More often than not, when someone is thinking deeply, English speakers will focus on the creases in the forehead, which is called a frown When someone frowns , their eyebrows become drawn together, because they are annoyed, worried, or puzzled, or because they are concentrating. <A> Perhaps the word you are looking for is to squint <S> but it does not imply that you doubt something, <S> you squint because you want to look at something with your eyes partly closed in order to see better (LDOCE 5th version). <S> But here's an alternative for squint : to narrow one's eyes - to partly close them, especially to show that you do not trust someone <A> One oft-used verb for this is squint : <S> squint ( v. ) <S> To look with the eyes partly closed, as in bright sunlight, or as a threatening gesture; to look askance, as in disapproval. <S> The word is often used in conjunction with suspicion. <S> A Google Books search yielded a heap of entries with squint suspiciously , such as: <S> The village, Burns thought, had the look of a distrustful old man squinting suspiciously at all outsiders. <S> People from the parking lot at the front of the store began wandering over, staring or squinting suspiciously. <S> When he left the head table, he cast a squinting, suspicious gaze around the arena. <S> His eyes were small wet holes pressed between a couple dozen layers of wrinkles, probably from a lifetime of squinting suspiciously at people. <A> I believe you mean that look that Fry had when he was in doubt his friend Bender was impersonated by someone else: <S> This is indeed squinting , and it is a recognisable expression of suspicion in some cultures, but not universally. <A> There are some good answers here already, but another couple of terms that come to mind are furrowing one's brow or knitting one's [eye]brow[s] . <S> Furrowing describes an expression where you create wrinkles on your forehead/brow (as one creates furrows in the ground when plowing it) either by raising your eyebrows or tensing the muscles around the eyes in the way you describe. <S> Knitting one's brows refers more specifically to pulling your eyebrows together, which also produces the effect you described. <S> Edit: I just found an interesting list of terms/expressions describing various facial expressions: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus-category/american/to-make-a-particular-facial-expression <A> Similar facial expression for a scowl , but scowl has slightly more angry connotation. <S> scowl ( v. ) to look at someone or something in a way that shows anger or disapproval scowl ( n. ) <S> an expression on someone's face that shows anger or disapproval <A> Not mentioned so far: to glower . <S> glower (v) <S> : Have an angry or sullen look on one's face; scowl. <S> Glower is appropriate if you narrow your eyes in anger or threat. <S> As an illustration of the difference between looking sleepy , squinting , and glowering , see this clip from the movie Get Shorty <A> There are some kinds of half-shut eyes , here are some of them: 1) <S> While a person is very tired and he is about to sleep, or alternatively before death or if having a structure of such eyes. <S> It can be called simply " half-shut eyes " or " half closed eyes " <S> I saw his half-shut eyes. <S> ( reference ) <S> N.B. <S> Sometimes it may be called: piggy-eyed or " pink eye ". <S> 2) <S> While suspecting in something or having a concern or a thought about something: half-shut eyelids or "half closed eyes". <S> "A woman at the information desk with half-shut eyelids managed to tell me that the KLM flight was delayed with no ETA." <S> ( reference ) <S> The officer looked at him narrowly through half-closed eyes... <S> ( reference ) <S> 3) <S> While a person want to improve his eyesight (by changing the shape of our eye and letting in a limited amount of light that is more easily focused) : squint or less common blink (see definition No.1) <S> Why can people see more clearly when they squint their eyes? <S> ( reference ) 4) <S> While conveying a glance: " bedroom eyes " Marilyn Monroe's signature look was her bedroom eyes. <S> ( reference ) <S> That half-closed 'bedroom eyes' look actually makes women think you are SHIFTY, not sexy. <S> ( reference ) 5) <S> Pathological disability to close the eyes completely (for example due to a malfunction in a facial nerve): <S> Lagophthalmos (or Nocturnal lagophthalmos if it is at night) <S> He has Lagophthalmos . <S> He can't close his eyes completely. <S> So in the end of the day, the choice depends on context. <S> But in your case I would consider the option No.2 here.	In general, squinting means just that: to look at someone or something with one or both eyes partly closed in an attempt to see more clearly or as a reaction to strong light.
Like a Swiss watch Here in Spain we have a saying to mark that something works perfectly ,we say that it works like a Swiss watch . Is there any equivalent expression in English? <Q> Yes, in English, you can say: x runs as smoothly as a Swiss watch. <S> This can be checked by googling to see sites where the expression occurs. <S> There are, of course, many other expressions in English for this meaning. <A> - if something you have arranged such as an event or journey goes like clockwork, it happens in exactly the way that was planned, with no problems at all After all that fuss, everything went like clockwork. <S> You should have seen it. <S> ‘Everything go all right?’ <S> ‘Like clockwork.’ <S> All through that summer, work on the farm went like clockwork. <S> to go smoothly [verb phrase] <S> - if a planned event, journey, piece of work etc goes smoothly, there are no problems to spoil it <S> If all goes smoothly, elections are expected in May. <S> In rehearsal, everything went smoothly, even the difficult fight scenes. <S> My presentation went remarkably smoothly, until one student asked an awkward question right at the end. <S> without a hitch [adverb] <S> - if a planned action or event happens without a hitch, it happens exactly as planned with no problems at all, even though some may have been expected The first phase of the operation was completed without a hitch. <S> to go according to plan [verb phrase] <S> - if something that has been carefully planned goes according to plan, it happens in exactly the way you planned it would Development of our new computer system is going according to plan <S> and it should be in operation by October. <S> But, of course, you can put it in another way by using the following adverbial phrases. <S> Be careful, they can only be used in a specific context: like a dream <S> and/or with no trouble <A> I like the expression to work like a charm : <S> If something works like a charm, it is very successful or effective. <S> Although the expression is general enough that it can be used in a lot of different situations, I probably would not use it to describe how well electronic or mechanical devices work. <S> You can use it to talk about software, however. <S> For example: That antivirus package that you recommended really fixed my computer. <S> It helped me get rid of all the malware and adware that I had on it.	In English, there are many ways to express that something works perfectly fine, here are some (these pertain to situations when something happens without any problems at all): to go like clockwork [verb phrase] The thing really worked like a charm .
Meaning of 'to (not) burn old women as witches' In this sentence from Bertrand Russell, At one time—not so very long ago—it was considered monstrous wickedness to maintain that old women ought not to be burnt as witches. which one is the bygone belief that Russell is expressing? All old women must be burnt because they're witches. Those old women who are witches must be burnt. To me, the second sounds (slightly) more rational, while the structure of Russell's sentence suggests the first one. <Q> The bygone belief was: If an old woman is a witch, then she should be burnt accordingly. <S> Looking at more of the sentence, we see that Russell is trying to say: <S> There was a time — not so very long ago — <S> when, if you didn't believe a witch should be burned, you were regarded as monstrously wicked. <S> I can see why you have trouble picking up the second meaning from the structure of the original; it's because Russell is leaving out a tidbit that is implied: ... <S> it was considered monstrous wickedness to maintain that old women [ who are presumed to be witches ] ought not to be burnt as witches. <S> Without this implied information, the sentence might sound like it applies to all old women, but that is not the case. <S> Russell is relying on the reader to know he is referring to women who were thought to be witches. <A> The opinion was considered wicked. <S> It may be reasonable to understand old women to mean "those of them thought to be witches" <S> but there's no basis in the statement itself for making that assumption. <S> It is only from context that we can make that assumption. <S> Russell's remark is an offhand allusion to an historical context: women young and old were burnt as witches. <S> The allusion is not unlike <S> Some people consider it a mercy to euthanize those in great pain . <S> We can only presume the speaker means "who are suffering from a terminal illness" as the statement appears to be an allusion to that debate. <S> It is misguided to treat offhand allusions as rigorous propositions. <S> They need to be understood in the context of what they're alluding to. <A> Russel is saying that to hold the opinion that witches should not be burned was an extremely unpopular one. <S> You see Russel is commenting on the opinion of burning witches and not about which old women should be roasted.	Not long ago to opine (to "maintain") that old women should not be burned as witches was considered wicked.
I want a word for one who is in a relationship Intimate relationships are very delicate and so ..... in such relationships should always meet the following conditions. What word is the most idiomatic choice for the blank above: participants? participator? etc? <Q> The person someone is married to or living with as if married to them, or having a sexual relationship with can be called a partner : ... <S> so (both) <S> the partners .. should always meet the following conditions: ... <A> In that sentence intimate relationships don't refer to such an activit/event. <S> Participator is a non-existent word, it is most likely a lexical gap. <S> But as for the missing word, I would go for parties . <S> party <S> 3 group of people [also + plural verb British English] - a group of people who go somewhere together or do a job together <S> Relationships are no job, of course, but it seems logical to me to use the plural form (parties) in that sentence. <S> In case you don't like this alternative, you can also use partners, lovers etc. <A> You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. <S> Pronouns are your friends: <S> Intimate relationships are very delicate, so those in such relationships should always meet the following conditions. <S> – J.R <A> Why not just say people <S> if what you really want is to fill in that blank? <S> It's first and foremost people who form these romantic relationships, isn't it: <S> Intimate relationships are very delicate, so <S> people engaged in such relationships should always meet the following conditions.	Participant is one who is taking part in an activity or event.
What do we call lips squeezing back? To my mind, to pout means to push one's lips forward , as an expression of petulant annoyance or sexual attraction. To pucker one's lips has a similar meaning. I am wondering what the opposite expression is called, namely pulling one's lips back. I am not sure scrunch would do, as it signifies the crumbling and squeezing of face. Here's an image example of such a facial expression from a movie. <Q> My first thought is "pursing" lips, e.g. "She pursed her lips when she heard me fart." <S> Pursed comes from an old-fashioned money purse that closes by a drawstring. <S> It wrinkles the top of the purse, so pursed means "wrinkled" as in the picture you show. <A> She screwed up her lips. <S> She screwed up her mouth. <S> Her lips drew back (in a smirk/disbelief). <S> All of these work in your described context. <S> Think of a scene where a person twists their lips aside to exhale smoke in order to not puff in their conversation partner's face. <S> There are examples in novels of this common scene: <S> “Can I sit in front?” <S> Lux asked, screwing her mouth up to exhale to one side, politely away from us. <S> (Source: The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides ) <S> If I am not mistaken, the screenshot is from the movie Tracks . <S> Incidentally, I found an audio-described copy of the film and it actually uses screw up one's lips in this scene. <S> As far as the actual scene from the movie is concerned, I don't think it's a smirk or skepticism that she is displaying (as another answer suggests). <S> Sallay to Robyn: If you're out there on your own and a wild bull's coming at ya, you shoot it. <S> Don't think. <S> You shoot. <S> You understand? <S> (She screws up her lips .) <S> You can also say screw up one's face or screw up one's eyes . <A> I'd describe the woman in the photo as having an expression of skepticism or disbelief . <S> In that light, I'd suggest one of the following phrases: A skeptical smirk came across her face. <S> The corner of her mouth quirked up into a disbelieving smirk. <S> She gave a skeptical half-smile . <S> She shot him a disbelieving look . <S> I found the following link useful as a reference for describing facial expressions: MASTER LIST of Facial Expressions for Writers!	To screw up one's lips especially can depict a facial expression where the lips are pulled and twisted to one side of the face.
How should an amphibian answer "Do you live in water"? As commonly known, amphibians live both in water and on land. Then how should we answer to a YES-NO question that only accepts a boolean answer such as "Does it live in water?" when we are referring to an amphibian? <Q> In English we have an expression <S> "Yes and no" to indicate the answer is too complicated for a simple binary true or false -- that is, we have to qualify <S> the answer in some way. <S> Example: <S> A <S> : Did you go to the club with Gina last night? <S> B: <S> Yes and no. <S> Yes, I went to the club last night, and Gina also went to the club, but we didn't go there together . <S> In the same way, "Do amphibians live in water? <S> " deserves a qualified answer: <S> Yes <S> and no . <S> Amphibians do live mostly in the water, but they can also live on land for extended periods of time. <S> Naturally, if you answer "Yes and no" the listener always expects some kind of explanation. <A> The technical answer to the question is yes . <A> Just because a question is a "yes/no question", it doesn't mean that the person answering the question has to use only "yes" or "no". <S> They can give a nuanced answer. <S> The amphibian example is rather odd, as amphibians can't talk. <S> But a Japanese person may go to Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. <S> If you ask this person Are you a Buddhist? <S> Well, when I visit the temple I pray there, but I also worship the Shinto kami , so I guess you could say I'm both Buddhist and Shinto. <S> There is a kind of trick to ask "Have you stopped beating your wife". <S> Answering "yes" or "no" is unacceptable. <S> But answering "I never beat my wife" is possible. <S> More practically, some people don't identify as either male or female, so if they are asked if they are man or a woman, the would have to give a nuanced answer. <S> Designers of of webpages with forms need to think carefully about such cases. <S> If some of your users are amphibian, a checkbox to answer "do you live in water?" <S> would not be good design!	Outside of a legal or formal proceeding - a common answer that affirms the question, yet leaves other possibilities open is "Sometimes." Your amphibian could answer "I can live on land and in the water."
What is the difference between someone and somebody? Should I say: [•] I'm thinking about someone. Or [•] I'am thinking about somebody. <Q> The only difference that most native speakers can agree upon is that someone is more formal than somebody (just as anyone is more formal than anybody, and everyone is more formal than everybody). <A> someone is neutral and can be used in both casual conversation and more formal contexts. <S> Somebody threw up in the boys bathroom. <S> If someone should phone asking for me, tell them I'm in a meeting. <A> They are synonymous and interchangeable. <S> If I look them up in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (5th version), I get the same definition, however, we know that no two words mean exactly the same (not even couch and sofa ). <S> What's more, if we use Merriam Webster's dictionary for finding out the difference, there might be some. <S> someone [pronoun] some person: somebody <S> hoping that someone will suddenly find out - Contemporary Review , <S> then you meet someone ... <S> you like - John Van Druten <S> somebody [pronoun] one or some person of no certain or known identity: <S> a person indeterminate if you leave the door open somebody will be sure to come in , there should be somebody at the office at this hour <S> somebody <S> [noun] a person of position or importance think oneself a somebody - often used without article, the desire to be somebody is one of the strongest of human motives - American Quarterly <S> If you consider the abovementioned differences, you might find out which to use.	somebody is more "concrete" than someone because it contains the word body and for that reason somebody tends to be used more often in casual conversation, especially if the conversation has a physical component, and less often in contexts that require a degree of formality. In most contexts, they are interchangeable.
An expression for a person who is very good at sports Can I say this kind of person is a sporty genius? <Q> A sporty genius is not idiomatic, at least not in the sense you intend. <S> "sporty" doesn't refer to athleticism but to style, and "genius" is not usually used in the context of athletic ability, except perhaps to describe an athlete's play-making ability, where strategy is involved and the player has to see opportunities. <S> That said, a genius at sports would be probably be understood to mean that the person is a very talented athlete and can play a number of sports well, or possibly any sport whatsoever because of their prodigious natural ability, just as a genius at baking would probably be understood to mean that the person can make a wide variety of delicious baked goods and perhaps understands all there is to know about flours and altitude and humidity and temperature and how they combine to affect the finished product. <A> A sporty genius would be a genius who is sporty - Alan Turing was a mathematical genius and also a long-distance runner. <S> Better could be a "sporting genius", it suggests someone who is clever at playing - "He is not the fastest player, but he reads the game better than anyone - a true sporting genius. <S> " <S> You might use "virtuoso" (more often used for musicians), "prodigy" (early developer) or "master"(also suggests seniority), or slightly more casually "wizard", but with "sporting" not "sporty". <A> A word that would fit is athlete. <S> An athlete can mean someone who is in good form <S> but if you combine it with good- as in good athlete it means someone who is pretty good at all sports they play.	He could be called a sporty genius.
Usage of throw out and throw through The context is you're inside a room and want to throw a pen outside the room through an open window. Now, the pen is outside. Do the sentences below have the same meaning? Throw the pen out the window. Throw the pen through the window. Throw the pen out of the room through the window. I've mostly heard Number 1 but if it's "out the window" then the original location of the pen is inside the window (the window was melted with the pen when making it) hence you throw it out the window. <Q> You can say out the window. <S> It doesn't mean that the pen was embedded in the glass, that would be ridiculous. <S> It mean "out of the building <S> " Compare Walk out the door. <S> In context "through the window" could mean the same as "out the window", but you could use it from out of the building. <S> It might also be used if the window is closed. <S> " <S> Throw the brick through the window. <S> " <S> I'm a little worried that you have heard "throw the pen out the window" more often. <S> What kind of school is that?? <A> This sounded like an extremely easy question at first glance but as I think about it, I can see why this might be confusing. <S> I'm not even certain anymore and English is the only language I can speak. <S> Here's how I would understand those three sentences out of context: 1. <S> Throw the pen out the window. <S> 2. <S> Throw the pen through the window Take a pen (that may be inside or outside) and throw it through the closed window, breaking the glass in the process. <S> NOTE: <S> This understanding is ambiguous in that the original sentence does not make it clear whether the window was open or not. <S> Another way of putting this is that the English word "window" is ambiguous because it refers to both the glass part and the hole itself. <S> If a larger object like a ball or a brick had been thrown "through" the window, it would definitely imply breaking the window. <S> A pen however, is too small. <S> Thus it is unclear. <S> 3. <S> Throw the pen out of the room through the window. <S> Take a pen that is currently inside and throw it through the open window such that it is inside the room no longer. <S> Consider a generic adverbial phrase "out the NOUN". <S> There are two types of nouns that can replace NOUN. <S> NOUN can be a location, or NOUN can be a barrier between locations <S> When NOUN is a location (1 above), often times and following far more complex rules than I can summarize or even understand, "out of" can be used instead of just "out". <S> For these reasons, if you wanted to make it clear that window was a location rather than a barrier (meaning that the pen is physically inside the window, you could clarify by stating "throw the pen out of the window." <A> At risk of not answering the question, it may be easier to use a brick rather than a pen. <S> Throwing a brick through a window implies broken glass and the brick finishing up in the room. <S> Bricks are thrown into rooms by default. <S> Throwing a brick through an open window definitively excludes broken glass but the brick may be assumed to finish up in the room again by default. <S> Throwing a brick out of a window is ambiguous about the glass but definite about the direction of travel. <S> The brick finishes up outside the room. <S> Throwing the brick out of the room is ambiguous about the route taken by the brick, window or door, but again the brick definitely finishes outside.	Take a pen that is currently inside and throw it through the open window such that it is inside no longer.
“The heat button” or “the button of heat” then, press the button of heat . I extracted this sentence from my own paragraph. My teacher told me that I cannot use “the button of heat”; instead, she told me to write it this way: Then, press the heat button . My question is why can’t we use the first version with “the button of heat” or “the switch of light”? Why should we say the “light switch or heat button”. I learned that x of y is the same as y x . So why cannot we apply this approach to my example? <Q> In some cases, it is true that X of Y is the same as y x, for example: the face of an angel an angel face <S> In other cases, both make sense but have different meanings: a bottle of beer - refers to the contents, not the bottle a beer bottle - refers to the bottle, not the contents <S> In your examples (heat button and light switch), the first noun describes the purpose of the second noun. <S> If you look at the Cambridge Dictionary definition for of , there are many meanings but purpose is not one of them, so <S> "button of heat* and "switch of light" don't make sense. <A> As others have noted, the equivalence you're using for "of" works for composition, not for purpose. <S> The comparable equivalence for purpose would be "for". <S> " <S> The hot water tap" = " <S> The tap for hot water". <S> Note that the tap isn't made of hot water, it provides it; the hot water is the purpose of the tap. <S> So in your example, you might use "the button for heat" or "the switch for light", <S> however this last one is almost always idiomatically rendered as "light switch" when referring to light. <S> "The switch for sound" would be equivalent to "the sound switch". <A> It's certainly not true that X of Y always means the same thing as Y X . <S> That can be true in certain situations, but most definitely not all the time. <S> Here's an example where it's true: <S> He is an employee of Microsoft . <S> He is a Microsoft employee . <S> One simple counterexample to show that the statement X of Y means the same thing as Y X is not true is that a bottle of beer does not mean the same thing as a beer bottle . <S> The first example talks about a bottle that literally has beer in it (the actual liquid). <S> In the second example, we're talking about a bottle that is used or has been used as a container to store beer as opposed to storing some other type of liquid such as milk or juice. <S> For example, when you go outside and see a bunch of empty bottles scattered on the ground, you'd say that I see beer bottles lying on the ground. <S> You would not say I see bottles of beer lying on the ground because that would imply that the bottles are still full of beer. <S> Now, let's get back to your "heat button" example. <S> The phrase heat button is fine because the word heat is used as an adjective describing the button. <S> What kind of button? <S> A heat button. <S> A button that's probably used to regulate the amount of heat generated in or by some sort of device. <A> Generally, but not always, x of y means y's z , which may be different from y <S> x . <S> The button of heat is not idiomatic English, and nor is heat's button . <S> A button of heat could mean a button made of heat. <S> Which doesn't really make sense. <S> This is unlike some other languages in which a there is a "genitive" that can be used like this. <S> Instead nouns can be used to form a compound nouns like "light switch" or "beer glass".	The phrase button of heat actually sounds like you have a button that's made of heat or contains heat, which is kind of nonsensical.
“GOD is real, unless declared integer.” I'm unable to interpret a sentence though searched and read multiple explanations. “GOD is real, unless declared integer.” a Fortran-based witticism Real is real number, What's the idioms it refers to ? <Q> This has little to do with English language and usage: it is entirely to do with the conventions of Fortran, a computer programming language. <S> Fortran has two kinds of variables: <S> Integer variables (that hold an integer number) and real variables (that hold a real number). <S> By default, any variable whose name begins with the letters I,J,K,L,M or N is integer, otherwise it is real. <S> So a variable called GOD would by default be a "real variable" - in short, "GOD is real". <S> The joke is that this might be presented as an argument for the existence of God. <A> In computer programming, a value has a type. <S> Two kinds of numeric types are real and integer . <S> Integers are only whole numbers. <S> Reals are numbers with exponents and fractional parts <S> (parts after a decimal point) accurate to a certain precision, so you can store, say, 3.1415926. <S> None of the above is specific to Fortran. <A> Previous answers, though good, are not clear enough about types and declaration, in my humble opinion. <S> Most programming languages allow (or require) you to say, at the top of each program or subroutine, what variables you are going to use and what kind of data they will hold. <S> The most common types are boolean (one bit), integer, real (now more usually called floating point), complex, character, string. <S> Type matters because the same sequence of bits can be interpreted in all of these different ways, and thus represent different values. <S> When Fortran finds a sequence of characters (beginning with a letter) <S> that is neither a reserved word (like IF) nor a declared variable, it will treat that string as the name of a variable, assigning it type INTEGER or REAL according to the first letter. <S> Variables beginning with I through N are integers by default because these letters are conventionally preferred for use as indices to sequences: x <S> k means the k th entry in sequence <S> x . <S> (Fortran has a command, which I've forgotten, to change the defaults; if you're using a lot of COMPLEX variables, you might assign them the letters C,W,Z, which would otherwise default to REAL.) <S> So. <S> If the command INTEGER GOD appears near the top, then the label GOD is assigned to a variable whose content will be processed as an integer; if not, and the word GOD appears elsewhere in the code, then the label GOD is assigned to a variable whose content will be processed as a floating-point number. <A> The joke also plays on the 1886 statement attributed to mathematician Leopold Kronecker: God made the integers, all else is the work of man. <S> Wikipedia	What is specific to Fortran is that numeric variables can be real or integer, with real being the default, unless specifically declared to be integer (see also other answer about variables beginning with I,J,K,L,M or N defaulting to integer).
What does "muster through" mean? From the movie Tracks : Man: Where you from? Robyn: I grew up on a cattle station near Darling Downs. Man: Oh, a Queenslander, eh? What'd you run? Robyn: Hereford. Man: Hard country, that. Reckon she copped her share of drought, eh? Robyn: Seven years. Man: Muster through it, did ya? Robyn: We went broke. I figure it means something like "plow through," but can't find it in dictionaries. What does it mean exactly? And is it specific to Australian English? <Q> Aha! <S> I found a definitive reference to a meaning of muster <S> that's specific to Australia and New Zealand, at Wikipedia : <S> Musters usually involve cattle, sheep or horses, but may also include goats, camels, buffalo or other animals. <S> [...] Mustering is a long, difficult and sometimes dangerous job [...] <S> In your example, it looks like muster through is being used metaphorically by Australian farmers who would already be familiar with the literal meaning of mustering as making a long, difficult journey across the outback, trying to control livestock along the way. <S> Metaphorically, it could refer to making a long "journey" through a very difficult situation. <A> Yeah, it means to "persevere" or "make it through". <S> I don't think it's specific to Australian English. <S> It sounds very literary and dated (maybe American Civil War era?). <S> But all the results on Google Books with that phrase are from the 21st century, so it's hard to say where or when it came from. <A> In North American English, this has a bit of a connotation of the frontier period - it's a bit how you'd expect someone to talk in a John Wayne movie. <S> In that sense, it would mean to work through a problem with some difficulty. <S> Or you could "muster up" something, to gather it together. <S> In modern context it reads a little sarcastically as if they had persevered through something that wasn't really a problem at all.	A muster (Au/NZ) or a roundup (US) is the process of gathering livestock.
"I do my classes in/on SLOT #2"? What to put before 'slot'? Context In my country, there are specialised "coaching centres" for IGCSE and IAL students. The same classes are usually held on multiple different timings. This we call "slot". For instance: My English Language class has two slots. Slot 1 is 3:30—5:00 PM. And slot 2 is 6:30—8:00 PM. It's much like "shift". Only that is used to refer to work timings, not class timings. Check out: during her slot . This is what I'm writing: Can we sit the monthly tests in whichever slot we wish to? Or it has to be the one I do my classes on ? What preposition to put before "slot" in this context? <Q> Slot is likely to be understood in this context, but a few other terms you might hear in specific academic contexts: <S> "Period" - in a high school, for example, everyone runs by the same rigid schedule, so you might ask your friend: " What class do you have next period ? " <S> "Section" - the same class taught at two different times (typically at a university) are usually referred to as different "sections" of the class. <S> " You've got Jones for English too? <S> Which section? " <S> "Hour" - Even if classes don't start exactly at the top of the hour, you might still refer to different class slots throughout the day as "hours": " What hour tomorrow is your paper due? " <S> I might word it as: <S> Can we take the monthly tests in whichever slot we wish to? <S> Or does it have to be the same hour I normally attend class? <A> Just for background: It's common in US English to talk about "time slots", so this terminology would be unlikely to be confusing to native speakers. <S> However, when talking about time slots for classes in school, we usually refer to them as "periods". <S> Anyway, the short answer to your question is: "in", or to give no preposition at all. <S> "My history class is in slot 1." <S> "My history class is slot 1." <S> In US English <S> we say you "take" a test, not "sit" a test. <S> So a native US English speaker would say, "Can we take the monthly tests in whichever slot we wish to? <S> Or does it have to be the one I take my classes in? <S> " Or more likely, "... <S> Or does it have to be the same slot as my regular class time?" <A> The word slot in this context is new to me. <S> Because a slot usually refers to a small space into which a tongue fits to make a joint (as in a mortise and tenon joint), the inclination is to say in a slot. <S> But because your slot really refers to a shift and we speak about on a shift or during a shift, it's hard to know which preposition best suits your purpose. <S> I would go with in whichever slot .	For your example sentence, you would use in .
What's the difference between "on" and "for" in this sentence What's the difference between: My brother's traveling to Argentina FOR business and My brother's flying to Argentina ON business? Thanks. <Q> According to the Oxford Dictionary , meaning 8 of on is engaged in : that is the sense that would apply in this sentence. <S> Here is one of the examples that they provide: <S> Susan was called out of town on business. <S> Here is a typical reference: <S> I went to New York City on business quite often back then. <S> In our image: Susan Alan (2009) <S> Meaning 4 for for is Having (the thing mentioned) as a purpose or function . <S> Here is a typical reference: <S> Visitors coming to the city for business, combined with those attracted by the sights, soon made the tourist and convention industry second only to government. <S> Ottawa: An Illustrated History <S> Both are valid, though in my opinion on business is more common in spoken British English. <S> The choice would depend on the speaker or writer's intended meaning: on means "engaged in", and for means "with the purpose of". <A> I've seldom come across the second sentence. <S> In fact, I doubt it's correct! <S> When you use 'on business,' it is generally... 'on business visa', 'on business trip...' and so on... <S> So, for the given sentences, I think the first one sounds better. <S> My brother is traveling to Argentina for business. <S> Then, your brother is on a business trip (to Argentina). <A> for her business could mean "representing her own company" or "on behalf of the company she works for". <S> on business would mean " <S> engaged in or conducting business". <S> Thus, for business (without modifier) has a prospective sense. <S> It would suggest that your mother might not actually have this Argentinian business yet. <S> Its meaning would be unclear without additional information.	for business can mean "intending to conduct business" or "looking to get business (e.g. customers)".
Saying for "Bomb proof" In Spain, we normally use a saying when something always works well, although you try to break this one. The saying is "bomb proof" . I would like to know a similar saying in English. For example: I make a program and this passes all the tests that you try and you invent.I could say "This is a bomb proof program". <Q> Also note that regardless of whether the usage is literal or metaphoric, we usually write the more common bulletproof as a single word, but bomb-proof is more likely to be hyphenated. <S> But OP is primarily asking about metaphoric usages. <S> On that front, there's no doubt at all that bulletproof is far more common... <S> a bulletproof argument - 280 hits in Google Books <S> a bullet-proof argument - 85 hits (including 2-word versions without hyphen) a bombproof argument <S> - 2 hits <S> a bomb proof argument - 2 hits <S> Another extremely common metaphoric usage (for arguments , at least), is... <S> a watertight argument - 1920 hits <S> Focusing more specifically on OP's context, it's probably worth noting that Google Books claims 41 instances of a bulletproof program , but there are only 2 hits for a bombproof program . <S> One more point relating to the XXXX-proof construction is that bullet <S> -proof <S> in particular can have a far more general metaphoric meaning than non-native speakers might expect. <S> Consider, for example,... 1: <S> He's bombproof. <S> (relatively uncommon; 87 hits in Google Books) <S> 2: <S> He's bulletproof. <S> (962 hits) ... <S> where (ignoring a few possible literal contexts), #1 would always imply that metaphorical "bombs / missiles" cannot harm him . <S> But #2 is also often used to mean He is reliable <S> , He will not let you / us / someone else down <S> (i.e. - asserting that others can rest easy, rather than the subject himself). <A> "Fool proof" is popular in the USA, at least in the northeast. <S> Like, not even a fool could break it. <S> It's fool proof. <A> For software, you could use bulletproof if you wanted to emphasize how the system won't crash, or idiot-proof if you wanted to emphasize the strength of the user interfaces. <S> However, it might be better to use one of the more commonly-used English adjectives in the industry: robust . <S> Wikipedia says: Robustness is the ability of a computer system to cope with errors during execution and cope with erroneous input. <S> Robust programming is a style of programming that focuses on handling unexpected termination and unexpected actions. <S> One website says that robust software "does not break down easily or is not wholly affected by a single application failure. <S> " <S> In your paragraph, you could say: This software is robust. <S> It's not quite an idiom – but it might be the term you want. <S> A more general term (one that could be used for both software and, say, an automobile or a washing mashine) would be reliable . <A> The other answers are quite good, but to give some more choices, I'll add rock solid . <S> Unlikely to change, fail, or collapse. <S> Example from IBM : <S> The only path to secure software is to use established, rock-solid cryptographic algorithms. <S> Another example : RME products are a nice step up and have a rock solid track record that rivals the Digidesign interface lineup. <S> As a comparison to another answer, a rock solid argument - 436 hits in Google Books	As pointed out in comments, Anglophones use bullet proof as well as bomb proof .
Alternative ways for expressing a narrow victory I am a Czech interpreter working with English. Just recently during a conference a "funny" guy tried to use elaborative Czech idiom with a twist. We often say to win by breast instead of win by a nose . He said: We won by breast of a Korean woman. It sounds terrible on an official conference but we are in the Czech Republic, the me too movement still has a long way to go. He insisted on me translating for him. Is there any way to use win by a nose with a twist? Let me know please. Thanks. <Q> (This answer assumes you're looking for a diplomatic solution that downplays the offensiveness while preserving a sense of humor.) <S> by a nose hair <S> Although win by a nose is an standard English idiom, this suggestion is not. <S> But since there is a separate idiom, by a hair (also by a whisker or by a hair's width/breadth ), your meaning of "even smaller than a narrow margin" would be understood along with the humorous intent. <S> by the skin of a hen's tooth <S> This also combines two existing English idioms for effect. <S> By the skin of one's teeth means to barely succeed and further implies that luck was involved. <S> As scarce as hen's teeth refers to something extremely rare in a stereotypically country way. <S> N.B. <S> Although mixed metaphors are normally to be avoided, their deliberate choice here is the point of the joke. <S> One danger of combining idioms like this is that it may confuse language learners, who may not notice the humor and take the intended joke as a common phrase in English. <A> The implication of the “funny” statement is that the win was by even less than the normal very close win (“by a nose”). <S> In English, that can sometimes be expressed as “winning in a photo finish ” (link is to Merriam-Webster, online), implying that the victory was so close that one would have to closely examine a picture of the actual finish to determine exactly who won. <A> Another possibility would be a pun: <S> "It was a clothes call." <S> The saying is normally <S> "It was a close call," but replacing that with clothes gives it a humorous twist. <S> The two words are pronounced similarly (and often identically, even though they shouldn't be), and the race could have been won "by the difference in the thickness of worn clothing." <A> You could refer to the team that came in second: <S> We just managed to nip the {____} team.	We nipped the {___}.
Is there a shorter name for "chest of drawers"? I have a furniture (as in the picture below) that based on Wikipedia is called in English " chest of drawers ", but it seems to me too long name for such furniture. Is there a shorter name for that in the UK (not in north America) or people really call it "chest of drawers" when they refer to it in everyday life? Second, why not to call it "drawers chest", it sounds simpler and shorter apparently and also grammatically correct. Isn't it? <Q> "Chest of drawers" is its name. <S> It is quite a long name for a common item, but that is what it is called. <S> It has been around for a long time, the expression has been in use since 1670 (etymonline) <S> Similar items include "tallboy" (a tall chest with drawers in a column), A dresser (usually a bit more than just a chest of drawers, with a top part for display). <S> A bureau (a combination of drawers and a writing desk). <S> But there is no word that means exactly the same as "chest of drawers". <S> In many situations you don't need the full name. <S> Put your socks in the drawer! <S> There are similar examples of other things named this way when the item is a "container" of some sort. <S> A pack of cards (not a cards pack). <S> A bunch of flowers (not a flowers bunch). <S> A bottle of beer ((when talking about the beer, but beer bottle is also fine when refering to the bottle). <S> (ngrams searches for card pack and pack of cards <S> "Card pack tends to refer to specialised packs "The game contains an 8 sided die and a card pack showing countries of the world..." <S> drawer chest and chest of drawer "drawer chest" nearly always phrases such as "a five-drawer chest". <S> And remember all the collective nouns: <S> A herd of cows. <S> A flock of sheep. <S> A pride of Lions etc. <A> A flat-topped piece of furniture with cupboards and drawers, used for storing crockery, glasses, and table linen. <S> This is a link to the page of a popular British furniture retailer, Harveys for such items. <A> It could also be referred to as a cabinet . <S> Per the Oxford dictionary, that is "a cupboard with shelves or drawers for storing or displaying articles." <A> Dresser should be a good enough word for that. <S> Merriam Webster lists one of the definitions of "dresser" as: <S> Definition of dresser: <S> 3: a chest of drawers or bureau with a mirror <S> Conventionally, it is a chest of drawers with a mirror on the top , but colloquially if you look at furniture stores etc. <S> , it is common to call the ones without mirrors as 'dressers' as well.	In British English I would call that object a Sideboard , if I wasn't using the simpler Chest of Drawers.
them vs. there, which of the two fits in better in the sentence? Selina Walker, publisher of Century and Arrow, attributed the recent rise of psychological thrillers to __________ being “a sort of ‘melding’ of the women’s relationship and detective genres”. their or them?? Please provide the explanation as well. edit : replaced "there" by "their" <Q> It should be them. <S> Because it refers to the thrillers. <S> The sentence further talks about the genres giving us a hint that 'a sort of 'melding'' is being a type of those thrillers. <A> It should be: <S> Selina Walker, publisher of Century and Arrow, attributed the recent rise of psychological thrillers to there being “a sort of ‘melding’ of the women’s relationship and detective genres”. <S> where there introduces some reasoning regarding the previous clause. <A> If you're saying that in general there has been a sort of melding then the correct word would be "there". <A> It truly depends on the meaning intended. <S> If what is intended is something like: attirbuted the recent rise of psychological thrillers to the general rise in melding the traditional genres about women's emotional relationships and the detective story , then there would be a vague way to convey the idea that psychological thrillers are one specific manifestation of a more general phenomenon. <S> If what is intended is something like: attributed the rise of the psychological thriller to that genre's combining the appeals of stories about emotional relationships and stories about who-done-it , then them would be a vague way to convey the idea that the genre of the psychological thriller appeals to two different but compatible interests. <S> The problem is that, at least out of context, the quoted language is very muddy. <S> Having experience giving interviews, I am well aware that it can be difficult to give clear answers to hard questions on the spur of the moment. <S> The person quoted may have had a clear thought and failed to express it well. <S> Or she may have not had time to articulate a cogent answer to an unanticipated question.	If you're saying that psychological thrillers are a sort of melding then you should use "them". It depends on what you want the subject of the last part to be.
Why does "I'm voting for John Doe" have the same meaning of "I will vote for John Doe"? I don't understand this particular use of the gerund yet. To me, such a phrase (the first) sounds more like a person is already voting for John Doe, in the present, not that they will do it in the future. Please explain it to me. <Q> English has far more tenses, and especially more 'progressive tenses' than other languages. <A> The Purdue Owl 1 identifies such constructions as "the future in relation to the present": <S> For example, I'm hungry, therefore I'm going to eat. <S> Consider also these examples of future tense: <S> I'm going to France in May. <S> I'm having dinner with Jose on Thursday. <S> I'm going to college in September. <A> It depends where the person who is saying this is at. <S> Before going to the voting booth - I will vote for John Doe. <S> In the voting booth speaking to someone else (probably not legal) <S> - I am voting for John Doe. <S> However this can also express an intention before voting, meaning - I am expecting/planning to vote for John Doe. <S> Later that day - I voted for John Doe. <S> Only the last one is past tense. <A> This use of the gerund expresses an immediate future or a future that depends only on your decision. <A> The grammar was already well explained. <S> Additionally , they have the same meaning because once the action is finished (the voting), John Doe will have your vote.	To a native speaker, "I'm voting for John Doe" feels like the equivalent of "I am going to vote for John Doe", which means "I will vote for John Doe".
What does 'simple' mean in the following context? I met with this question while doing SAT reading, But change the conversation to food, and suddenly efficiency doesn’t look so good. Conventional industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis.Thanks to fertilizers,mechanizationandirrigation, each American farmer feeds over 155 people worldwide. The answer gives 'straightforward' as the best definition,but I still can't wrap my head around it. Actually I feel confused about the whole second sentence. What does it mean? <Q> It would mean "basic." <S> "Land to food basis" is comparing how much land is used and how much food is produced on that land. <S> A lot of food grown in a small area = good. <A> It is an extraneous word that does not modify the thought. <S> It probably is intended as a synonym for "basic," but a basis is basic by definition. <S> The whole sentence would be a lot clearer expressed as Industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient in terms of food produced versus land used. <A> I'll answer this by analysing the grammar rather than the vocabulary. <S> Original: <S> Conventional industrial agriculture has become incredibly efficient on a simple land to food basis. <S> Explanation: <S> In English we can have a list of adjectives qualifying a single noun, e.g. "the big red ball" land-to-food is an adjectival phrase that qualifies basis . <S> Thus: simple land-to-food basis (Adj) (Adj phrase) (noun)	simple is an adjective that qualifies basis .
difference between “pain” and “ache” I said “ my arm aches me “ and My teacher said “the arm sores not aches “ So both of the words describe illness , what is the wrong with using arm ache ? <Q> Neither ache nor sore can be used as you or your teacher suggest. <S> Ache , denoting a dull, continuous pain, is intransitive, so while you can say My arm aches. <S> You cannot say <S> * <S> My arm aches me. <S> Sore , however, is not even a verb, but an adjective (or noun), so you can say My arm is sore. <S> but not <S> * <S> My arm sores me. <S> Pain can be transitive, but today is almost always used figuratively: <S> It pains me to have to accuse one of my dearest friends of being a hypocrite … <A> Some note needs to be made of the difference between "ache" and "pain", from a sensory point of view. <S> ache typically refers to a discomfort felt over a relatively large section of the body. <S> Eg, you might say that your shoulder aches or your thigh aches. <S> The discomfort does not have any strong focal point. <S> (Of course, English being what it is, a headache breaks the above "rule" and often has specific focal points one can identify, vs being felt generally over a large part of the head.) <S> But usually "pain" implies a discomfort that has a focus -- a particular point in the body that hurts, or perhaps (in the case of a muscle strain, eg), a distinct line of discomfort that is felt in the body. <S> sore is another word that has different implications in different contexts. <S> When you exercise hard and complain that your muscles are sore the next day, you usually mean that they ache -- there is typically no strong focal point for the discomfort. <S> But if there's a particular point on the body which, when pressed, produces significant discomfort, that's typically referred to as a "sore spot" or something of that ilk. <S> A pain , of course, is trying to keep all this stuff straight if you're not comfortable with the language. <A> "My arm aches" is proper. <S> Saying "me" is redundant, because only you can feel your arm ache. <S> "The arm sores not aches" doesn't make any sense. <S> You could say, "My arm is sore." <S> "Sore" is not a verb and so "my arm sores" is incorrect. <A> There are a few romance languages which use the grammatical structure of "the body part hurts/aches me". <S> But in English the proper structure is "My body part hurts/aches". <S> Where as in those romance languages expressing pain uses a reflexive verb, in English they do not. <S> (the reflexive nature of the phrase is generally reflected in the use of "My", which assumes that the pain being generated affects you. <S> Where as in say, Spanish, "me duele la cabeza" (the head hurts me) assumes the part belongs to you because it wouldn't make much sense for someone else's head to be hurting you. <S> Both structures omit an assumed piece of knowledge that would only be completed by such a phrase as "my head hurts me" but in neither language is that structure ever used. <S> (I would often make a similar but opposite mistake in Spanish by saying "me duele mi cabeza")	pain is more general, and, in some contexts, an ache is a type of pain. I believe that "my arm aches ME" is incorrect because "aches," used as a verb, does not take an object like "me."
Can the phrase "have got to know" have two meanings Recently I have stumbled across a phrase mankind has got to know his limitations but could not really understand it. I'm confused by "has got to know" and how I should distinguish some words here. As far as I understand this phrase can be either Present Perfect and mean roughly the same that got to know does or using modal verb have got to that can be replaced by "must" and the whole phrase would mean must know Am I right and this phrase actually has two meanings or I messed up something and it has only one (which one)? By the way, in general case should I use "his" or "its" toward "mankind"? <Q> The sentence Humans have got to know their limitations. <S> (Let's get away from mankind and his , OK? <S> They're just distractions) <S> does have several senses, but they wouldn't all be pronounced the same, nor in the same place. <S> Have got to know is already ambiguous in British and American usage . <S> In this particular case, the sense of 'have come to know' that many UK speakers and others will get is unavailable to American speakers. <S> For that sense, Americans would say Humans have gotten to know their limitations. <S> instead of using got , because this is an inchoative 'change of state; come to be ' usage of Perfect get , and the American past participle of that verb is gotten , not got , as it is elsewhere. <S> The other two senses of have got to know are the two modal senses that virtually every modal has, in this case the periphrastic modal have got to , often pronounced 'gotta' , which does mean must : <S> The Epistemic (logical necessity) sense, as in This has to be/has got to be/must be the place he was talking about, or <S> He has <S> to be/has got <S> to be/must know that this place is a dump. <S> The Deontic (social obligation) sense, as in You have to be/have got <S> to be/must be back home by midnight, or He has <S> to be/has got <S> to be/must know all the verb paradigms to pass the test. <A> Yes, "got to know" has two distinct meanings. <S> One is the past of "get to know", in the sense of becoming more familiar with. <S> I have got to know more about StackExchange over the years I have been using it. <S> Second is the meaning that it is imperative that the subject know something I have got to know more about how StackExchange works, or else the moderators will ban me. <A> In regard to your inquiry about "mankind" following is the definition: <S> Definition of mankind: <S> 1 <S> \ˈman-ˈkīnd <S> , -ˌkīnd\ : the human race : the totality of human beings 2 <S> -ˌkīnd\ : men especially as distinguished from women ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mankind ) <S> As such, unless the overall context pertains to masculinity-only, then using "his" is incorrect. <S> Addendum: <S> Both of my collegiate composition professors were adamant about how the word "got" is completely unnecessary and should be avoided. <A> Hopefully you are fine! <S> 1: "Have got to do sth" is a standard structure which is used when you want to say that something is necessary or must happen. <S> * <S> So, here, only the second choice "must/should know" is meant. <S> 2 <S> : "Mankind" and "Man" are used to refer to humankind as a whole without reference to sex. <S> * <S> * <S> So, the supposed pronoun for it is "it". <S> But, normally it is personified just like "love" is personified as feminine. <S> (Although, this usage is considered sexist.) <S> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/have-got-to-do-something <S> ** <S> https://www.thefreedictionary.com/mankind	It's not clear without context which your sentence means.
Equivalent use : rejected and refused Can "refused" used here equivalent for "rejected" ? I applied for a job as a mechanic in a local garage, but I was rejected. but i was refused. <Q> There is a significant difference in meaning between refuse and reject . <S> Reject literally means "throw back". <S> It has strong negative connotations: the rejected object has been treated with disdain. <S> I don't think that many people would say "I was rejected": it's much too personally negative. <S> They might say "my application was rejected". <S> Refuse is normally about acceptance for oneself or permission for somebody else: you can refuse to have or do something, or you can refuse somebody permission to have or do something. <S> According to the Cambridge Dictionary , if you use the word refuse with just one object, it must be the thing that is refused: I refused the invitation . <S> Turning that into passive voice, you get the invitation was refused. <S> If you say I was refused , it means that you are the thing that is refused: that simply doesn't work. <S> If you use two objects, you can specify both what was refused and who didn't get it: <S> They refused him a salary rise and in passive voice <S> He was refused a salary rise <S> You could use refuse, but would be necessary to specify what was refused, otherwise it sounds like you were the thing that was refused. <S> Rather than refuse or reject , it is far more likely- especially for a garage mechanic- <S> that they would say I applied for a job as a mechanic in a local garage, but I didn't get it. <A> The dictionary definitions are very similar, but I believe there is a distinction that they don't make. <S> If I refuse something, I am expressing an unwillingness to accept it. <S> There is an implication of intent behind it. <S> But if I reject something, I am simply not accepting it. <S> It may be because some process has not been correctly followed. <S> The rules say that it cannot be allowed, therefore it is rejected. <S> (The reason for the rejection may or may not be my own refusal.) <S> Therefore, you can have several sentences that contain distinct meanings. <S> I want to give you this permit; unfortunately, as you do not meet the requirements, I have no choice but to reject your request. <S> I find your tone of voice offensive <S> and I don't care if you've filled out the paperwork correctly or not—I refuse to process your request. <S> Based on this, I take refusal to be personal and rejection to be objective. <A> I applied for a job as a mechanic in a local garage, but I was rejected. <S> I applied for a job as a mechanic in a local garage, but I was refused the position. <S> I applied for a job as a mechanic in a local garage, but I was declined the position I applied for a job as a mechanic in a local garage, but I was turned down. <S> Does this answer your question?	You could say "I was refused the position," but "I was refused" by itself sounds slightly awkward.
Meaning of “for” in Psalm: "For justice will prevail…" In the Bible, Psalm 94:15 reads, For justice will prevail and all the morally upright will be vindicated. What does the “for” mean here, and what might be the grammatical use of it? <Q> For here means 'because' . <S> According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, for here is a conjunction which is dated or formal. <S> It is not usually used at the beginning of the sentence. <S> We listened eagerly, for he brought news of our families. <A> It doesn't really mean anything. <S> The translators were struggling to render the Hebrew "כִּי", ("ki" - 'for', 'because'). <S> In Biblical Hebrew, sentences often begin with "כִּי" or with "וְ" ("ve-" - 'and') in a way that is quite alien to English. <S> Some translators have felt it was important to render every word, and so often began their sentences with "for" or "and" in a way that doesn't make much sense. <S> Other translators have rendered this particular verse with "But" (KJV), or with no introductory word at all (NIV). <A> As others have already mentioned, it means because in the context of this Psalm <S> and I just wanted to add the relevant text here. <S> The way I understand it, the verses from 12-15 form a single stanza, with the <S> "How blessed is the one whom you instruct" : <S> 12 <S> How blessed is the one whom you instruct, O Lord, the one whom you teach from your law, 13 in order to protect him from times of trouble, until the wicked are destroyed. <S> 14 <S> Certainly the Lord does not forsake his people; he does not abandon the nation that belongs to him. <S> 15 <S> For justice will prevail, and all the morally upright will be vindicated. <S> See also the Revised Standard Version , which I consider closer to the source, using "For" in both verse 14 and verse 15 thus providing two reasons, just as the original Hebrew begins both verses with "כִּי" (because): <S> 12 <S> Blessed is the man whom thou dost chasten, O Lord, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law 13 to give him respite from days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked. <S> 14 <S> For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; <S> 15 for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it <A> A clause introduced with for often presents a context for something that has preceded, offering an explanation or justification for it: <S> They stopped at a pub and downed a few beers. <S> For the hard-working are often in need of refreshment when the day's labors are done. <S> Sometimes <S> And indeed is a decent paraphrase of the meaning.	"For" providing a reason for the opening
I have never been here or I have never been there, which is more natural? A friend of mine invited me to visit her. She was afraid that I would get lost, so she said she would be waiting for me at the bus station. When we finally met at the bus station, I said, "Sorry I am late. I have never been here." Is it natural to say I have never been here in this conversation? Or instead, should I say I have never been there ? <Q> Native speakers would typically say "I have never been here before " in this context. <S> But the sentence "I have never been here" sounds self-contradictory <S> : how can you have never been in the place where you are right now? <S> Adding before restricts the "have never been" to the past and removes the contradiction. <A> What you said is correct and natural. <S> You use "here" when the place is near your current position, while "there" is used when the place is far from you. <S> So, in the situation that you were already there, and you wanted to talk about the place you were in then "here <S> " is the correct word of choice. <A> I would have said Sorry <S> I am late. <S> I had never been here. <S> Because I would, at that moment, be there. <S> Of course, I am not there now, so I do not use the word "here" now. <S> But I would have used "here" in the moment. <S> Now that I am no longer there, I say there. <S> I am always here in the present, but in the past I may have been there. <S> Although I was here in the morning as well. <S> The "before" at the end would magnify that sense of prior to that moment, but I think that the "had" is sufficient. <S> There is an English grammar "rule" not to end sentences with a preposition , so some would prefer not to end the sentence with "before" to comply. <S> However, non-compliance is common, particularly in spoken English. <S> Adding the "before" to the sentence with "have" makes it descriptively correct if not perfect grammar. <S> You could also say Sorry <S> I am late. <S> I had never been here previously. <S> "Previously" is never a preposition, so it won't make people think that you are ending a sentence with a preposition. <S> But "previously" doesn't come through as naturally as "before" does. <S> It sounds more stilted and formal. <S> Sorry I'm late. <S> This is my first time here. <S> This also works. <S> To restate, here is where I am now. <S> There is someplace that I am not currently. <S> So in your original sentence, it should be "here" rather than "there" because you are currently at the time of speaking at that place. <S> Now, you might say <S> Sorry <S> I was late. <S> I had never been there. <S> Because you are presumably no longer in that place. <S> So it is now there rather than here (wherever you may be now). <S> Unless of course you are reading this on your mobile in the same location. <S> Then you would properly still use here. <A> However, as often happens on this site, the answerers seemed more interested in a different question: whether or not to say "before" at the end of your sentence. <S> Nobody's cited any evidence, which is probably why we are seeing disagreement. <S> (It seems like the disagreement is mostly due to personal preference.) <S> Looking at Google NGram, both are well-attested . <S> The line on the chart for "never been here" should include every entry for "never been here before". <S> It looks like about 60% of instances from this corpus are "never been here before", so this phrasing may be slightly privileged, but either one should be unremarkable. <S> There was a brief period in the 1810s when "before" seems to have been required, but that looks like an unusual outlier from 200 years ago. <S> Now that I've complained about personal anecdotes, here's my own personal anecdote. <S> For me, if I added "before", I would probably barely pronounce it: if I said it at all it would be as "I've never been here 'fore". <S> I expect this means I would consider the word superfluous.	You are talking about the place where you are currently, so here is correct. The answer to the question you asked is very clear: we say "here" when you are describing a place you are in (physically or metaphorically), and "there" when you're describing something you are far from or separate from.
Do native speakers pronounce "found the remark" without the "the"? Haley found the remark disrespectful and felt she couldn't keep quiet, the sources said. I heard someone read this, and I can hardly hear "the" between "found" and "remark". <Q> *"Haley found remark disrespectful" is ungrammatical, so you'd be unlikely to hear a native speaker say it. <S> What you're likely hearing is the "the" being reduced, likely with almost no vowel sound. <S> Sometimes the "th" might sound more like a "d", as well. <S> e.g., a native speaker might pronounce it <S> like either of the following, in casual speech: Haley found th' remark disrespectful <S> Haley found d' remark disrespectful <S> In such cases, I'd often expect the first "e" in "remark" and/or "disrespectful" to be heavily reduced, as well. <S> In extreme cases, you might even get the "d" in "found" dropped, so under the right circumstance, you could have a pronunciation which sounds like: <S> Haley foun' d'remark <S> disr'spectful <S> Where "d'remark" would be "the remark" in well-enunciated speech, and "foun'" would be "found". <A> <A> In my dialect (British, West Midlands), it actually comes out as: <S> "Hayley foun' the remark disrespectful." <S> The D in found is very, very heavily reduced in this sentence. <S> In fact, forcing myself to enunciate the D as well as the "The" seems really unnatural. <S> Perhaps this is why a non-native speaker could miss the different sounds? <S> But regardless, the grammatically correct sentence definitely includes the "the" and I can't imagine somebody omitting the word fully even in casual speech. <A> Native speakers don't "omit" the entire word, but many of them will strongly de-emphasize <S> the vowel sound in the and essentially merge it with the start of the next word. <S> It's not quite an elision of the syllable, because you can still hear it, but it's very fast and nearly omitted. <S> Typically this happens if the following word starts with an unstressed syllable. <S> For example, a native speaker would likely sound like they were saying: I found the entire exchange disrespectful. <S> or: I found the statement disrespectful. <S> but: I found th'remark disrespectful. <A> Others have already given good answers, but for what it is worth, I'm an U.S. speaker and would naturally say " <S> Haley foun' the remark disrespectful " just like @Psiloc mentioned. <S> But I would guess many Americans would also say " Haley foun da remark disrespectful " where "the" almost sounds like "da" attached to "found". <A> To add to the dialect versions, northern English dialects will often pronounce "the remark" as "ut-remark" with a glottal stop (spelled "t'remark" if you want to write it down). <S> This is very easy to mishear. <S> It's standard for Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire, and parts of Derbyshire. <S> You won't hear it further south, and when you get further north (up into Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyneside) then you have different accents again which also don't do this. <A> We definitely say it. <S> As other answers have pointed out, the 'd' and the 'th' can get blended together, and the 'e' doesn't have much emphasis on it. <S> But you can always hear the syllable, no matter how mangled the pronunciation is. <S> Put simply, no matter how fast we're speaking, it takes us longer to say "found the remark" than "found remark". <A> It's been obliquely mentioned a few times here, but I thought it might be worth spelling out: Not only is the reduced to th' when a native-speaker says this, but found is also reduced to foun' . <S> A native-speaker will typically pronounce the D on "found" only if the following word begins with a vowel. <S> So when you're listening, you're merging foun' with th' to make something like founth ( <S> which sounds very much like found ), and therefore it sounds to you like there is no the . <A> What you are hearing as the end of "found" it actually the "the". <S> The part that most likely is being omitted is the 'd' in "found". <S> Like "foun the remark" <A> In my dialect (mid-southern american) we tend to pronounce it like "found th'remark". <A> Subtle differences in the sounds formed are not necessarily conveyed to the listener. <S> Try this test: Choose a quiet place and native speaker. <S> Speak the word <S> facts <S> then the word fax . <S> I tried this and my mouth formed the two words differently, but the listener could not hear the difference. <S> So although I would pronounce the phrase foun' d-th' remark , the listener will not hear the subtle changes the mouth makes switching from d to th .	A native speaker would pronounce "found remark" as "foun' remark", and there would be no d/th sound between the words. I'm a native English speaker, and we do say the "The" It's true that if you are speaking quickly it will all get blended together, but we definitely don't omit it.
What does “produce” mean here? The jetties coming out into the river, and a host of ships in the Middle Ages, little wooden ships ferrying produce across from the Continent and back. (Source) The structure of the whole sentence is quite confusing to me: how can I understand it? I looked it up here . I would have picked the fourth meaning, if you produce an object, you bring it out or present it, so that people can see or consider it When challenged, he produced a gun. But produce is not transitive in my example. <Q> You've got to scroll down further on your definition page to: prod <S> -uce : <S> noun [uncountable] food or other things that have been grown or produced on a farm to be sold <S> Therefore, the sentence means: <S> The jetties coming out into the river, and a host of ships in the Middle Ages, little wooden ships ferrying things produced on farms across from the Continent and back. <A> The reason that you are confused is that "produce" (with the stress on the second syllable) is a verb. <S> But "produce" (with the stress on the first syllable) is a noun, and it is the noun that is being used here. <S> In this context "produce" means "fresh food, vegetables, etc"; basically anything you get from a farm. <S> It is a non-count noun. <S> So your quote can be glossed: ... <S> little wooden ships carrying food across to the continent and back. <S> If I remember my history I think that wine was carried from France to England, and wool was taken from England to France. <A> I think a bit part of the problem is that the whole passage has no main verb <S> : it isn't a well-formed sentence, but rather a verbless sentence fragment; one long noun-phrase describing a scene. " <S> Ferrying" is a verb but is active only within a subordinate part; and "produce" as has been noted is here as a noun. <S> I see that it's from a script. <S> It's common in stage directions to have descriptions of what is to be shown: "A man's apartment, with a window facing trees, and a writing desk on the left". <S> So that's what this is. <S> It's a nice word-picture, rather like we're zooming slowly in what might be a still picture, and then realizing that the boats are actually moving.	You see that produce can also be a noun, so it means crops, food, or other things produced on a farm (and, might I add, elsewhere as well.)
Is "affects" plural or possessive? I have been posed with a question in an economics class at college which I cannot decipher:"Explain how an increase in the price level affect the real value of money. Give a real world example." I emailed the instructor to ask for clarification, asking if he missed a plural somewhere or made a typo, and he advises me as follows: "It is not missing a plural – simply read it as price level affects." Would it written as “Price level affects” not be plural? Is it possessive rather than plural? Slippery slope? I want to write him back, but worry I may not truly have a full grasp of the grammar and English complexities involved. Is there is some grammatical rule I do not know which dictates that words (or specifically, the word affect) no longer need to be made plural to be read as plural? Is adding an "s" to affect to make it affects in this case not making it plural? What am I missing? <Q> It is neither plural or possessive. <S> Those are attributes of nouns associated with a verb. <S> The subject here is "an increase in the price level" which is singular. <S> If nothing else, the article "an" makes this clear. <S> The sentence should thus use the verb in the form "affects" (3rd person active singular subject). <S> If; however, you prefix it with "would" then "affect" is correct. <A> The mistake in your instructor's sentence is one of concord or agreement . <S> The singular noun increase does not 'agree' with the verb affect , since the third person singular verb requires an -s: affects . <S> So, it needs to be how increases ... affect or how an increase ... affects . <S> There is no possessive in the sentence. <S> That said, I don't think you have anything to gain by writing back to him. <S> He has already indirectly admitted his error. <A> In this context - indeed in any context - affect is a verb: not a noun. <S> It is not a plural. <S> It is simple present tense, like "influences". <S> "Explain how an (something) <S> influences (something else) <S> " The noun is "effect". <A> Affect in this sentence is a verb so <S> , it makes sense if we say - an increase in the price level affects/reduces the real value of money. <S> The verbs affect is in the present simple tense. <S> You may also say - an increase in the price level will affect the real value of money.	Firstly "affect" is a verb. It is not plural or possessive.
Such as X or Y; or such as X and Y In a sentence like: It allows us to overcome problems such as sparseness and/or cold-start , which of and/or should be used? <Q> When using such as , you mention the items regardless of their probability, availability, ordering, or any other criteria. <S> The other important point is that there may be other items subject to the situation, but it suffices (or you prefer) to utter only some of them. <S> Because of this, in many academic papers are seen expressions like: such as item1, item2, and item3. <S> In your case, if you mean " It allows us to overcome both problems and nothing else <S> " I prefer such a structure: <S> It allows us to overcome sparseness and cold-start problems. <S> An example from Collins Dictionary : <S> The fruit and other foods such as meat, fish and eggs boost serotonin. <S> The sentence above uses such as because there are (many) other foods that boost serotonin, but the author doesn't want to list all of them. <A> Either one works, depending on context. <S> There are many dangers in the desert such as snakes, scorpions, and heat stroke. <S> In this case you use "and" because all of your examples are present in the desert. <S> You will pick a book for your book report such as Moby Dick, 1984, or Brave New World. <S> In cases where an unknown number of the example items will be present, you can use "and", "or", or "and/or" (read as "and or"). <S> In Yellowstone park you may encounter a variety of animals such as bison, bears, wolves, and/or moose. <S> The "and/or" construction is less technically correct, but it's reasonably common <S> and it's useful if you want to emphasize that the examples listed are independent but not mutually exclusive. <A> You use or , because you are giving possible examples. <S> Using and also works, but sounds a bit less fluent and a bit weird to English speakers in some contexts.	In this case "or" is correct because you are only choosing one item.
Can I use Ms. with a married women? I am going to do an overseas internship in Canada next month. Since I have never worked with foreigners before, so now I wonder what I should call my boss or colleagues. My supervisor is a Chinese, I don't know her English name, she is much older than me and I do know she is married. Her family name is Liu (not her husband's). So may I call her Ms. Liu, or Mrs. Liu, I am not sure which one is correct. How about other foreigner supervisor? Should I call them MR. XX, MS. XX, or just call them first name directly. Can I ask them directly "Can I have your name or What should I call you" For the colleagues which are older than me, I think I just need to call them first name? Thanks. <Q> In my organisation (UK Govt, legal) it is usual to use 'Ms' for a female person where her marital status is unknown, or if she has used it herself on documentation. <A> When women marry, many will change their family name to that of their husband, however if your supervisor hasn't changed her name then she is Mrs Lui or Ms Lui <S> depending on what she prefers (there is nothing wrong with asking directly) <S> On first meeting use "Ms Lui" it cannot cause any offence. <S> You will soon pick up the way that people talk to other people at your organisation. <S> At some organisations everybody uses "Mr" or "Mrs". <S> At others everybody uses first names. <S> Just follow what other people do. <S> You will probably find that most people just use First Names all the time, except when talking to people outside the organisation. <S> First Meeting: <S> Good morning <S> Ms Lui, I'm the new intern. <S> It's good to meet you. <S> General talk. <S> (assuming Ms Lui is Ms Kathy Lui) <S> Hello Kathy. <S> How was your weekend? <S> Speaking to outsiders <S> Ms Lui is busy right now, can I take a message? <S> Always use a title with a family name ("Ms Lui" <S> ok, "Lui" not ok) <A> In my opinion, it's respectful to first refer to your colleagues, regardless if they are your peers, supervisors, or direct boss, by "Mr" or "Ms/Mrs" and to never refer to them by only their first name even if you know it, ever. <S> Referring to them as " <S> Mr/Ms/Mrs (first name) <S> (last name)" is perfectly fine I think. <S> There are a number of ways you can find out what they prefer to be called for sure <S> and it helps to practice those ways with friends, family, or your current colleagues if you'd like to prepare yourself. <S> For women, it can sometimes be tricky to choose between <S> Ms/Mrs. <S> I suggest referring to them by "Ms" initially; it usually refers to younger, single women and most women I meet regardless of marriage status and age seem flattered or find it endearing you refer to them as such. <S> After the introductions are set, they usually say what they prefer to be called. <S> For example, they'll say "Please, call me (first name)" or "It's actually 'Mrs', nice to meet you." <S> But just a heads up, if what you referred to them is what they prefer, this won't come up.	One uses "Mrs" for a married woman, "Miss" for an unmarried woman and "Ms" when you don't know if the woman is married, or if the woman prefers "Ms". Never use a title with a given name ("Ms Kathy" is not ok, "Kathy" is ok)
What is the difference between "planning" and "scheduling"? I was sitting wondering whether there is really a difference between " planning " and " scheduling ", especially in terms of doing a project. Like when you have a project, you can plan tasks and write down time and list of actions or you can schedule them and write down time and list of actions. I can see that definitions say that only " scheduling " conveys writing down time, and planning doesn't. Is that right? <Q> Planning is the act of creating a "a detailed formulation of a program of action" (a plan ) for how something will be achieved. <S> That is, planning desribes the intention to do something, coupled with a proposal or strategy for getting it done. <S> Scheduling is the act of deciding when something will be done, and allocating the time for it out of one's schedule . <S> So scheduling can be considered a subset of planning, because most good plans include a timeline/schedule for when each step of the plan will be achieved. <S> But planning also includes many things outside of scheduling (such as deciding who to work with, tools that will be used, etc). <A> Scheduling and planning go hand in hand, the former accompanying the latter. <S> So the plan comes first, then the schedule is linked to it depending on the order of importance, urgency, or whatever other reasons. <A> When you do planning, what you get as a result is called a plan. <S> The result of the process of scheduling, on the other hand, is a schedule. <S> A plan, then, is defined as a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something. <S> A schedule, in a very general sense, is very much the same thing—it's a plan for carrying out a process or procedure, giving lists of intended events and time. <S> The only difference, as you can see, is that a schedule involves writing down times when particular events must take place. <S> So, a schedule is really a timetable. <S> That typically would be the difference between these two terms. <S> But as J.R. has aptly noted in his comment, planning can be thought of as a more general term for scheduling which means that scheduling can be part of planning.	Whereas a plan specifies how to solve a problem, a schedule assigns times and dates to specific steps of the plan.
Difference between -decker, -tier, shelf and level (see picture) How would you describe the number of shelves of the growing trays in the image below? Four-leveled, four-tier, four-shelf or four-decker? Are all these ways correct and interchangeable? <Q> The picture depicts a seedling stand. <S> They are sometimes also called racks (just like for a computer server.) <S> When they have wheels (casters), they can be called carts. <S> Typically, a seedling stand can have various levels called tiers or shelves. <S> And the shelves are where the trays of seedlings are placed. <S> In American marketing lingo, there are always attempts to be cute. <S> You can say that a stand has four tiers (meaning levels) and then call it: A four-decker stand. <S> Like a double-decker bus. <S> But this is really marketing language and not a precise technical description. <S> A four-tiered stand or a stand with four shelves or a stand with four levels (the least descriptive). <S> The tiers or shelves are where the trays or pots are placed. <A> To my ear, decker is an outlier there, register-wise. <S> decker would not be used in a specifications document, say, as it is something of a colloquialism. <S> Go and get me a four-decker shelf from the warehouse, and don't dilly-dally. <S> We would like to place an order for a dozen of your four-tier shelving units. <A> "Level" is more reserved for buildings/structures. <S> "Shelf" by itself conveys a meaning of just a number, but not necessarily that they are stacked in this matter <S> , i.e., "four-shelf" can mean there are four shelves that are arranged side-by-side. <A> Level could as well be described as high and low, fx. <S> concerning rankings, niveau, terrains, up- or downgrade, strength. <S> Whereas tier describes the level or rank of unique or complete pieces or units, layer describes seperat pieces, sheets or units placed besides or on top of each other as part of a in- or complete unit.	I would say "four-tier shelf" is the best way to describe it.
"correct" or "correctly" which word to use? I have a question, if i were frustrated and said: "I can't say anything correct in English" "i can't say anything correctly in English" which is right? Thanks very much. <Q> If you were frustrated because of your difficulty speaking English, then you would want to use the latter " <S> I can't say anything correctly in English. ", which could be loosely paraphrased as "When I'm speaking English, I am incapable of communicating things properly." <S> The other case is not grammatically incorrect, but would rarely be appropriate to use. <S> Saying " I can't say anything <S> correct in English " would describe the rather odd case of (maybe) being able to speak some English, but only when making factually inaccurate (i.e. incorrect) statements. <S> In this case, "correct" is an adjective, describing the factual accuracy of the things you are saying in English. <S> If it were actually true that one couldn't " say anything correct in English ", then it would imply that anything they said in English must be factually incorrect (probably not what you intend to say, in most cases). <A> To say something correctly To speak correctly. <S> To spell correctly [also: incorrectly, exists] <S> When you ask the question: <S> How am I saying this ? <S> The word correct goes with how you are saying it . <S> It goes with the verb. <S> It is an adverb. <S> It adds meaning to the verb. <S> Just like: <S> He paints very badly. <S> He is a bad painter. <S> She speaks well. <S> She is a good speaker. <S> Many adverbs in English take ly : hastily, nicely, sweetly. <S> But others are irregular: badly, well, fast. <S> He speaks fast. <S> She drives badly. <S> They speak English well. <S> He play guitar nicely. <S> [well] <S> This is a basic idea about adverbs. <S> Not the whole story. <A> Both are valid. <S> Correctly is an adverb and modifies the verb (say). <S> Correct is a adjective and modifies the object (anything). <S> I can't [correctly say] anything. <S> I can't say [anything correct]. <S> You would want to use 'correctly' if you were saying it in frustration because you are emphasizing that you are having trouble "saying it correctly". <S> Rather than what you saying being exactly correct.	In this case, "correctly" is an adverb which is talking about the manner in which you are saying things in English.
Slang word for working overtime without being paid I am looking for a slang word to describe the situation, where you are voluntarily working overtime at your job, but without getting paid. E.g. if you stay late at your work because you would like to solve a specific problem; and you do that voluntarily with no pay because it is in your own interest. It could also be the fact that you stay late to show your manager that you are willing to put down the work that needs to be done (perhaps so you may get a raise or a promotion in time); sort of an investment in your job. Are there any fun or slang words to describe this? In Danish we have the words "Interessetid" or "Interessetimer", which essentially translates to "Interest time" or "Interest hours". Thanks. EDIT: Just for clarification, I am not referencing forced overtime. I am thinking about salaried work where in some industries it is common to work overtime - even though you are not getting paid extra to do so. Think about Banking, Consulting or legal work. In banking many people work maybe 60 hrs per week - even though their contract only states 40 hrs. Therefore the last 20 hrs. would be "voluntary overtime" (or the fun slang word I am looking for here, to describe this). <Q> There's a term "after hours" <S> which means after the usual hours of work : <S> I often do some of my own work after hours <S> Hyphenated, <S> after-hours can be used as an adjective, e.g. after-hours work ( another source and Google Books examples ). <A> In US (in my experience) salaried workers often describe this as "off the clock" -- i.e. working, but not officially recording the time and thus not getting paid for it. <S> I would call this informal speech but not quite slang. <S> But for hourly workers who do get overtime pay, "off the clock" instead means time NOT working -- and as a result not getting paid -- such as a lunch break, mandatory rest periods for a truck driver, travelling to and from the workplace, etc. <A> This applies to the UK, and may not apply to other countries In the UK, it is common for salaried employees to stay late at work voluntarily - without compensation. <S> As such, there tends not to be a need to state that you weren't being paid - it's implied. <S> Although they don't really involve slang, some common phrases are: <S> I was working late <S> I stayed late last night. <S> I've been staying past my hours recently. <S> That said, if your employer is forcing you to work beyond your regular hours, (vulgar) slang tends to appear more often: <S> My work has been [offensive sexual action]ing me <S> I'm getting [offensive sexual action]ed by management <S> , they won't let me go home till [hour]. <S> And in software, a common term used is: <S> We're crunching/we've been in crunch. <S> Which refers specifically to working far too many hours, in an extremely short space of time - at the detriment of your wellbeing (almost always driven by bad management, and not voluntary). <S> To be clear though, in the UK - there is a societal expectation that salaried employees <S> will work till their workload is complete, and not be compensated extra for it. <S> As such, people tend to focus more on whether they have too much work, and how stressful things are - rather than the fact they aren't being compensated. <S> People who are compensated overtime, will tend to mention that fact explicitly as it is not the norm. <A> In the second sense that you note: stay late to show your manager that you are willing to put down the work that needs to be done <S> I would say(and have said) that I am Banking <S> my attaboys <S> meaning that I am getting intangible benefits for the extra work being done in the hope of some future payoff. <S> I have no idea how well understood this would be outside of the US, or by anyone but me for that matter. <S> A less "fun", but perhaps better understood phrase could be <S> Building my good name(or reputation) <A> <A> I had a boss who would add bits of functionality in his off hours for fun. <S> He was basically programming stuff he was curious about, and didn't want to bother with setting up a new project, so he'd implement it as part of our codebase. <S> We called it a "Saturday project", even though they happened in the evenings as well. <S> me: <S> Hey, that's nifty, when did we start supporting X? <S> coworker: <S> What? <S> Oh, that was one of [name]'s Saturday Projects. <S> me: <S> Cool... have we back-filled tests for it yet? <S> coworker: <S> Nope, you got it this time? <A> "Volunteer to work overtime" or "work unpaid overtime" are the closest phrases I can think of in that situation, which essentially means what you stated. <S> This first implies that you are choosing to work overtime without getting paid, and not being forced to do so. <S> The second is more free-form. <S> I'm not aware of a direct one- or two-word slang for the situation. <A> I'm just going to come out and say that English does not have a word or even a familiar phrase that conveys anything like Interessetid . <S> Someone could say "I worked on it on my own time just because I was interested", but that's just a description of the situation. <S> It is interesting that the answers so far tend to involve working extra time because of the demands of the job . <S> There doesn't seem to be a vocabulary in English for talking about time spent on the job just because you like it, though it certainly happens. <S> I'm not sure what that says about Anglophone culture. <S> (Or what the existence of Interessetid says about Danish culture.) <A> You could use Unsalaried overtime or Uncompensated overtime <S> This is matching the Danish “interessetid” which is a compound word <S> anyway I do not know any slang matching this <A> or I've got my nose to the grindstone. <S> That sounds like fun, doesn't it? <A> You could say workaholic . <S> You can read in <S> Google translate: <S> This is a person who compulsively works hard and long hours . <A> I've heard the term 'Slave labour' used as slang in the UK. <S> potentially offence so this might depend heavily on your audience. <A> Probably the best slang expression for this that I've seen was in the memoirs Blue Collar, Blue Scrubs by Dr. Michael J. Collins. <S> He describes how his (building construction) employer expected employees to work several hours in the mornings before paid time began. <S> This was referred to as "working for the Church"--which <S> I like because it suggests both a sense of charity, and some kind of tithe .	You can say: "Unpaid overtime" or "after hours". You could say I'm putting my nose to the grindstone.
Does this phase 'books for thinking' make sense to you? I want to convey the idea of which I am selling books for people to think deeply, therefore, in short, I want to say 'books for thinking', but when I google it, there is no such phase, I am concerned that it doesn't make sense to native speakers. Actually, I found someone said 'book on thinking'. <Q> A slogan or title like that isn't expected to be a complete, grammatically correct sentence. <S> I know what you mean. <S> I presume most people would know what you mean. <S> So it's perfectly good and valid. <S> "Book on thinking" would be a very different thing. <S> I'd understand that to mean a book about how the mind works. <S> In once sense or another: I'd imagine it could be anything from a book about the physics and chemistry of the brain to a philosophical discussion about the nature of the mind. <A> Try instead Books for (Deep) <S> Thinkers <S> It's not an especially elegant turn of phrase, but it is frequently used . <S> For some reason the noun for the person has come to sound better than the gerund for the activity . <S> Likely, this is because thinking is itself not particularly special, since everyone regularly thinks . <S> This undermines your intention to describe the process of thinking interesting or unusual thoughts. <S> In contrast, a thinker is by definition , someone who spends a lot of time thinking about deep or significant things, or someone with demonstrated intellectual prowess. <S> If you really want to focus on the process of thinking, then it might be better to use a more grandiose word, for example: <S> Books on Cogitation <A> However, with "books for thinking," it's unclear if the reader ends up thinking more about the book itself, or if the book encourages the reader to think more about life itself. <S> I don't know how formal you want to get, but you might consider: Books to promote deeper thinking . <A> If you're trying to describe books that make people think, I think the word you're looking for is encourage . <S> To help or stimulate (an activity, state, or view) to develop. <S> To give an example: <S> These are books that encourage deep thinking <S> I also like J.R's answer, and use of the word 'promote'	I think "books on thinking" would refer to a book about thinking, while "books for thinking" would be closer to what you want.
Just woke up so my mind is still picking up? Let's say you were sleeping, then in the middle of your sleep someone suddenly phoned you. You were a bit surprised, as what we normally feel when someone called us while sleeping , and you responded: ''Hello, I'm sorry I just woke up so my mind is still picking up '' Are the bold letters correct and if they are the same as ''regaining itself from its usual mental state'' <Q> More easily-understood phrasing for that might be: <S> I just woke up <S> so my mind is a bit slow/fuzzy/sleepy. <S> I just woke up <S> so my mind is taking a bit to catch up. <S> I was asleep when you called so my brain is (still) waking up. <S> The last of the three would probably be how I'd phrase it. <A> One of the most common (and simplest) expressions to say when your brain is not fully functioning in the morning is Sorry <S> but I've just woken up, so I'm still half-asleep . <S> Technically called hypnopompic , Wikipedia describes the moments when someone leaves their sleeping state <S> Sleepers often wake confused, or speak without making sense, a phenomenon the psychologist Peter McKeller calls "hypnopompic speech" <S> On the page titled, hypnagogia , the falling asleep equivalent Threshold consciousness (commonly called "half-asleep" or "half-awake", or "mind awake body asleep") describes the same mental state of someone who is moving towards sleep or wakefulness, but has not yet completed the transition. <A> The sentence as you've written it is wrong, but in addition to the excellent alternatives already given by others, I often hear simple computer or car metaphors used in this context. <S> "Sorry, I just woke up, so my brain is still..." turning on booting up warming up starting <A> It is not idiomatic (in British English at least) to describe the state of your brain/mind in this situation. <S> It is far more normal to talk about yourself in total. <S> Mari-Lou A's answer of being half asleep is one idiomatic option. <S> Another is <S> I'm not "with it" yet <S> According to Collins : If someone is not with it , they do not feel alert and therefore fail to understand things.	That's not an idiomatic way to say what you wish to convey and, while it might be understood, it may cause some confusion.
what does it mean - "spoiling" in the following sentence According to the dictionary, "to spoil" means "to destroy/ruin" or "to treat well". So what does "spoiling" mean in the sentence of "she is not spoiling for a fight"? (as in "she is baited to have a fight, but she is not spoiling for it".) I interpreted it to mean "to treat well". But if so, I would have written it as "she is not spoiled for a fight". Or did the author use it in the context of "to destroy"? <Q> According to Google's Dictionary: to spoil be extremely or aggressively eager for. <S> "Cooper was spoiling for a fight" <S> synonymns : eager for, itching for, looking for, keen to have, raring for, after, bent on, set on, on the lookout for, longing for <S> So in your text, she was not looking for the fight. <S> She has no desire to fight. <A> Therefore, she is not spoiling for a fight <S> means <S> she is not eager to fight or argue . <S> In the context of the sentence: She is baited to have a fight, but she is not spoiling for it. <S> it means that even though people are tempting her to have a fight or the circumstances of the situation are such that she is forced to have a fight (it can be a physical as well as verbal one), she doesn't really want to. <A> A little etymology to add on to the other correct answers: spoil (v.) <S> c. 1300, "to strip (someone) of clothes, strip a slain enemy," from Old French <S> espillier "to strip, plunder, pillage," from Latin <S> spoliare "to strip, uncover, lay bare; strip of clothing, rob, plunder, pillage." ... <S> From late 14c. <S> in English as "strip with violence, rob, pillage, plunder, dispossess; impoverish with excessive taxation. <S> " Sense of "destroy, ruin, damage so as to render useless" is from 1560s; that of "to over-indulge" (a child, etc.) is from 1640s ... <S> To be spoiling for (a fight, etc.) is from 1865, from notion that one will "spoil" if he doesn't get it. <S> Note <S> this particular idiom is only about 150 years old. <S> It's an odd definition, to be sure, but many words in English take these weird twists and turns through their history.	The phrase to be spoiling for a fight is an idiomatic expression in English which means: to be very eager to fight or argue
What's this grammar point? I was reading a sentence and it kept my attention because it's like this. Now it’s time you wrote a short composition. The words that puzzle me here in the part that says "you wrote" My question is: Is it a conditional? <Q> It's the subjunctive . <S> The indicative mood is not used because the speaker isn't saying that the event happened, but that it should happen. <A> Now it’s time [(that) you wrote a short composition]. <S> No, it's not conditional, but modal. <S> The bracketed element is a declarative content clause. <S> Note that the subordinator that could optionally be added here. <S> The meaning is counterfactual. <S> It entails that the situation is not yet in progress: "You are not writing a short composition, but should do so". <A> This is the short form of "Now it’s time that you wrote a short composition. <S> " <S> The use of "that" is implied. <S> It isn't "conditional", the implied "that" forms an Appositive Clause	The preterite form wrote expresses modal rather than temporal meaning, i.e. modal remoteness rather than past time.
Why does the author use ‘Now’ here? In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. This was past events so it should use past tense .But now means (at) the present time. Or now here used as a conjunction means ‘ because the thing mentioned is happening or has just happened’ ? <Q> That is the use of now to mean at that time of what is being described or at the time of the story: adverb <S> In stories and accounts of past event s, now is used to refer to the particular time that is being written or spoken about . <S> She felt a little better now. <S> It was too late now for Blake to lock his room door. <S> By now it was completely dark outside. <S> It does not always refer to a present time. <S> Collins Dictionary <A> But the second sentence is using the past tense. <S> It's not now that gives it the tense, but <S> the earth was formless . <S> When considering tense, look at the actual verb—not, as in this case, the adverb. <S> The same sentence, written in the present tense, would be: <S> Now, the earth is formless. <S> Also note that just because something happened in the past, that doesn't mean that the narrative has to use the past tense. <S> (Although that's often the case.) <S> "Tell me what happened last night." <S> "Okay, so I don't see the window and I walk right into it." <A> This text is from the Bible, which was not written in English, but translated into English from Hebrew. <S> The translator is trying to capture a fairly common feature of Hebrew, starting sentences with a conjunction, in this case, "וְ". <S> This can be translated as "Also" or "And", but the translator feels that in English "and" wouldn't work here, as it is the start of a piece of narration. <S> Other translators have used "And" instead (KJV). <S> Others (NLT) have simply dropped that word and started verse two "The earth was…".	In a narration "Now" means "At that time" and it serves the purpose of translating "וְ", while still being good English.
Verb ing to form meaning Can you explain to me how "being watched" in this case becomes a passive? a lady spent four days being watched by a girl. <Q> It is considered passive tense, because " a girl " was doing the watching, but she is no longer the subject of the sentence in the passive construction. <S> Instead " a lady " becomes the subject, and she is " being watched ". <S> To make it active, you would rewrite it as " A girl spent four days watching a lady. " <S> Choosing between the two is mostly a matter of style, and depends on what you are trying to communicate. <S> However, if you want the reader to focus more on the person doing the watching (" a girl "), the active construction is better. <A> Do you know how the passive voice is formed in English? <S> It is formed by taking the verb to be and following it with the past participle of the verb whose passive voice form you want to get. <S> For example, all of these are the passive voice forms of the verbs to see , to watch and to give respectively: to be seen to be watched to be given <S> Now, there is another thing in English called present participle . <S> Present participles are formed by taking the bare infinitive form of a verb (the base form without the infinitive marker to ) and adding an "ing" to the end of it. <S> Thus, be becomes being , see becomes seeing and give becomes giving . <S> Therefore, technically speaking, the present participle of the phrase to be watched should be being watched which initially started as a passive voice construction and has been persevered as such even after we turned it into a participial phrase. <S> I think that's how being watched in your sentence is passive-voice. <A> Actually, the sentence itself is not in the passive voice—it's in the active voice. <S> A lady spent . . . <S> The sentence has a single clause, so it doesn't matter what happens in the rest of the sentence. <S> The sentence's main subject is "a lady" and the active verb is to spend . <S> However, the second part of the sentence can be thought of as "relatively" passive because it only talks about what is happening to her rather than what she is happening by her. <S> (Grammatically, however, it's still a single-clause sentence in the active voice. <S> It's spent , not being watched , that determines this.) <S> For the sentence, as a whole, to really be passive: <S> A lady was watched for four days by a girl. <S> Or, for the active-voice sentence to "sound" more active: <S> A lady spent four days knowing she was being watched by a girl. <S> This is essentially the same as two variations of a different sentence. <S> Both are active (grammatically) because of she spent , but the first has a more "relatively" passive feel to it: <S> "She spent her vacation as a test subject." <S> "She spent her vacation conducting tests." <S> But consider this: I answered all of the questions correctly and all of the questions were answered correctly by me. <S> The first clause of the sentence is in the active voice but the second clause is in the passive voice. <S> The sentence, as a whole, is actually in both the active voice and the passive voice.	If you are trying to center the sentence on the experience of the " lady " and her feelings about " being watched ", then you might use the passive construction.
What is the difference between you betcha and I betcha? I've heard people using this slang betcha. What is the difference between you betcha and I betcha? <Q> 'You betcha' is someone insisting something, such as 'You betcha' in return to someone asking if another can perform a certain task. <S> ex: " <S> Can you mow my lawn while I'm away?" <S> "You betcha!" <S> whereas 'I betcha' is typically someone using the term as it was originally intended, ie, betting. <S> ex: " <S> I betcha can't beat me in soccer!" <S> Does this help? <A> I betcha is colloquial for <S> I bet you and <S> You betcha <S> is colloquial for You bet . <S> In AmE. <S> I bet you and You bet. <S> For example: I bet you (I betcha) can finish on time. <S> Do you think you can finish on time? <S> Often, "you bet" is seen like this: <S> You bet I can . <S> And the meaning, as an answer, means: <S> Of course, I can. <A> 'You betcha' can be understood as a colloquial short form of 'you can bet on that', meaning it would be a safe bet to say yes. <S> It's used as an affirmative answer to a question. ' <S> Does that work?', 'Yes, you betcha!' <S> I think @Valentine has recognized correctly what 'I betcha' might mean. <A> I don’t disagree with anyone else’s definition of “you betcha”, but I agree with everyone who seems confused by “I betcha”- <S> I have never heard this before. <S> I am not from Minnesota but in the U.S. <S> “You betcha” sounds like something a Minnesotan would say, and this glossary of Minnesota terms confirms it: https://www.brownielocks.com/minnesotatalk.html <S> YOU BETCHA: <S> A confident affirmation. <S> Example: "Are you going to the hockey game dis weekend? <S> " <S> Answser: " <S> You betcha I sure am."	You bet ( You betcha ).
Successively, continuously, or sequentially, which has the meaning of "adjacent"? I am trying to describe the positional relationship between the boxes in the image. I think it can be described that The boxes are arranged adjacent in the Z-direction. I would like to know whether it is possible to replace " adjacent" with "successively", "continuously", or "sequentially" as follows: The boxes are arranged successively/continuously/sequentially in the Z-direction. <Q> My house was adjacent to his . <S> But is does not necessarily imply they were touching. <S> But it can. <S> Objects can be arranged in sequence or sequentially =in an ordered manner. <S> As long as the pattern repeats. <S> The sequence (adverb: sequentially) is whatever order you wish impose on objects . <S> That said, if all the objects are the same thing, sequence does not work so well . <S> Continuous or continuous refers to time, usually, something that does not stop (continuous production). <S> Or something that goes on unbroken for some length: There is a continuous line (as opposed to discontinuous) drawn on the map between point A and point B. For those boxes in the picture, I would say: the boxes are placed (one after the other) in sequence or sequentially on a line . <A> A couple of things: I'm not sure adjacent is a good choice in any case. <S> The uncommonly used but correct adverbial form is adjacently. <S> You should use the word sequentially. <S> Successively typically refers to things that come in numerical or temporal succession: successive administrations , successive failed attempts , etc. <S> Continuously means without interruption, and in the OP the nuance of continuously would suggest that the boxes are laid against each other with no spaces in between them. <A> The boxes are arranged side-by-side . <S> normal conversational <S> The boxes are arranged adjacent (to one another) along the Z-axis . <S> more formal contexts	Generally speaking, adjacent means next to :
What is the meaning of "with big hugs and kisses" in the following sentence? What is the meaning of "with big hugs and kisses" in the following sentence (source: UP, UP AND AWAY Susie), "At the arrival area, Susie and her parents pick up their luggage. Susie watches all the different suitcases ride along the carousel. "Here come ours!" she shouts. They find Susie's grandparents waiting with big hugs and kisses . "How did you like your first ride in the sky Susie?" they ask. Does "They find Susie's grandparents waiting with big hugs and kisses" mean "They find that Susie's grandparents are waiting with open their arms and pushing their lips forward"? <Q> "To find someone waiting" is often expressed like this: find them waiting with open arms . <S> It is not literal and it means when they came up to grandparents, the grandparents gave them kisses and hugs. <S> To wait for someone with open arms is a cliché. <S> Writers are supposed to avoid those. <S> This does. <A> It's showing endearment and love. <S> You aren't necessarily meant to picture that they're standing there already, arms wide open and making smooch noises at the air as strangers watch. <S> Rather, when Suzy arrived, they were happy and immediately got to hugging and kissing to welcome her. <A> Not exactly, it's more likely that when Susie came up to the grandparents, they each gave her a hug and a kiss, rather than just standing there with <S> their arms outstretched and lips puckered. <S> This expression is usually a little exaggerated, it's more just to show you that the grandparents love Susie. <A> I absolutely agree with @Lambie on the author's attempt to avoid using the clichéd phrase "with open arms". <S> Indeed, as a phrase once evoking a clear visual image, nowadays "with open arms" meaning "very happily and eagerly" doesn't create the image of someone standing with their arms ready to embrace someone. <S> On the other hand, the cliché, having been pimped by adding some details into a freshly used metaphor (waiting with big hugs and kisses), doesn't seem so trite as the "with open arms" phrase. <S> (The source) <A> The grandparents have in their possession an unspecified quantity of hugs and kisses, which they took with them to the airport. <S> They have been waiting with these hugs and kisses for the opportunity to distribute them to Susie. <S> "Hug" and "kiss" are verbs, but "hugs" and "kisses" are nouns, so waiting with hugs and kisses would be the same as if you were waiting with some other nouns. <S> For example, "Her grandparents were waiting with big [boots] and [umbrellas]"	Here, the writer is being creative and substituting "big hugs and kisses" for something like "open arms". From what I could find the device used may be called "pimping a cliché", the verb pimp meaning to make something (here the cliché) more showy or impressive ( also meaning to decorate - to make something look fashionable or impressive, usually by adding things, here - some new details).
meaning of the phrase "last man standing" in context I have come across in Crash Course World History . It is at around 43 second. Here is the context: When we think of ancient civilizations, we think of Egypt. There a few reasons of this, like the fact that the pyramids are the last man standing among the seven ancient wonders of the world. <Q> Literally, the phrase "last man standing" refers to the sole survivor of a battle, when everybody else has fallen. <S> As in your question it is sometimes also used to describe something inanimate - for example you might read that Blockbuster Video is "the last man standing" because all other video rental chains have closed down. <A> I think it means that pyramids are the only wonders still found today! <S> Rest all are vanished into the thin air. <S> And, because of that, even today, when we think of ancient civilization, we think of Egypt because the evidence is right there in front of our eyes. <S> Note that when the video has pictures of rest of the wonders, all start getting crossed which means they don't exist anymore except for the pyramids. <S> This backs my stance that last man standing means the one who survived the battle of existence. <A> The video is referencing the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World , which were "must see" tourist destinations first written about by Philo of Byzantium in 225 BC in his travel guide "On the Seven Wonders". <S> They included: the Great Pyramid at Giza, Egypt the Hanging Gardens of Babylon the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Greece the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus <S> the Colossus of Rhodes the Lighthouse at Alexandria, Egypt <S> Due to the passage of over 2000 years, 6 of those 7 no longer exist. <S> The only one you can still visit today is Egypt's Great Pyramid. <S> As mentioned in Astralbee's answer, the only remaining member of a set is sometimes referred to as the "last man standing". <S> It is a phrase that invokes a battle or some sort of contest, but is understood in a wider context as well.	It is commonly used in "survival" video games to determine that there will be one final winner. Figuratively, the phrase is commonly used to describe anything or anyone that has outlived, or outlasted other similar things.
At or in the mirror? I am confused with the prepositions. Is it... looking at the mirror looking in the mirror <Q> If you're looking in the mirror, you're looking at your reflection in it: <S> She was looking in the mirror at herself. <S> She didn't like what she saw in the mirror and broke it. <S> If you're looking at the mirror, then you're looking at the mirror itself (its frame, its surface etc.). <S> In other words, you're looking at it, not at what's in it: <S> Come <S> take a look at these items. <S> Take a look at this mirror over here and these two beautiful chairs over there in the corner. <A> For example: He looked in the mirror to check out the haircut. <S> At would be used if you are looking at the mirror itself or the fixture around the mirror, e.g., the mirror frame or the quality of the glass, and not at the reflection. <S> For example: I was looking at this antique mirror yesterday. <S> It would fit so well with our decor. <A> You can use all sorts of prepositions with "look" and "mirror. <S> " They have different shades of meaning. <S> You can look at a mirror, meaning you are looking at the mirror itself and not necessarily the reflection therein. <S> You can look in a mirror when you're shaving to make sure you didn't miss a spot. <S> You can look into a mirror, forgetting your surroundings and getting lost in the image. <S> You can look upon a mirror, which I believe implies you are not just looking but also contemplating the reflection. <S> Although you might want to gaze upon it instead of look. <S> All of these are correct, but not necessarily appropriate for a specific context.	In would be used when you are looking at something in the mirror, i.e., you are looking at the reflection.
Optional use of the word "over" in these examples She walked (over) to him. I'll bring the drink (over) to you. How does the meaning of these sentences change with or without the word "over"? <Q> To go the distance from where you are to a person: walk over to a person To approach a person at a place: walk up to a person walk to a person is not really idiomatic in most contexts. <S> bring something to someone does not require over. <S> That said, if you are at one end of the garden with the beer and someone else is at the other end, you will take the drink over to that person [across the garden]. <S> If a baby is learning to walk, you would say: "He stood up on his little legs and walked to his mother without falling over". <S> walked without any other preposition is contrasted with other verbs: <S> The baby penguin walked to his mother. <S> [He did not crawl to her.] <S> The baby bird flew to his mother sitting on the branch. <S> Walk to <S> [x], run to [x] is generally how one gets to a place in terms of one's own locomotion. <S> She walked to school <S> [she did not run, ride or crawl to school] <S> Whereas, if you are in or at a place, generally, you walk over to someone or you walk up to someone. <A> over adds the nuanced idea that there is some space or distance between them, which is to the speaker's mind not negligible. <S> She may have to cross the room, for example. <A> In your two examples, She walked (over) to him. <S> I'll bring the drink (over) to you. <S> the use of " over " is optional, meaning is neither lost nor changed without it.	If you say in English, to walk to a person , it's not describing what one generally says in everyday speech to describe interactions between people located at a particular place .
Is the expression "taper up" incorrect? The verb "taper" is defined in dictionaries as: To become gradually narrower or thinner toward one end. So, this word is often used with the adverb "down". I am searching for a word that means To become gradually wider or thicker toward one end. Is it possible to use the expression "taper up" for the meaning? <Q> slow down cannot be turned into slow up to mean faster! <S> The word you may use is flared which means widening up. <S> Though it has limited usage and may not suit to your concern. <A> You wouldn't get the meaning you're looking for if you said 'taper up'. <S> The immediate thing that comes to mind when I hear 'taper up' is a tall building ' <S> tapering up' toward the sky. <S> In this case the adverb is referring to the direction that the thinner end would point if it tapered to a point. <S> You could also say 'tapered to the right' for instance. <S> That doesn't mean that 'tapered down' always means that the tapered end points down, though. ' <S> to taper down' is a verb phrase that means the same thing as 'to taper'. <S> The word 'down' in this case is not referring to the direction, but to the width getting smaller or lower. <S> It would be perfectly acceptable to simply say <S> "became gradually thicker toward one end" <A> A baseball bat broadens out above the handle. <A> To taper just means to become thinner as the length increases, or as you move along the length. <S> down is only used as a direction, it's not a phrasal verb . <S> There is a phrasal verb to taper off , but it has a different meaning: to diminish over time, not over space. <S> Both wider and thicker <S> (in your question) have related verbs: to widen to thicken <S> However, to thicken has connotations of food: to thicken the sauce . <S> To widen looks like the word you want. <S> The beam widens the further from the source it gets. <A> First, it's most usually used with "off", as in "taper off". <S> "Down" would be valid but a distant 2nd. <S> The nearest and most popular antonym to "taper down" would be "spread out", followed by "fan out", "enlarge", or "thicken" <A> In what context? <S> Gradually reducing something (like doses of medication) over time, is often called tapering down, (sometimes, tapering off), so logically we might expect gradually increasing something to be tapering up. <S> Oddly, I've never heard that. <S> However, "ramping up" is widely used in the context of gradually increasing something, for example, Tesla is ramping up production of its new car. <S> For something physical you can simply turn round and look at from the other end, I think "taper" is OK <S> but I agree "taper up <S> " is a little strange, perhaps "widen" or "thicken" at one end <S> is better. <A> AS your question already hit on, you're looking for the word "widen."	If you put an opposite word of an adverb , it does not convert the word into the opposite meaning.
Usage of "both" vs. "either" Do ____ of you have any money I can borrow? a. both b. either c. neither I answer a. (both) but it is incorrect. The right answer is b. (either). I don't understand. Please help me why a. can't be the answer. <Q> Do both of you have any money I can borrow? <S> This is not grammatically incorrect. <S> However, you would be asking if Person 1 AND Person 2 both have money for you to borrow. <S> The "correct answer" is assuming that you don't need both people to lend you money. <S> Do either of you have any money I can borrow? <S> Given the situation, this logically makes more sense, as you would now be asking if one of Person 1 OR Person 2 have money. <S> In order for you to borrow money, you only need one of them to lend you it. <A> When you say do both of you have any money? <S> , you are asking if both people can give you money, not just one person. <S> You only need to borrow money from one of the two people. <S> Do either of <S> you know how to swim for example is asking if one or the other knows how to swim. <S> This fits the question, because you don’t need money from both people, just one. <A> Do either of you have any money I can borrow? <S> is correct. <S> The money could come from person 1, person 2, or both of them (in case either one does not have enough money). <S> both implies an action that involves both parties. <S> For example: Can both of you go to the store? <S> it means that they will do the action together. <S> So: <S> Do both of you have any money I can borrow? <S> implies that they have joint money (money owned by both of them), which wouldn't be likely.	Either is the correct answer when looking for one or the other.
Why not use "casualties" in "Small shops have been a casualty of the recession."? From the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary: Small shops have been a casualty of the recession. "Shops" is plural here while "casualty" is singular. Any reason for that? Can I have the sentence stick to one form? Small shop has been a casualty of the recession. Small shops have been casualties of the recession. Thanks in advance. <Q> Another example: <S> Private equity funds are a significant factor in the rapid increase in housing prices, in certain markets. <S> It may be grammatical to say "the funds are significant factors" , but this changes the meaning to suggest that the funds each have a separate effect , rather than that, together, they have a collective effect among other (unmentioned) groups that also have an effect <S> (e.g. foreign investors, families with rising incomes, etc.) <S> Of course if we were talking about one specific fund, then we would use the singular: <S> The Donald Trump 'Best Fund in the World' Fund is a significant factor in ... <A> The first sentence is grammatically correct, as small shops is talking about the singular collection of small shops, not any small shop in particular. <S> In other words, Small shops is one noun referencing one collection, so it is singular. <S> As Andrew pointed out, there is an important distinction between the two sentences that I forget to address. <S> When someone says Small shops have been casualties of the recession , you are saying that many individual shops have caused separate casualties rather than small shops as a whole . <S> Both are valid, but the Small shops have been a casualty of the recession makes more sense <A> When you refer to a group of things and the nature of the group is more important than the identity of the individual members, you will likely use a collective noun . <S> Some collective nouns are distinct from their individual forms, e.g., "The herd fled when a lioness approached. <S> " Herd is the collective noun, and the individual members might be gazelles or antelopes. <S> Other nouns, such as "shops" do not have different words for plural vs collective usage. <S> In this case, the collective usage is determined by the grammar of the sentence. <S> The use of "small shops" as a collective noun indicates (1) that all small shops were hurt by the recession in some manner, and (2) that being a member of the "small shops" class is sufficient to receive that harm.	The reason for the use of the singular casualty is to imply that small shops (collectively) are one casualty among many other groups of entities .
What do you call a person whose mood is affected by the weather? Macmillan defines: meteoropathy - a health condition, or symptom caused by certain weather conditions such as humidity, temperature or atmospheric pressure As I can't find it in any other online vocabulary, I guess it's not a very common word. Any other way to say the same in a more colloquial manner? Is there an adjective for it? <Q> Typically experienced in the winter, seasonal depression sums up the sad and gloomy feelings brought on by the weather. <S> Seasons depression is accurate in casual conversation, however it should be noted that it is formally known as seasonal affective disorder . <S> Seasonal Affective Disorder: <S> A mood disorder subset in which people who have normal mental health throughout most of the year exhibit depressive symptoms at the same time each year, most commonly in the winter. <S> People may sleep too much or have little energy. <S> Full wikipedia: here <A> As far as I know there is no word in common use for this. <S> You'd have to describe it. <S> However we do have an idiom "as changeable as the weather" to describe someone who changes (mood) frequently and unpredictably . <S> Examples: <S> "A woman's heart is as changeable as the weather in spring" <S> - Japanese proverb <S> "Why, what mere children are your fellows of quality; that cry for a plaything one minute, and throw it by the next! -- <S> as changeable as the weather , and as uncertain as the stocks." <S> The Clandestine Marriage , George Colman <A> First, you mention "mood" in your title, but the definition uses the words "a health condition or symptom." <S> So I get the feeling that meteoropathy might be used more for joint pain and migraines than irritable moods (although one can often cause the other). <S> Second, you are right, meteoropathy is a little-known and little-used word. <S> Wikipedia lists it under a more common term that might be more recognizable to some: weather pains . <S> That said, articles such as this one have a longer list of possible symptoms that fall under the meteorpathy umbrella, including: migraines, headaches, dizziness, nausea, fainting, pains in the field of old injuries, rheumatic pains, and muscle aches... fatigue, irritability, mood swings, apathy, lethargy, decreased concentration, coordination and thinking, and sleep disturbances. <S> I can't think of a common replacement word, though I will say that I've had a few friends who have been known to say things like: <S> My knee is acting up again. <S> Rain must be coming soon . <S> My back is telling me a thunderstorm is coming. <S> I'm getting a headache. <S> Makes sense, with this clouds rolling in.	A common term in Canada for when our moods are dictated by the weather is seasonal depression .
What does "As in" mean here? “Didn’t you hear me? A bride, Cinder. As in, a princess.” “As in, not going to happen. He’s only, what? Nineteen?” Source I looked it up, and it seems to mean "for example" or "such as"; but here, I believe it could mean "maybe" or "possible". <Q> It's a totally new technology, as in , "you shouldn't buy it at any price". <S> Wait at least until they've patched all the bugs. <S> In your example Cinder repeats "as in" to sarcastically refute Peony, by restating what she said as a contrary opinion. <A> Here the phrase simply means to be more precise , or in the sense of . <S> Didn’t you hear me? <S> A bride, Cinder. <S> More precisely , a princess. <S> He’s only, what? <S> Nineteen? <S> The second person apparently speaks with a sarcastic tone. <A> Originally, "as in" was used to resolve an ambiguity by citing a phrase in which the word appears: "He was vulgar, as in 'a vulgar joke'": that is to say "I am using the adjective 'vulgar' in the way that it is used in the phrase 'a vulgar joke', and not as it is used in the phrase 'the vulgar name of a plant'". <S> By extension, the meaning of the word could be explained by reference to a phrase in which it does not actually appear: "She was big, as in 'obese'". <S> Your example, "A bride, as in 'a princess'" suggests to me " <S> By that I don't just mean she's getting married. <S> I mean she's living a Disney fairy tale". <S> But I might be wrong: context is everything! <S> For the second example "As in, not going to happen", I think I would need to see the preceding sentence to understand exactly what it means. <S> Perhaps: "An asteroid strike is unlikely. <S> As in, not going to happen". <S> Meaning "it's highly improbable, sufficiently improbable that you can work on the assumption that it's not going to happen."	In the context of your example, "as in" is a slang-y equivalent to "in other words" or "to say it a different way". I think you meant it in the sense of , not going to happen. She's ridiculously smart, as in , a complete genius.
Do the meanings of statements in both pairs differ? I am being visited by my grandchildren in two weeks. I am going to be visited by my grandchildren in two weeks. and The museum is being visited by millions of people next year. The museum is going to be visited by millions of people next year. <Q> I am going to be transferred to the London office next week. <S> I am being transferred to the London office next week. <S> and The London office is being renovated next year. <S> The London office is going to be renovated next year. <A> This present progressive form is not common in daily usage. <S> When used it more often than not is used for negative emphasis. <S> "I am being visited by ghosts". <S> In addition to @Lambie's comments... <S> 1 <S> My grandchildren are visiting in 2 weeks 2 <S> My grandchildren are going to visit in two weeks. <S> In two weeks my grandchildren are visiting. <A> However, it isn't universally equivalent to the future tense used in the second sentence of each pair (e.g. "going to be visited). <S> The first sentence of the second pair sounds very awkward at best. <S> The distinction I make is that, when making a present progressive statement qualified with a time, it should also be accurate to make that statement without the time clause once that time is "now". <S> From the first example that becomes I am being visited by my grandchildren <S> Which is entirely valid and communicates what was expected, that the speaker's grandchildren are currently visiting. <S> On the other hand, The museum is being visited by millions of people while technically valid, the implication there is "millions of simultaneous people" rather than "millions of people over the span of 1 year" that the second version indicates. <S> A similar construction which is valid might be: <S> The museum is being visited by a travelling Van Gogh exhibit next year <S> While it's possible that the statement isn't true for the entirety of the following year, at some point the exhibit visits and then the statement " <S> The museum is being visited by a travelling Van Gogh exhibit" becomes true, accurate, and has the intended meaning. <S> In other words, the construction of a statement in the present progressive tense plus a qualifying time means "At the qualifying time, this statement will be true" <A> Using present tense to express future is not the best choice in English. <S> Both sentences numbered "1" sound awkward. <S> "to be going to" is a dedicated / known / agreed expression to suggest future, so it is safe. <S> Future tense to express future is the best.	Practically speaking, these tenses mean the same thing. The construction of a present progressive verb (e.g. "being visited") plus a future time (e.g. "in two weeks") is a valid English construction indicating a future event.
Which is the correct prepostition to use with 'take revenge'? He decides to take revenge on her. He decides to take revenge of her. He decides to take revenge from her. Which preposition should I use in this example? <Q> The correct choice is the first one: <S> "He decides to take revenge on her." <S> The others sound strange and incorrect. <S> I don't think there is any rule involved here except that prepositions are closely tied to verbs in phrases with specific meanings. <S> The other two phrases have no recognized meaning: "take revenge of someone" "take revenge from someone" <S> Even the synonym "vengeance" uses the same preposition. <S> You would also say "take vengeance on someone" <S> However, there's a phrase using "revenge" with "for" that means something different: "take revenge for something" or "take revenge on someone for something" <A> You might also use the term "take revenge against" which has an emotional tone that makes it more emphatic. <A> Unless it is clear from the context, doesn't "taking revenge against someone/something implicitly require some level of specificity via a prepositional for to clarify what the grievance is or why the action is being taken so emphatically?	You can't change the preposition without changing the meaning of the phrase.
I was going to you? I just want to ask if I was planning to go to someone and in the same minute he show up what is the suitable thing to say?Is it I was going to you?Thank you.. <Q> You would simply say I was just going to <S> see you. <S> using " just " indicates in the same moment they arrived. <S> but you need to mention what you were about to do. <S> You could also say <S> I was just about to go to you. <A> Any of these could work: <S> I was just going to try and find you! <S> I was just leaving to go look for you. <S> I was on my way to come see you. <S> I was about to head your way. <S> (several other variants might work fine, too) <A> Let's say that you have asked a friend who is very good at math for help with a calculus problem. <S> It is your intention to stop by her library carrel, since you don't want to inconvenience her by also asking her to come to you. <S> But she shows up at your library carrel. <S> Then you might say, Thanks so much for dropping by. <S> I was going to come to you. <S> I didn't mean for you to have to come to me. <S> going and coming are usually deictic, expressing the speaker's point of view, but that point-of-view can be reversed in situations where politeness and deference come into play, for example.	If someone calls you that you were about to call, you would say I was just about to call you.
What is the meaning of "When I'd fall into one of them strange sleeps"? What is the meaning of "When I'd fall into one of them strange sleeps" in the following sentences (Source: PINK and SAY by Patricia Polacco), My leg burned and was angry from the lead ball that was lodged in it just above my knee. I felt sleepy and everything would go black. Then I'd wake up again. I wanted to go back to our farm in Ohio and sometimes, When I'd fall into one of them strange sleeps , I'd be there with my Ma, tastin' baking powder biscuits fresh out of her wood stove. ? Does "When I'd fall into one of them strange sleep" mean "When I'd become one of them, and I'd have a strange dream(sleeps)" ? <Q> Them here is employed to mean those , so the speaker is referring strange sleeps to the antecedent everything would go black . <S> The usage is very common in many British and American dialects; it is non-standard and is often employed in fiction to mark the speaker as uneducated. <A> It really ought to be "One of <S> those " sleeps" but often colloquial speech is used in literature when written in the first person. <S> The meaning intended by saying "I'd fall into one of them sleeps" rather than simply "I'd fall into a sleep" is to imply to the reader firstly that there is something notable about the sleep, and secondly that you are familiar with the kind of sleep the narrator is referring to - either because you have likely experienced something similar yourself, or because the narrative has already discussed details of their own experience before and are calling back to it. <S> In a similar way you may hear people say "it's been one of those days" to imply a bad, or unusual day. <A> People speak how they speak. <S> That is a fact. <S> The grammar is some kind of regional speech but also marked as ""uneducated" where them is used instead of those. <S> It is very commonly heard in the southern US and certain regions of the UK and Ireland. <S> The question was: Does "When I'd fall into one of them strange sleep" mean "When I'd become one of them, and I'd have a strange dream(sleeps)" ? <S> To fall asleep, to have a sleep. <S> To fall into a strange sleep=to have an experience when sleeping that is strange.	No, it means the person falls asleep and it is a strange sleep where the character experienced life as it was at home.
Grammar of titles - wh-clause vs. question I found an article with the title: Why We Listen to Music This seem somewhat incomplete to me, because "why we do something" is usually used as the subject of dependent clause like "This is why we listen to music." I found another article titled as follows: Why Do We Listen to Music? The second one sounds fine for me. My questions are these: Is "Why We Listen to Music" grammatically correct? What's the difference between "Why We Listen to Music" and "Why Do We Listen to Music"? Thanks in advance. <Q> Why we listen to music is a noun phrase. <S> Why do we listen to music? <S> is a well-formed question. <S> Either could work as the title of an article, say, or a blog post. <S> Titles are not required to be well-formed sentences, but they can be. <S> The Cat in the Hat <S> For Whom the Bell Tolls <S> Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? <S> I Saw What You Did <A> Why We Listen To Music = <S> The Reason We Listen to Music versus: Why Do We Listen To Music? <S> = <S> A question. <S> Titles of written texts (books or articles) can be quite complicated. <S> In the examples above, one is in question form, a typical magazine style , and one is in statement form, which also happens to be a full sentence. <S> That does not mean that all magazine-type titles are always full sentences. <S> On the contrary, they often are not. <S> They can be a dizzying combination of nouns, verbs and adjectives, and most often are not a full sentence. <S> However, they are grammatical. <S> For example: World War II: <S> Survivors' Stories Titles (unless some unusual style is used, as can in found in some contemporary publication) use upper case letters for main words and lower case letters for words like of , in or a/an . <A> I don't think the answers sufficiently cover "What's the difference between "Why We Listen to Music" and "Why Do We Listen to Music"?". <S> It's possible that it should simply be a separate question, but I'll explain the difference here anyway. <S> The title of an article, in broad strokes, is an indication of what the content of that article is. <S> An article titled "Why We Listen to Music" implicitly claims that the primary cause for humans listening to music is explained within the article. <S> If the article does not come to a confident conclusion about the primary reason or reasons for Listening to Music, then the title is deceptive. <S> On the other hand, an article titled "Why Do We Listen to Music?" only indicates that some work was done to try to find out the answer. <S> Such an article could list competing theories or original research even if the results aren't conclusive. <S> The title would only be inaccurate if reasons for listening to music are not the focus of the article at all. <S> Generally speaking, any article which could reasonably have the previous title would work with this one as well. <S> The choice between them is otherwise mostly stylistic, and there are any number of other ways the same information could be written. <A> As a title I don't think it has to be "grammatically correct" any more than a person's name has to be. <S> "Why do we listen to music?" <S> is simply asking the question with no implied promise to answer it.	"Why we listen to music" is the title of a piece of writing implying that it will tell you why we listen to music.
Are body parts like thighs, hips etc. considered private parts too? When we use the phrase 'private parts' do we refer to 'thighs' also or this phrase only refers to parts like urinary organ, hips, etc? <Q> (plural noun) <S> euphemistic: <S> A person's genitals. <S> Which are : the sexual organs; the testicles and penis of a male or the labia, clitoris, and vagina of a female. <S> Private parts may also include the anus, perineum, pubic-area, nipples and possibly breasts - depending on the person speaking. <S> The phrase is also sometimes shortened to just privates . <S> This means that the thighs and hips are not commonly included in the meaning of the phrase. <S> If referring to wanting to keep these other areas covered, a general phrase in common use is: Not wanting to show too much skin <S> Which implies wearing clothing that covers areas such as the hips, thighs, legs, shoulders and chest (depending on which areas the person considered private to them). <A> In the English-language children's book <S> "Your Body Belongs To You" , the term "private parts" is described as being "all those parts covered by your bathing suit". <S> This is a simple, broad definition to which we all can relate. <S> It also respects the culture in which someone lives. <S> Which I think matters, particularly for women. <S> Compare for example bathing in Cleopatra's Bath in Egypt, vs the sunny shores of Perth, Australia. <S> So, to your question, does it include thighs and hips <S> I'd say: it depends. <S> Gender, culture, and personal preference define what's private and what's not, and you need to consider the nuances when using this term. <A> The expression private parts only refers to a person's genitalia. <S> That would typically be the penis in the case of a male and the vulva in the case of a female. <S> This means that other body parts such as thighs, hips etc. are not considered private parts. <S> They are body parts, but not private. <S> Private parts are supposed to be completely private. <S> That is, no one should see them when you're in public. <S> For example, when you're at the beach, are the people there generally able to see your thighs and hips? <S> I would think so. <S> But they're not able to see your private parts because they're hidden under the swimming trunks that you're wearing.	Private parts is an euphemism for genitals.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.