source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Which word describes the freedom from interference? I usually see people using "privacy" to describe the freedom from intrusion, however this definition does not necessarily includes the interference into a person's matters, only the observation of it. For example, look into someone's private life without consent is a violation of privacy, but changing someone's private life without consent is not. Which word would better describe the latter? Example sentences: I want to move to a my own place to have more ___ since my mom moves the furniture in my room every other month. There is little ____ in a country where government interferes with your private life all the time. <Q> Try independence , autonomy , or self-determination . <S> Many teenagers demand independence , but without any of the responsibility that comes with it. <S> Also sovereignty , if you want to pretend you are a self-ruled nation/state. <S> North Korea has frequently asserted that UN sanctions intended to curb its development of nuclear weapons are a "violent violation" of its sovereignty . <S> My oh-so clever son, on turning fifteen, declared his room to be a sovereign territory and warned that any unauthorized entry could spark a diplomatic incident. <S> (Edit) <S> From the dictionary: <S> Independence <S> (n): 2. <S> freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others. <S> Example: <S> In 1776 the American Colonies initiated what would eventually be a "War of Independence " to free themselves from British rule. <A> Sacrosanctity (Derived from sacrosanct ): : <S> most sacred or holy <S> : INVIOLABLE : treated as if holy : immune from criticism or violation ·politically sacrosanct programs <S> Inviolability / Inviolableness <S> (Derived from inviolable ): : <S> secure from violation or profanation · an inviolable law : <S> secure from assault or trespass : <S> unassailable · inviolable borders <A> Another option is serenity <S> which means: serenity: a lack of agitation or disturbance. <S> And my last suggestion would be peace which is defined as: peace: calm and quiet; freedom from worry or annoyance.
| You can use discretion which is defined as: discretion: choice, or the right to make a choice, based on judgment.
|
Idiom for "I have just finished a great job and I'm proud" What is an idiom of: "I have just finished a great job and I'm extremely proud of that" For example, I had been building a house for 20 years and finally built it (and want everybody to know) I thought "I've done it!" will do, but Google seems not to confirm that. Is there a simple idiom (just an exclamation)? <Q> From AussieEnglish.com (but as they say in that link, it would be familiar to Anglophones everywhere)... <S> to nail [it / something] <S> if you nail something or you nail it in a figurative sense it means that you have completed a task successfully, perfectly, impressively , or you’ve gotten something correct, you know, you’ve gotten something right. <S> Note - using this idiomatic expression <S> (as in I've nailed that tricky job ) <S> doesn't inherently include the sense of ... <S> and I'm proud of having done so , but in practice that would always be implicit. <A> In English we use a French word: voilà! <S> In context, its meaning is something like "I've done something pretty good, if I don't say so myself!" <S> or "What I've done is admirable, wouldn't you agree!" <S> You will actually encounter the word spelled wa-la by speakers who have heard it used but have never read it, or if they have read it, have not recognized it. <A> In British casual usage, to emphasise that the task was not merely completed (as "I've done it" might be taken to mean) but done well in a way satisfying to the speaker, people might say I've aced it, I've smashed it, and further intensification is possible by preceding the verb with 'totally', 'completely', etc. <S> 8 guaranteed ways to totally smash your ‘to do’ list in 2015 <S> How I Smashed Out My Christmas Shopping <S> In Two Hours <S> Since starting with Sustain, I've totally smashed my goals <S> his sassy kid totally aced his maths test <A> If I have just completed a twenty-year task, my exclamation would most likely be "Finally!", or perhaps "At last!" <S> If it's not a long, protracted project then the phrases like "Nailed it!" <S> or even "Yesss" would be appropriate. <S> On short-term achievements I occasionally say "D*mn, I'm good!" <A> there you go : <S> You're doing that well or correctly; nice job. <S> Example: <S> There you go! <S> I knew you'd get the hang of it eventually! <S> This is the context provided by the OP: <S> Say, I had been building a house for 20 years and finally built it <S> Well, then in that case, you could say something like this: Finally done! <A> With the caveat that it has acquired an ironic connotation , mission accomplished is appropriate for completing a long effort. <A> (It's) done and dusted . <S> adjective, not comparable <S> <S> (Britain, idiomatic, of a task) Completed thoroughly and satisfactorily. <S> Wiktionary <A> In American English, we don't have much in the way of idioms for this, as the previously answers demonstrate: " <S> nailed it" is Australian, I gather "done and dusted" is British, and "voila", from the French, is not really conventional English usage for what you have in mind. <S> When I completed the requirements for my graduate degree, and got the letter saying I had been approved for graduation, I posted to social networking the single word "Approved" and a photo of the letter. <S> Everyone got it, and the congratulations came pouring in. <S> There was no idiom that struck me as more appropriate than that. <A> My Dad would always say "that was a home run" after finishing a big project well or faster than expected. <S> Obviously, this comes from baseball. <A> 'Sorted!' <S> As SE doesn't like pithy answers, I'll share a story of my late friend 'Kip' Carpenter, creator of the 'Catweazle' character and TV series. <S> He was looking for a wrap-up line for another script. <S> Eventually someone suggested 'Sorted!'. <S> And it was. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catweazle <A> You raise your fist to the sky and shout "Excelsior!" <S> It's an English modification of a Latin word and has been used for more than two centuries.
| "I've done it!" has exactly the meaning you are looking for.
|
Does the phrase "Whatcha gonna do about it?” have a negative (or aggressive) meaning? I know "Whatcha gonna do about it?" is a slang term and means "What are you going to do about it" but I'm confused about its meaning in the text below: At first he watched the younger boys with wary concentration, then he began to bait them. It wasn’t obvious aggression, just small provocations. He might flick off a boy’s hat or knock a soda can from his hand and laugh as the stain spread over the boy’s jeans. If he was challenged—and he usually wasn’t—he would play the part of the ruffian, a hardened “Whatcha gonna do about it? ” expression disguising his face. But after, when it was just the two of us, the mask lowered, the bravado peeled off like a breastplate, and he was my brother. — Educated by Tara Westover Could you explain if it has a negative (or aggressive) meaning? <Q> Absolutely. <S> “Whatcha gonna do about it?” <S> is an idiomatic rhetorical question ; the implication is always that "you" (the person so addressed) can't do anything about it. <S> It is the equivalent of saying, "Yes, I did do that objectionable thing to you and I will continue to do that objectionable thing to you, and you can't stop me ." <S> When said in earnest (i.e. not done in an obviously joking way) it is a very hostile, very aggressive, and, above all, very domineering thing to say. <S> It literally asserts dominance. <A> Yes it definitely can and mostly will, but it can also in some terms have a joking and slight playful teasing tone/ <S> meaning to it as well. <A> The example is about an expression held on his face, a passive reaction, which is perhaps challenging or defensive – but not aggressive or negative. <A> He might flick off a boy <S> ’s hat or knock a soda can from his hand and laugh as the stain spread over the boy’s jeans . <S> If he was challenged—and he usually wasn’t—he would play the part of the ruffian, a hardened “Whatcha gonna do about it?” <S> expression disguising his face. <S> This is the typical behavior of a bully . <S> That does not mean the expression would only be used here. <S> If I say to you here, "You may not like my comments but really what are you going to do about it?" <S> , what do you think? <S> It is probably aggressive. <S> If I say to you, "You didn't report the thief and now he has stolen your money. <S> What are you going to do about it?" is not aggressive. <S> Finally, the fact the author uses a common spelling for this phrase to mimic the real speech of a young macho-acting young man suggests even more strongly that his behavior is mean and nasty. <S> She also uses the entire phrase as an adjective. <S> The speech sounds like a snarl. <S> And snarling is part of the bullying scenario.
| It is a mocking or intimidating insinuation that one is powerless to stop the person doing the thing.
|
Is this sentence confusing? I found this sentence in a New York Times article : They rented not so much a home as a fraction of one. It seemed confusing to me that I spent minutes trying to understand it. And here are my versions which I think are better: They didn’t rent a home so much as a fraction of one. They rented not a home but rather a fraction of one. Is the original meaning too confusing? And are my revisions ok? <Q> It's perfectly familiar (if somewhat stylised) phrasing, where the noun phrase construction not so much X as Y carries the highly specific implication <S> expected = <S> X, reality = <S> Y. <S> OP's first attempt at "improvement" (They didn’t rent a home so much as a fraction of one) doesn't work so well as the original because it erroneously links negating n't = not closer to the verb (rent) rather than its true referent (a home) . <S> That "misplaced" negation weakens the amusing/unexpected contrast intended by the writer, because it puts the "focus" in the wrong place. <S> To my mind, <S> the second rephrasing <S> (They rented not a home but rather a fraction of one) also falls short of the mark because it lacks any strong allusion to that "expectation vs reality" clash. <S> You can tell this by considering something like <S> I drive not a diesel but rather a petrol car . <S> Admittedly, that's rather affected phrasing, but the point is this construction can be used without implying that the speaker might have been expected to drive a diesel (feasibly the speaker only mentioned diesels at at simply because they'd been referred to earlier in the conversation). <S> TL;DR <S> : There's nothing syntactically "wrong" with either of OP's alternatives, but for a competent native speaker they're not so effective as the original. <S> And it may be worth pointing out that NYT's target readership is competent native speakers, not people who are learning English in later life. <A> At the most basic level, we can think of a house as a structure containing a bunch of rooms. <S> Metaphorically speaking, a fraction of a house would be just one or two rooms. <S> Then, what the passage is saying is that what they were renting was not so much of a house (the entire house), but a fraction of it. <S> Probably just a room. <S> So, they were most likely renting a single room. <A> I don't find the sentence confusing. <S> I understand it to be equivalent to the two sentences They didn't rent a home. <S> They rented a fraction of a home. <S> The context (a woman who rented a room + shared bathroom and shared kitchen) fits with this interpretation. <S> Your two glosses are also correct. <S> Cambridge have a dictionary definition of not so much sth as sth
| Native speakers wouldn't find the original sequence from NYT at all "confusing".
|
Is it correct to say "Mother is my life"? I need this phrase for some design as today is Mother's day. Basically, I want to say: My mother is my life. This is the graphic I designed which inspired me Is “My mother is my life” grammatically, morally, ethically right to say this? Mother is a very important person for everyone. So I don't want to make a mistake while using such phrase. I am asking this because I couldn't find Google search results for this phrase. Is it correct to use it? <Q> Grammatically, your sentence is fine. <S> Morally and ethically, I don’t think you will find too many people who will argue that it’s wrong to honor your parents – especially on Mother’s Day. <S> The phrase “is my life” implies that you are pouring your energy into something. <S> If a mother of three young children were to say, “My children are my life,” that sounds more accurate, as most mothers of toddlers need to invest a lot of energy into taking care of their children. <S> It’s a demanding and tiring job. <S> Most adults don’t usually invest the same kind of energy into taking care of their parents, unless perhaps their parents are becoming elderly and infirm. <S> So, in my mind, the phrase is grammatically okay, but <S> I think you risk using flowery language that sounds more overstated than accurate. <S> For that reason, I like some of the alternatives suggested in another answer, or <S> you could simply say: <S> My mother is very important to me. <S> I am so thankful for my mother. <A> My mother is my life <S> is OK, especially if you mean my whole life is my mother, I live my mother . <S> Note that a person who is very religious might say The Church is my life . <S> It means the Church always comes first and there is nothing more important than that. <S> If you have a meaning like that on your mind, of course you are free to use the phrase <S> My mother is my life . <S> Here are a few alternatives which you might like to consider: <S> My mother is my everything / my angel / my treasure. <S> There is no other like my mother. <S> My mother is my hero. <S> My mother is the most important person in my life. <S> Happy Mother's Day, everyone! <A> I typed "Mother is my life" into Google and got 42 hits. <S> If you surround text with quotes Google looks for an exact match. <S> Many of these show "My mother is my life", but the phrase is equally applicable (fine) without "My". <S> Definition of 'be one's life' phrase [VERB inflects] <S> The Church is my life. <S> Collins Dictionary <A> "Mother is my life" means your mother. <S> It is grammatically correct but it is not contextually or culturally correct for Mother's Day or as a form of praise. <S> If you are trying to thank your mother, it is not a good idea to make comments that sound as if you are talking to someone about your mother, which is what your sentence sounds like. <S> If it's Mother's Day, you want to address her directly. <S> And that phrase is not right in terms of direct address. <S> It is very, very weird in the English-speaking world to say that. <S> Over-attachment to mothers is a serious psychological condition. <S> The movie Psycho by Hitchcock is an extreme example of this phenomenon. <S> I do not want to write the card for you to your mother, but I suggest you find another sentence. <S> However, the sentence might sound more like: "Mother, you are a very important person for me." <S> In any case, I would use direct address and not indirect address. <S> Many times one sees these endearments starting with thanking a mother : "Thanks for being such a great Mother!". <S> "Thanks for being my mother!". <S> "Mother, you're the best!".
| Of all the ways of saying your mother has played an important role is getting you to a certain point in your life or how important she has been, that is not the phrase to use . That all said, I do think the phrase might sound a little bit awkward, depending on what you are trying to say. If you say that something or someone is your life, you are emphasising that they are extremely important to you.
|
"Do you have English?" and "Do you know English?" Are these questions natural? "Do you have English?" "Do you know English?" In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXhDlYREJyo at 0:26, the subtitles read "Do you have Irish". Is that structure used only in Ireland? I also remember hearing an American person who is not uneducated say "Do you know English" to an Italian person. <Q> The simple way to express this idea is "I speak English", or "I know English". <S> Since knowing something is equivalent to having that knowledge you could say, for example, "I have a little Irish". <S> when speaking in English. <S> It would be better to stick to the specific verbs "speak" or "know". <S> So while "I have English" is possible, it is not the recommended way of expressing this concept. <A> Question 1: <S> No, "Do you have English" is not correct. <S> It could however be argued that it's part of Hiberno-English and thus acceptable. <S> Either way, learning to say this isn't advisable. <S> Question 2 <S> : One expects this structure to be exclusive to Ireland, where it is commonly used (especially in Western regions). <S> Why? <S> As Ireland transitioned from being Irish-speaking to English-speaking, certain words, phrases etc. <S> were naturally carried over, but also syntax. <S> The standard way of asking this question in Irish is: An bhfuil Bearla agat? <S> The literal translation is: <S> "Is there English on you?" <S> However, because there isn't a word in Irish equivalent to "have" <S> *, this same syntax is used and this could equally be translated as: <S> Do you have English? <S> This persisted and is still in use today along with many other examples that sound perfectly natural to an Irish person but strange to anyone else. <S> *Or several other obviously useful things like "Yes", "No", or "Thanks" <A> As a native English speaker (but not a language professional) <S> "Do you know English?" <S> This would be a perfectly reasonable way to ask someone if they know a language. <S> " <S> Do you speak English? <S> " is far more common though. <S> "Do you have English?" <S> This is just weird, a language is something you know <S> not something you have. <S> Googling the phrase reveals a bunch of results but most of them are the sequence of words as part of a larger sentence where "English" is acting as an adjective.
| It would sound a little strange for a person to say "I have a little English."
|
Is there any word for "re-act?" Not as in "reaction" but as in "to act again." Example sentence: He wanted to re-acted his part of the script. I tried searching re-act on the Internet. But I only got react . <Q> Yes, re-act is spelled with a hyphen specifically to avoid confusion with <S> react <S> and it means <S> To act, do, or perform a second time. <S> The Oxford English Dictionary calls it a "rare" word. <S> Nevertheless, it has an example usage from the Times (London) from 2007: <S> If you owned both a green carpet and a stripey cat, you could re-act classic scenes from Life On Earth in your own home. <S> So, feel free to use it. <S> In context, it should be clear what it means. <A> Although you can use re-act in that sense (it's more the prefix re applied to the word act ), the explicitly defined word is reenact : 1 : to enact (something, such as a law) again 2 : to act or perform again 3 : to repeat the actions of (an earlier event or incident) <A> One could limit the scene to 8 lines of dialog per player. <S> Then ask the players to replay the scene
| You can use replay as in:
|
What do you call income and fixed expenses in a single word? Every month we all have got income (e.g. salary, dividends) and fixed expenses (e.g. rent, transport). I am a programmer and in this domain these two entities are the same, except the income is a positive value while the expenses are negative ones. My question is: what word can be used to characterize both concepts of income and fixed expenses? For example the word animal might mean a dog and a cat as well. And what single word does connote both income and fixed expense? In other words, what do you call the income and fixed expenses you have got monthly in a single word? <Q> Income and expenses are both "accounts". <S> I'm not sure if that works for you because other things are "accounts" also, like liabilities and capital. <S> If you mean a word that includes income and fixed expenses and nothing else ... I don't think there's a generally-accepted term for that. <S> It's like your "animal" example: dogs and cats are both "animals", but there are other kinds of animals too. <A> A little late here, but <S> "cashflow" would fit nicely here and is a term commonly used in business/personal finance. <S> Cashflow refers to the movement of value (or "flow of cash"), with positive and negative cashflow referring to the value coming into or going out of an account. <S> This includes both literal cash (e.g. coins/notes flowing in and out of a till) and digital cash (e.g. bank transfers and investments). <S> Note that cashflow is distinct from the currently accepted "account" answer, since cashflow refers specifically to the movement of wealth into/out of/between accounts (accounts being the place that cash is stored). . <A> Household economy = family finance : <S> State of income and expense of one house. <S> I must do a part time job to help family finance.
| If you need a word that INCLUDES both income and expenses, than "accounts" is the most likely word.
|
Can "How soon" be used with the past tense? If not what would be an alternative for it? How soon will you get back home? I am sure this question is correct. Can we ask if how soon you took to get back home or How soon did you take to get back home? <Q> Yes, you can use how soon in the past, but it is not very common. <S> If you asked somebody "how soon did you get back home?", you would be implicitly putting yourself into the story alongside the person you were questioning. <S> The information you are asking for would be the same as if you said "How quickly did you get back home?", but by using the forward-looking word "soon", you would be conveying something like "I'm imagining myself being back there with you". <A> No, you can't use "how soon" for the past. <S> It is used for the future. <S> In your examples "how long did it take you to get back home?" <S> would be correct, I think. <A> Can we ask if how soon you took to get back home <S> or How soon did you take to get back home? <S> Not exactly the way you have stated. <S> Here are various alternatives: <S> How long did it take to get back home? <S> How long did it take you to get back home? <S> It took you how long? <S> Choice #3 is only to demonstrate the word "took" which you had mentioned.
| It doesn't fit with your examples, because how soon is an "at what time" kind of question, not a "how long" kind of question.
|
What does "ducked into an arched doorway heading for the subway - and got lost..." mean in this passage? I turned into Grand Central from Vanderbilt Avenue, and went down the steps to the first level, where you take trains like the Twentieth Century. Then I walked down another flight to the second level, where the suburban trains leave from, ducked into an arched doorway heading for the subway --- and got lost. That's easy to do . I've been in and out of Grand Central hundreds of times but I'm always bumping into new doorways and stairs and corridors. This sentence referred to the man or trains?! I don't get the meaning clearly. If it referred to the man why he got lost if that is easy to do?! as mentioned in the bold sentence. The context is from the short story named " The Third Level " by Jack Finny. <Q> As @EllieK said, the sentence means that I turned into Grand Central from Vanderbilt Avenue, <S> I went down the steps to the first level, <S> I walked down another flight to the second level, <S> I ducked into an arched doorway, and I got lost. <S> (Of course the first item on the list means that he entered the station, not that he became the station.) <S> The speaker does not mean that finding his way is easy to do. <S> On the contrary, he means that getting lost is easy, because there are lots of doorways and stairs and corridors. <A> The sentence is presented as a list of things happening to the subject, which in this case is "I". <S> "I walked down...., <S> [I] ducked into.... <S> , [I] got lost...." <A> The paragraph describes the path that the writer took. <S> The highlighted sentence says that he entered a doorway that led to the subway. <S> You understand that a "subway" is an underground train? <S> So he went through a door that led to the subway station, presumably underground. <S> Then he got lost. <S> That is, he must have gotten lost in the subway station, or perhaps he was trying to get to the subway station but made a mistake and ended up somewhere else. <S> If it's not clear from the larger context, "Grand Central" means "Grand Central Station", a big train station. <S> I'd guess he's talking about Grand Central Station in New York City <S> but maybe there's another such station with the same or similar name somewhere else. <S> Either way, when he says, "that is easy to do", he means that it is easy to get lost. <S> "I got lost ... that is easy to do". <S> Read the next sentence about "always bumping into new doorways and stairs and corridors".
| Grand Central Station is a HUGE building, and he's saying that it's easy to get lost in this building because there are so many doorways and stairs and all.
|
Can I ask "with whom?" while the mentioned name of the person wasn't clear for example? My friend : I was there together with (Jon). I wanted to speak with him. I didn't hear well the name, or the name wasn't clear to me, and I asked him: Me : With whom? It that correct to ask this way or should I ask in full sentence such as: With whom was you there? or Did you want to speak with whom? <Q> I believe you're right, following this tip: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-complicated-as-you-might-think/ <S> You can replace Jon with "him" but not with "he". <S> So, to me, it's totally correct to ask "With whom?". <S> But if your friend says : Your friend: Jon was there together with me. <S> Then you reply: <S> You: <S> Who was there together with you? <S> But allow me to correct the two questions you might also ask. <S> I think it's better to say : <S> With whom were you together? <S> or You were together with whom? <S> (I don't think it's necessary to repeat "there".) <S> And, With whom did you want to speak? <S> or You wanted to speak with whom? <A> " With whom? " is fine. <S> We might note that many native speakers will say " With who? ", which is wrong but very common. <S> So it's common to add some "politeness" words, like, " <S> I'm sorry, with whom? <S> " Or to rephrase to explain the problem, like, "I'm sorry, I didn't catch the name." <A> " With whom " is grammatically correct, a little formal but that is acceptable. <S> You could improve your phrasing with some of the social language: <S> My friend : I was there together with (Jon). <S> I wanted to speak with him. <S> Me : <S> Sorry, I didn't catch the name. <S> With whom did you want to speak? <S> I've added an apology (I'm British, we say "sorry" a lot) <S> and I've cued the question with an explanation ("I did hear", <S> not "I heard but I don't believe it"). <S> It would be equally correct to ask "Who did you want to speak with?" <S> A full sentence here is more friendly. <A> Among friends, in casual speech, the vast majority of native speakers, without so much as a blink, would simply respond " <S> Who with ?" <S> On the other hand, in very formal (and academic) writing With whom did you want to speak? <S> Or slightly less formal <S> Whom did you want to speak with ? <S> Yes. <S> You can end a sentence with a preposition. <S> Yes, you can use the subject pronoun "who" even when prescriptivists tell you to use the object pronoun. <S> You're speaking to a friend, not to a poet laureate . <S> Whom may not be obsolete but it's certainly closer to death today than it was sixty years ago. <S> See Ngram who do you live with (blue line) with whom do you live (red line)
| An abrupt question like that might come across as rude, depending on how well you know the person, how formal this conversation is, etc.
|
Do "lettuce" and "let us" have the same pronunciation? I was watching a video about food and I feel that "lettuce" and "let us"are pronounced the same way, Am I right? If yes, what can I do to prevent confusion especially while dealing with customers? I'm not a native English speaker but I serve native speakers. <Q> I am British and I speak what is sometimes called Received Pronunciation or "BBC English", and for me, "lettuce" and "let us" <S> are definitely not homophones. <S> The final syllable of 'lettuce" rhymes with the -ice parts of justice, notice, avarice, etc, while 'us' is spoken to rhyme with bus, fuss, pus, etc. <S> This is also true of most UK regional dialects, with the possible exception of North East ('Geordie'). <S> British and US pronunciation of 'lettuce' audio samples <A> Yes, they do have the same pronunciation (at least by many people from California). <S> It's actually the basis of many puns. <A> In my idiolect, the last vowel in "lettuce" is \ɪ\, while the vowel in "us" is \ʌ\, so they aren't perfect homophones. <S> Even if they were, context should help distinguish them; for one thing, they are different parts of speech. <S> Also, "let us" in the sense of presenting a suggestion is generally contracted to "let's". <S> If you really want to distinguish them, you can move the \t\ to the second syllable of "lettuce" (leh-tice). <S> This isn't quite the standard pronunciation, but is more distinct. <S> And when saying "let us", you can pause between "let" and "us".
| To prevent confusion use "let us" or "lettuce" in the correct context.
|
A term for the ground the swimmer steps on coming out of the whatever water he was swimming in The example of a self-made sentence: He had to make a couple of fast strokes to reach the underwater ground to just feel sort of safe from a possible shark attack. Not that I ask for editing, it's the request for the term for the ground the swimmer steps on coming out of the whatever water he was swimming in. A bottom, ground, bed, floor--what it is, disregarding a body of water <Q> The idiomatic way to say that someone left the deeper water and swam to the beach is <S> He <S> swam quickly to shore . <S> P.S. <S> And having swum to shore, he's standing on the shore (the land along the edge of the sea, broadly construed) or on the beach (the sandy, rocky, shelly, and/or pebbly ground onto which the surf washes according to the tides). <A> "To reach the sandbank" is the phrase here in Australia. <S> It's a pretty common phrase, and is exactly what you describe. <S> I think you could also say "to reach the shallows". <S> Looking up "sandbank", it seems it is also known as a shoal, but that term is less familiar to me. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoal <A> There is a phrase used in English for what I think you're describing, but it's a verb phrase rather than a noun. <S> Here's a dictionary from Oxford Dictionaries, with some relevant examples: Reach the bottom of a body of water with one's feet or a pole. <S> Example sentences ‘My feet touch bottom … <S> It's cold in the water, but I'm warm.’ <S> . . . <S> ‘He finally struggled close enough to shore so <S> his feet could touch bottom , then he just stood there with the water lapping at his neck.’ <S> . . . <S> ‘Her feet touched bottom <S> and she stood up slowly, revelling in the water flowing from her as she rose from the pool.’ <S> If you wanted to use this phrase in your sentence, you could say something like He had to make a couple of fast strokes <S> so his feet could touch bottom , to just feel sort of safe from a possible shark attack. <S> You could probably just say " <S> so he could touch bottom", but using "his feet" clarifies that you don't mean that he swam down to the ocean floor (to be below the sharks, maybe). <S> Of course, to be actually safe from shark attack, your hero should really get all the way out of the water ( sharks can bite in very shallow water ), which (from the ocean) means on the shore or beach. <S> Two notes: It is possible to say that someone "touched bottom" when they swim down or sink to the bottom of a body of water that is over their head, but this should be clear from context. <S> Also, there's a different, figurative use of the same phrase to mean "go as low as you can" <S> (it's definition 1.2 in the same ODO entry; more often phrased as "hit bottom" in the US). <S> Again, this meaning should be clear from context. <A> I would say "the shallows" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/the-shallows <S> The shallows in Britisha shallow place in a body of water"At dusk more fish come into the shallows. <S> ""Thousands of little fish swim in the shallows" <S> He had to make a couple of fast strokes to reach the shallows to just feel sort of safe from a possible shark attack.
| Touch bottom is used when a swimmer is in water shallow enough that their feet can reach solid ground while their head is still above the water.
|
Why is "preventing" correct in this sentence? I have read this sentence In 1868, Sioux leaders signed a [a] treaty [b] preventing whites from [c] travelling through the Sioux [d] territorial " I know the answer is territorial, but I thought it had to be preventing. Could you explain to me? Why is "preventing" correct? <Q> You didn't say this, but I assume you are asking: I have been asked to identify which word is incorrect. <S> I have 4 choices - a, b, c and d. <S> The correct choice is "territorial". <S> Why is the correct answer "territorial" and not "preventing"? <S> Grammatically "territorial" should be "territory." <S> When you say "the", I believe the next word that should follow is a noun. <S> "Territorial" is an adjective. <S> So you can't say "the territorial". <S> "Territory" is a noun, so you can say "the territory". <S> "Preventing" is used correctly here. <S> If that doesn't make sense to you, try using one of these words: "forbidding", "disallowing", "stopping". <S> All of those words are similar to "preventing" in this context. <A> As “Words Like Jared” explains, “territorial” is wrong; that is the answer to the question. <S> However, “preventing” is also wrong. <S> The correct word is “prohibiting” (and delete “from”). <S> If the whites comply with [obey] the treaty, then they will not travel as described… but neither the treaty itself, nor the writing in it, actually prevents them from doing that. <A> Preventing ... <S> territorial is a participial clause modifying treaty . <S> It is introduced by the participle preventing . <S> I ignore the question of territorial which you make clear that you understand is wrong. <S> But what's probably confusing the other answerers is that you didn't say that the problem was identifying the error.
| I think the correct choice is "preventing".
|
The meaning of interpretation I need a word meaning that "explaining why something is as it is". An example sentence is "The dependencies can be ... in different ways." I feel that a good choice for me may be to use the word "interpreted". However, it is mentioned here that interpret means "to describe the meaning of something; examine in order to explain", while I need it to mean "to describe why something is as it is". Can interpret mean what I mean? In other words, according to dictionaries, interpret seems to be about what something means, while I want to use it about why something is as it is. Can it be used like that? For example, in a sentence like "We provide two different interpretations for the existence of these dependencies", in which we mean "We provide to different explanations for the existence of these dependencies" <Q> X means <S> x may be interpreted as X may be understood as The verb mean is used for hard-and-fast definitions or idioms, the kind you find in dictionaries. <S> Interpreted means there is no hard-and-fast rule for the thing or state or condition. <S> The verb understand can also be used like that. <A> It's difficult to understand the difference between "interpret" and what you need. <S> According to Cambridge Dictionary interpret to decide what the intended meaning of something is <S> In my opinion, interpret <S> got a sense of subjectivity , it may depend on opinions more than facts. <S> Someone has to decide, and he may be wrong. <S> If we are talking about mathematical or scientifical dependencies, it should be validated or demonstrated or verified . <S> You can have multiple forms of validating something but none of them depends on opinions. <S> If following that sentence, you are going to explain different approaches to describe those dependencies, just use described or explained and list those different forms of dependencies. <A> The dependencies can be explained in different ways. <S> We provide two different reasons for the existence of these dependencies.
| Yes, the verb interpret something as something can be used to describe something as found in some particular context.
|
What is the word for referring to the act of "putting" gas inside a container? You put a solid object into "something". You pour a liquid into "something". You ___ a gas into "something". With that "something" being a three-dimensional container large enough to hold the objects in question. What is the word for referring to the act of "putting" gas inside a container (for the lack of a better word)? Gas is ____ into a pistonless cylinder on a cold day. Would "filled" work in this case? <Q> Gas can be injected , and you can also inject a liquid. <S> So Gas is injected into a pistonless cylinder on a cold day. <S> I am not sure what is meant by a "pistonless cylinder", but if the cylinder has a piston the engine may be called "GTI" or "TDI" and in both cases the "I" stands for "injection". <A> What word you use depends on how exactly the gas is being moved into the container. <S> For example, it is possible for you to: <S> Pump the gas <S> Blow the gas <S> Pour the gas <S> (If the gas is heavier than the air around it, of course. <S> Solid things can also be poured if you have many of them, such as sand.) <S> etc. <S> A generic verb you can use is put , which is also used with liquids and gasses. <S> The verb fill would work if you are making the container full. <S> It can be used in these two ways (i.e. active and passive): <S> You fill the container with something <S> The container is filled with something <S> That "something" can be gas, liquid, or solid. <A> Gas can be "put" into a place by several ways. <S> Since gas responds to pressure differences, if the pressure drives the gas from place to place, you can say that the gas flows into a container. <S> There is no passive form for that, but you can say the gas is driven by the pressure. <S> If you use a pump to force gas into a chamber with a high pressure, then you pump or force the gas into it. <S> Another verb, used especially when the container has no gas initially, is fill . <S> You can fill a balloon with gas or fill gas into the balloon. <S> Note that in your question you assume that pour is used only for liquid, but you can also pour some solids that are granular, like sand, sugar, or wheat, and technically you can pour a heavier gas into a container which holds a lighter gas. <S> Pouring literally describes filling using gravity, and metaphorically can mean any flowing movement of substance or entities . <A> Compress : to reduce in size, quantity, or volume as if by squeezing compress <S> the air in a closed chamber <S> Therefore: Gas is compressed into a pistonless cylinder on a cold day. <A> Your question uses into but if you're also looking for a verb that would work with scenarios that would require to (i.e. a conduit rather than a receptacle): <S> Gas can be passed . <S> The gas is then passed several times into the pipette containing potassium hydroxide solution... <S> The gas is then passed over vanadium pentoxide catalyst in a packed bed column reactor in a single or double contact process... <S> The gas is then passed to a baghouse (or electrostatic precipitator). <S> Baghouses have higher removal efficiencies than precipitators. <S> Gas can also be sent into or directed into (something).
| You inject a gas into "something".
|
"Lie to me" or "lie next to me"? Tell me please if it is natural to say lie to me to a person when someone wants them to go up and lie with them in the bed, or would it be better to say lie next to me ? <Q> There are (at least) two verbs "to lie": lie(1): to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive lie(2): to be in a horizontal, recumbent, or prostrate position, as on a bed or the ground; recline. <S> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie <S> The phrase "lie to me" would be the first sense; in other words, "tell me something that is not true". <S> The phrase "lie next to me" (or "lie with me") is the sense you want. <S> (I won't touch on the wider problem of whether any of these are appropriate in any given social context!) <A> <A> While the meaning you intend is "lie next to me", the context you give would make this sound very odd. <S> It sounds like an oddly old-fashioned euphemism for "have sex with me". <S> It is unusual for people to share a bed unless they are in a sexual relationship of some kind. <S> Whether or not you are asking about sex, such matters need to be handled carefully and clearly, so nobody gets the wrong idea. <S> The expression "lie with me" or "lie next to me", while it carries the right meaning <S> is not sensitive or clear. <A> I'd like to add just a few words to the valuable comments given before mine. <S> You might like to consider "lie down next to me" as well (of course, don't forget about the importance of the context you decide to use this phrase in): <S> Lie down next to me, look into my eyes... <S> (from Take my Hand by Dido (0:15))
| If you want someone to recline next to you, or near you, you would say 'lie next to me' or 'lie with me'. You would only say 'lie to me' to someone if you want that person to tell you a lie (a falsehood).
|
in case I cramped her style? Is the following use of in case natural? We stored the apples in the fridge in case they should go rotten. She didn’t want me to go with her to the party in case I cramped her style. <Q> Is the following use of in case natural? <S> We stored the apples in the fridge in case they should go rotten. <S> Oh boy. <S> This is a usage I've heard fellow native speakers use, but always ones with poorer educations, and it always strikes me as sounding wrong – it is technically incorrect in a way which makes me think the speaker doesn't understand what "in case" means. <S> not "to prevent" or "so that it won't happen". <S> You probably wouldn't store the apples in the fridge so that, should the apples go rotten, they'll already be in the fridge, because you think it's a good thing for some reason that rotten apples be stored on the fridge. <S> Rather, you'd store the apples in the fridge to prevent <S> them going rotten. <S> (Or, I don't know, maybe you do want the apples in the fridge in case they go rotten, so they won't stink up the whole house when they do.) <S> She didn’t want me to go with her to the party in case I cramped her style. <S> This sounds somewhat more natural to me, and any native speaker will understand what it means perfectly, but, again, it sounds slightly off to me, because it's using "in case" to mean something other than "in the event". <S> Here, it's being used to mean, "because it might be that", and it's being used, as above, to describe preventing a case, not anticipating it. <S> Contrast: <S> She did want me to go with her to the party in case she didn't know anyone there. <S> Here, her desire for the speaker to go to the party is in anticipation of the situation that might arise at the party – the "case" – where it would be a good thing if she had someone she knew. <S> So in an important sense, the answer to your question is "yes, these are natural uses of 'in case'". <S> But in another sense, the answer is " <S> no, it sounds incorrect, and I don't recommend it. <S> " <S> I guess I would sum up by saying, "Don't do this in formal speech; save this for casual speech." <A> Yes, both of these are natural. <S> Here's a third example to supplement your two: <S> I wear my helmet when biking in case I fall. <S> These all work because "in case" means "in order to avoid or anticipate a situation". <S> This is also why we say "just in case" on its own to explain why we take a preventative measure. <S> You can even drop whatever outcome you don't want to happen. <S> Should I lock the door just in case? <S> Note that in your first example, drop "should". <S> In this sentence it marks the subjunctive and so is technically acceptable, but sounds pretentious. <S> Just use the indicative: in case they went rotten. <S> Also, some sentences will be more ambiguous than others. <S> When you stored the apples in the fridge in case they went rotten, was it to prevent them from getting rotten, or because you thought they might have gotten rotten already and wanted to put them in the fridge to avoid a further danger that has been left implicit (like in the door example)? <S> In the past tense it can be hard to tell. <A> The complement of in case is a statement that might be true or an an event that might occur (not an eventuality), and the main clause refers to something that should be done in light of that possible event or in light of the possibility that the statement is true. <S> Take your umbrella in case it rains. <S> It might rain, so take your umbrella. <S> The main clause properly has positive polarity. <S> These clauses with negative polarity strike my ear as marginal or ungrammatical. <S> Don't forget your umbrella in case it rains. <S> ungrammatical to my ear <S> Don't walk there barefoot in case <S> there's broken glass. <S> marginal <S> I'm not quite sure why the one sounds ungrammatical to me and the other sounds only marginal. <S> I think it has something to do with the main clause having, by implication, a positive semantic polarity, "wear shoes", by virtue of the negated qualifier barefoot . <S> Put the milk in the fridge in case it goes sour. <S> ungrammatical Put the medicine in the fridge in case <S> it needs to be kept cold. <S> grammatical <S> it goes sour <S> is an eventuality, not an event, when the meaning is not "it is capable of going sour" but "it should turn sour on us". <S> it needs to be kept cold <S> might be true.
| "In case" means "so that we're prepared if it should happen" or "in the event",
|
The difference between "of", "to" and "for" in these sentences What is the total cost of attending the seminar? What is the total cost to attend the seminar? What is the total cost for attending the seminar? Are all these sentences correct, and do they have the same meaning?If so then why does the first sentence have 'of', the second have 'to' and the third have 'for'? What are the rules for using different prepositions in a sentence? <Q> The choice of preposition in any context has been established over time and according to popular usage. <S> In some contexts, you may have a choice of several prepositions. <S> While most people would say: The cost/price of something.... <S> Native speakers also use The cost to do something and The cost for a service. <S> The choice generally depends on what you want to say <S> but it's equally valid to speak of: <S> The cost of this service, the cost for this service, the cost to carry out this service. <S> In other contexts, only one or two prepositions may be admissible, especially when they form prepositional or (phrasal) verbs such as listen to or apologise for . <S> https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prepositions-with-Verbs.htm <S> https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/quick-grammar/verbs-prepositions <A> All three are valid and mean the same thing. <S> This shouldn't be shocking per se. <S> There are often many ways to express the same idea. <S> Prepositions often have many different possible meanings so sometimes they overlap. <S> "Of" means "related to". <S> It is a very general preposition and can be used in many contexts. <S> In this case, the "cost of" something is the cost associated with that thing. <S> " <S> For" means "in favor of", as in, "I am for having cake"; indicates a goal or destination, "We headed for Cleveland", "I always strive for excellence"; or, as here, it indicates an amount or distance, "We ran for five miles", or "The cost for this thing is $5." <S> Both "of" and "for" are rather vague and general. <S> I just looked up dictionary definitions and each one has like 20 definitions. <S> Realistically, you might have to just memorize where each is used until you get a "feel" for it. <A> We are not choosing different prepositions willy-nilly. <S> Rather, the thing can be expressed in at least a couple of ways: attending the seminar attend the seminar <S> and we use of with the gerund, attending , <S> since it is a nominal, and to with attend since it is the infinitive. <S> Why do we use of with nominals and to with the infinitive? <S> The answer has to do with the meaning of of and to . <A> 1) <S> The cost of something = something's cost. <S> for example: the total cost of attending the seminar = <S> The seminar's total attendance cost Here "of" shows what the cost "belongs to". <S> 2) <S> The total cost to attend the seminar to is used as a function word there:—used as a function word to indicate purpose, intention, tendency, result, or endcame to our aiddrink to his health to as function word to indicate purpose etc. <S> 3) <S> The total cost for attending the seminar. <S> The difference is explained below. <S> for preposition\ fər, (ˈ)fȯr , Southern also (ˈ)fär\Definition of for (Entry 1 of 5)1a —used as a function word to indicate purposea grant for studying medicine for as function word to indicate purpose <S> Please note that in terms of usage: for is followed by the ing form of the verb and to is followed by the infinitive. <S> This is a general rule. <S> for and to can be used to mean different things as in the example in the sample sentence. <S> Below is an example where they differ in meaning. <S> Difference between function words "to" and "for" preceding a verb. <S> The cost for cleaning the office [where cleaning is an activity] <S> The cost to clean the office [where clean merely defines the purpose] <S> Now, one can also apply this to the example: - The total cost for attending the seminar [the activity of attending] <S> VERSUS - <S> The total cost to attend the seminar [the purpose of the cost] <S> Please note: in the examples given, the prepositions are not related to the verb calling for them. <S> Sometimes verbs do "take" this or <S> that prepositions for a particular meaning and may even be a phrasal verb. <S> But often also different prepositions are used for different grammatical purposes.
| Essentially , 2) and 3) mean the same thing in this particular case though technically one can differentiate them with regard to meaning. The only rule for the use of prepositions is that you have to learn them.
|
Are these sentences grammatically correct in formal and informal English? I had doubts on this so I asked this on Quora and Englishforums but to my surprise they gave conflicting answers. I want to know which of these sentences are grammatically correct in formal and informal Written & Spoken English. Even though these examples are quite a few, a few general points should encompass them all, I think. He is the patient and/(as well as) the doctor. He is both the patient and/(as well as) the doctor He is a patient and/(as well as) a doctor [too]. He, the patient and/(as well as) the doctor, is a good guy. The patient and the doctor is a good man. Now, I am quite sure that in all of these sentences, if we remove the second "the", the sentence would be grammatical but I want to know whether these sentences are grammatical at present . So, the most credible response I got was that all of these sentences are grammatically correct but the last one is 'odd' without some context. But he didn't say whether this is so for formal English too or just for informal English. On the other hand, most of the others said that these sentences are not grammatically correct because the second "the" in each of these sentences makes the phrase plural -- i.e., as if 2 persons were being referred to there. I countered that they seem to be valid examples of parallelism, but they said they're not. So, what is the truth here? I would really appreciate your help. EDIT: I'm totally ignorant about this. I don't know what place to look at to gain some knowledge regarding this. It would really help me if someone cites a website article or book where I can read up on this. <Q> The last is very odd, without context. <S> There are "and" phrases which we understand to mean a single item: Fish and chips is my favourite meal. <S> If I changed this to "Fish is my favourite meal, and chips are my favourite meal", the meaning has changed. <S> "Fish and chips" is a singular item. <S> Your example isn't like that. <S> So (5) is at least very odd, and I'd say ungrammatical. <S> The other are ok, but 4 is odd, and could probably be misunderstood, at least on first hearing. <S> As a rule of thumb, if you can split the sentence into two coordinate clauses then the subject is plural ( Source ). <S> However, the situation you describe is awkward, as is the producer/director one in the comments. <S> So avoid it if possible. <S> It is nearly always possible to rephrase. <S> This is a confusing situation, so more writing to explain would help. <S> I would write: <S> In his role as a doctor and as a patient, he is a good man. <S> "Role" is a key word here, it emphasises one man with two positions. <S> Don't say "The director and producer of the movie was not present." <S> Say "Speilberg was both producer and director, but he wasn't present. <S> " <S> It is hard to think of a situation in which you would have to use a plural subject as singular. <S> I don't recognise a rule based around articles. <S> The "rule" is "verb agrees with subject" and 1-4 all obey this rule. <A> Grammatically, there isn't anything wrong with your sentences. <S> You've simply chosen a vexing example (because doctors and patients are usually not one in the same person). <S> However, we can tweak your sentences and make them all work, by changing the roles and adding just enough context to make them all sound sensible: <S> He is the author and the illustrator of the book. <S> He is both the author as well as the illustrator. <S> He is an author and an illustrator, too. <S> He, the author as well as the illustrator of this book, is very talented. <S> The author and illustrator of this book is a very talented man. <S> Of course, if a different book was illustrated by someone other than its author, we could modify the last sentence so that it uses the plural: <S> The author and illustrator of this book are [both] very talented. <A> I'm going to paraphrase some of these comments into a different kind of response. <S> Using one or two articles does not, on its own, have anything to dowith something being grammatical or a subject being plural orsingular. <S> Making such a modification may change the sentence insuch a way, but it depends on the sentence —and how its meaning isreceived. <S> You may be able to add or remove a second article from a sentenceand <S> have it remain grammatical with the same meaning, but it dependson the sentence . <S> There is no "rule" that can be applied toevery situation. <S> The meaning of a sentence is not the same thing as the grammar of asentence. <S> A grammatical sentence can be ambiguous, having multiplemeanings: they are cooking apples . <S> A sentence can also benonsensical, having no meaning at all: colorless green ideas sleepfuriously . <S> Just because it is ambiguous or nonsensical does not make itungrammatical. <S> There is no single source that can be used to determine what happens when you do or don't use a second article. <S> (Or more than two articles.) <S> It's something that will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and knowing what happens in each case is a matter of learning many different rules of grammar and understanding various idiomatic usages.
| All of the sentences given in the question are grammatical—however,some of them are unusual.
|
'in the privacy of his kitchen.' what does it mean? I am trying to translate some fanfics to Korean. Anyway, I can't understand the meaning of the sentence. Looking Will in the eyes gives Hannibal a tranquility that he usually only knows in the privacy of his kitchen. It is entire sentence. I tried to google like this; 'know in', 'in the privacy of one's kitchen', 'in the privacy of one's own', but nothing came.What does it mean, is it a kind of idiom, or can I just translate it literally? <Q> It means that Hannibal's act of looking into Will's eyes makes Hannibal as tranquil as he feels when he is in the privacy of his own kitchen. <A> He is a gourmand who enjoys cooking with his victims' flesh. <S> So as a lover of food, the kitchen holds a special place, privacy is required for his preparations, and he derives a perverse tranquility from preparing human flesh. <S> Looking at Will (Graham) gives Lecter the same feeling as when he's serving up a dinner guest. <S> ... <S> Unless you mean a different Will and Hannibal. <A> "Know", in this instance, is referring to "tranquility", and it means "has experienced" or "is familiar with". <S> For some reason, Hannibal experiences remarkable tranquility in his kitchen (from what can only be guessed because I have no context). <S> When he(?) <S> (Hannibal) looks Will in the eyes, <S> he(?) experiences that same tranquility.
| The standard idiom would use "in the privacy of one's own home" to mean a safe space, but there is a meaning specific to the character Hannibal (Lecter). This a correct but somewhat rare usage of know to mean feel .
|
"Nice" in meaning of "beautiful" (externally) is correct? I always thought that the word " nice " can be also a synonym for " beautiful " (external beauty or external appearance)For example: She is nice = She looks good. but yesterday I was told by a non native English speaker that according to his native language dictionary (Ukrainian - see here ) the word " nice " doesn't refer to external beauty. Then I checked it out in Cambridge dictionary in order to prove that "nice" refers also for external beauty, but to my great surprise I saw that there is no any consideration about external beauty among its definitions for the word "nice". So I'm already not sure if this meaning to this word is correct or not. An example that simplify my meaning is: "There were two women there: one was fat and one was skinny. Who was nicer (=looks better)?" <Q> Nice generally means: Giving pleasure or satisfaction; pleasant or attractive. <S> But can also specifically mean: (of a person) <S> good-natured; kind. <S> That is, while you can absolutely describe a person as <S> nice to mean attractive looking - some people may interpret you meaning that they are kind or good-natured , and not focusing on their external beauty. <S> To be unambiguous, it's most common to state the element you think is <S> nice , otherwise most people's default (without surrounding conversation context) is to assume you mean <S> kind/good-natured : <S> She looks nice. <S> Who do you think looks nicer? <S> Otherwise some people may assume you are meaning: She is a nice person . <S> Which relates to her inner character. <S> Again, nice is such an overused/vague term in English - that it can be used to describe almost anything as having a positive/good quality. <S> In general, you will never be wrong to describe something you like as nice - whether it's looks, character or anything else. <S> With such vague terms (e.g. "good"), it is best to state the exact thing you like - to avoid ambiguity. <S> Although, to note, this is something native speakers can be bad at doing too. <A> As a native speaker, I can assure you that "she is nice" would be interpreted, at least in AmE, as she is "kind", "polite", "sweet", etc and not "she is good looking". <S> There are some contexts where "nice" might mean pretty, but it would more along the lines of "Hey, check out this picture of the girl I met last night" "Nice!" <A> “Nice” can refer to physical appearance in some contexts. <S> But a sentence like “She/he is nice” would not be understood as referring to appearance. <S> As mentioned in the comments, you would describe a person’s appearance with a sentence like “She/ <S> he looks nice.” <A> It rather depends on the context. <S> You wouldn't use the adjective "nice" to refer to a good-looking person, but this would be - in my view - a perfectly valid choice (albeit vague and overused) to describe objects. <S> She's got such a nice house!Your new car's very nice!
| Nice can be used to describe anything pleasant or attractive
|
Does "the other side of the receipt" sound natural in American English Kindly, look at the other side of the receipt. You will find a link through which you can rate our service. The aim of this sentence is to make a customer pay attention to the link because it is written on the other side of the receipt. Is the sentence correct, polite, and expressing the required meaning? Is the expression "The other side" accurate? I mean what do you call the golden side of the shown picture? Is it called back, back-side, flip the paper, or something else? <Q> It is almost never the case, however, <S> that information about the transaction is printed on both sides. <S> It is almost always printed on only one side, and the back is left blank or used for marketing messages, policy statements, coupons, and indeed, in this case the URL for a customer survey. <S> It would be far more customary to refer to the front and back of the receipt. <S> More importantly (in my opinion), kindly is not much if ever used by native speakers of American English to make requests except in very formal circumstances. <S> Please would be used almost exclusively for customer relations. <S> Please see the back of this receipt for a link to rate our service. <A> This is certainly understandable, though I would suggest that it could be made more direct and effective by giving the user a reason to turn over before asking them to. <S> As currently drafted, you're asking the user to turn over the receipt. <S> They might do that, then wonder why they did if they hadn't read the next sentence. <S> I would suggest rephrasing the sentence as: <S> To find a link through which you can rate our service, please turn over this receipt. <S> Alternatively, if you do want to refer to the back of the receipt and to be as direct as possible, respecting the user's time: To rate our service, please use the link on the back of this receipt. <S> If you're attempting to get as many users (customers?) <S> as possible to turn over the receipt, I would recommend trying multiple different messages with different links in a multivariate test. <A> The problem with using other is that it is too general and not specific. <S> Suppose I said: <S> Look at the other side of the receipt Which side am I referring to? <S> If you happened to be looking at the front, that would mean the back; if you are looking at the back, that comment would refer to the front. <S> Now, in your context, the word other would work, because the message is printed on one side of the receipt. <S> But I still think it sounds a little clumsy. <S> It's not rude, and it's not incorrect, but I think that this sounds much more polished and professional: <S> Look at the back of the receipt <S> There's one other advantage, too: you can use that same wording on a sign near the exit of your business, where the expression other side would not work as well: <S> Kindly look at the back of your receipt to find a link through which you can rate our service. <S> As a footnote, notice how I removed the comma after kindly . <S> We're not supposed to proofread here, but that comma really shouldn't be there.
| Yes, you can refer to the other side for something which is flat, like a receipt or other piece of paper, which has only one other side, or where there is only one other side of interest.
|
Is "toppest" not a word? My question was edited just now. The editor pointed out that: fixing grammar ("toppest" is not a word; I'm guessing you mean "uppermost") But I find it does exist after searching: it's in Urban Dictionary . Thesaurus.com also tells me toppest exists. Then, I searched in my local dictionaries, and strangely, nothing about toppest is found. My Chrome plugin Grammarly also tells me toppest is not a word and wants to change it to most top : Who is correct? If toppest exists, how is it different from uppermost ? <Q> Toppest is not a word in common usage: topmost or uppermost are recommended. <S> highest topmost <S> uppermost Highest follows the form you were originally wanting - the first thing is high, the second thing is higher and so the thing that is most high - is highest. <S> This works for high as it is describes a scalar quantity. <S> That is, you can be a certain amount of high - "very" high, "kinda high" etc. <S> As such, you can compare how high two things are in relation to each other (one may be higher than another). <S> It unfortunately doesn't work for top which describes a non-comparable position. <S> That is, you cannot be more top than something else - although one thing may be on top of another. <S> This is the same for words such as best , where you cannot be the bestest as you cannot be more best than somebody else (one of you is better <S> and so they are the best ). <S> uppermost and topmost are synonyms, <S> meaning: (uppermost) situated in the highest or most prominent position (topmost) highest of all <S> As these are absolute locations, they also can't be compared (you cannot have the topmostest , or uppormostest ). <S> They are relatively common terms, making it clear that you are talking about the absolute top of something - such as: <S> The topmost branches of the Scottish Pine <A> While toppest is certainly not a word in any standard dictionary, it's always possible for individuals to make up words for fun. <S> A good example of this is embiggen and cromulent , both created for use in the popular animated TV series "The Simpsons". <S> A noble spirit <S> embiggens <S> the smallest man! <S> Mrs. Krabappel: "Embiggens"? <S> Hm. <S> Never heard that word before I moved to Springfield <S> Miss Hoover: I don't know why. <S> It's a perfectly cromulent word. <S> These are not real words, but their meaning is clear in context, and as a satire of the English language. <S> A standard variation is tiptop , or the more juvenile version, <S> tippy-top : <S> He climbed to the very tippy-top of the mountain, and from there he yodeled mightily! <S> There are many standard words that mean the same thing: highest, uppermost, apex, zenith, acme, peak, pinnacle, summit, vertex and various others. <A> While I might accept toppest to be a word it would need to be some form that needs such a superlative and needs the word top to be there. <S> In your answer the correct term for the "toppest Reference" is "root" . <S> I could totally accept that you could recieve top marks in science and English but the toppest marks in math (changing that to uppermost would weaken the wit). <S> There's no reason in this case that top need to be there. <S> And the root of a heap is called the root, so it can't be any sort of jargon.
| Currently, toppest is not defined in any of the major dictionaries, and while the meaning can definitely be understood - it'd be recommended to use one of the following:
|
Meaning of "Killing someone dead" I've heard this sentence recently in season 1 episode 1 of the TV show "13 Reasons Why" at about 18:05: If you don't improve your language, I will kill you dead. What does “Killing someone dead” really mean? Note: This is often spoken in America. I've found no any satisfactory solution to this query on the web. <Q> killed him dead is a colloquialism/regionalism in English. <S> We do say things like: ... and <S> the outlaw shot the sheriff dead . <S> where dead is a complement describing the nature and effect of the action, shot , upon the sheriff. <S> Davy Crockett should be sufficiently merkun to serve as a quintessential example of its use in American English . <A> The expression "I will kill you (if you ...)" is certainly common, not just in the US but anywhere English is spoken. <S> It simply means "I will be very upset with you", but it's rarely taken as a serious threat on someone's life. <S> From your link to the Netflix series "13 Reasons Why": If you ever do something like that to your mother, I will kill you , you understand? <S> I will kill you dead . <S> I'm not sure of the context, but the father is certainly threatening the son with some kind of extreme punishment. <S> Again, it's not likely <S> the father will actually kill his son, but some kind of physical punishment is possible. <S> We understand this not from the language itself but from the tone of the comment, and the father's body language . <S> He's clearly upset, so the threat should be taken seriously. <S> On the other hand, it's possible to use this expression lightly or ironically. <S> For example, at a restaurant where the service is slow: I'm so hungry <S> I swear, if they don't deliver my food soon, <S> I'm going to kill someone. <A> As for your note, let me say this: I live in America, and I can tell you that I don't think I've ever heard this expression before. <S> I rarely hear people threaten to take other people's lives, especially for minor infractions such as not improving language. <S> That said, there is the expression, "I'll kill you," which is occasionally (not "often") used as hyperbole to mean, "I'll be angry with you." <S> For example: If you wreck my car while you're borrowing it, I'll kill you. <S> But this really isn't a threat about murder, it's more figurative, meaning: <S> I will be so upset if you wreck my car while you're borrowing it. <S> Adding the word dead to the phrase <S> "I'll kill you" makes it sound even more emotional and morbid. <S> I would caution learners against using such language unless it's obvious <S> you're not talking about really hurting someone. <S> A more safe (yet somewhat vulgar) alternative might be: <S> If you wreck my car while you're borrowing it, I'll be pissed. <A> "I will kill you" is a straightforward statement: the speaker will take some action to end the life of the person he's talking to. <S> This may be meant as a literal threat, as an exaggerated way to express anger, or as a joke. <S> "I will kill you dead" does not make sense. <S> Presumably if you kill someone, you will cause them to be dead, so as best the word "dead" is an unnecessary addition. <S> "Dead" is an adjective, like, "Marley was dead", or "I found a dead body in the field". <S> Here it appears to be being used as an adverb. <S> It is very rare to use "dead" as an adverb, but it is done in a few stock phrases to distinguish a fatal event from a non-fatal event. <S> Like another poster mentioned the phrase "he was shot dead". <S> We also sometimes say, "he fell dead", meaning he fell to the ground and he was dead, as opposed to simply unconscious or just tripped. <S> I can't think of any other such phrases, but there may be a few. <S> You can't say, "He caught the flu dead" or "He was in an accident dead". <S> I can only think of one time <S> I've ever heard someone say "kill dead" like that. <S> That was in a comedy, where a private is afraid that his sergeant is going to be very angry at him for some mistake he made, and he keeps whining, "he's gonna kill me, he's gonna kill me dead". <S> It was clearly intended to be a humorous way to add emphasis. <S> Not only is he going to kill me, but he's going to kill me DEAD. <S> I'd take it that way here. <S> The speaker is just trying to emphasize the word "kill".
| "I will kill you dead" just adds emphasis to the threat. You cannot use "dead" as an adverb in general.
|
He said to me I was funny Let's say someone said "You are funny" to me, and I want to report it. Can these two sentences be used interchangeably? He said (that) I was funny to me. He said to me (that) I was funny. Also, are these two sentences interchangeable? He said, "You are funny" to me. He said to me, "You are funny". (I am not sure if I should use the commas.) <Q> In all of your examples the sentence is better expressed with told . <S> It's important to understand the difference between told and said . <S> When one says something they merely say it out loud, to the world or no one. <S> In order to direct to an individual they must say something to someone. <S> Tell , on the other hand, implies that what was said was said to someone. <S> The prepositional phrase is not required with tell . <S> As a result, tell is almost always the most concise and prefered usage when you are describing your saying something to someone. <S> This usage is clumsy -- <S> I said to Bob to go to the store. <S> This usage is preferred (note that to is not needed) -- <S> I told Bob to go to the store. <A> Yes, in both cases the two sentences mean the same thing. <S> However the order of the words can cause confusion. <S> For example: The King said the wine tastes funny to me. <S> Is the king saying that the wine tastes funny to him ? <S> Or did he say, "The wine tastes funny," to me ? <S> Of course, if you mean the first, then as an indirect quote it should be: <S> The King said the wine tastes funny to him <S> Still even if the second, it's nice to make things clear to the reader by writing it as: <S> The King said to me (that) the wine tastes funny. <S> Direct quotes are less confusing because the actual quote is set off by quotation marks, but again it's nice to be clear by putting an adverb close to the verb it modifies. <S> The King said to me , "This wine tastes funny," right before he died from poisoning. <S> Note that direct quotes that appear in the middle of sentences routinely have commas or other punctuation both before and after the quote. <S> He said, "Direct quotations should be set off by both quotation marks and commas," but everyone ignored him. <A> The verb "tell" is ditransitive , it usually requires a listener or recipient, what is/was communicated becomes the object complement. <S> When would “ said to me/him/her etc.” <S> sound most natural? <S> When we are telling a story that involves dialogue, we can use "said to" + object (noun or pronoun) but it sounds more natural when it comes after the direct quote <S> “ The moon is made of green cheese ” the King said to the boy <S> However, we're probably more accustomed to seeing "said" used in the following way <S> The King said <S> “ The moon is made of green cheese ” <S> In the OP's scenario, any of the following solutions is acceptable <S> “You are funny” <S> he said to me <S> He said “You are funny” <S> He said (that) <S> I was funny <S> He told me (that) I was funny
| The verb "say" is monotransitive , the message itself becomes the direct object, unless "to" is used to insert a listener as another object.
|
What's the meaning of "be broker than the Ten Commandments"? The meaning of "the Ten Commandments" is clear (see Wikipedia for example). Also, Oxford Dictionaries show "broke" means "Having completely run out of money". But I don't understand the meaning of the phrase. So, could you please tell me what is the meaning of "be broker than the Ten Commandments" The text is here: When the semester ended I returned to Buck’s Peak. In a few weeks BYU would post grades; then I’d know if I could return in the fall. I filled my journals with promises that I would stay out of the junkyard. I needed money—Dad would have said I was broker than the Ten Commandments —so I went to get my old job back at Stokes. Educated by Tara Westover <Q> This is an ungrammatical idiom that is also (deliberately) confusing meanings. <S> Broker , in this case, is a construction that is intended to mean more broke , which could be said to be meaningless, as broke , in the meaning of insolvent, not having money (implied by the preceding phrase I needed money... ), doesn’t have a comparative or superlative. <S> However, the meaning of broker as applied to the Ten Commandments is a reference to the Biblical story, in which Moses smashed the stone tablets on which they had been engraved - thus implying the meaning of broken, damaged, in pieces . <S> This is another meaning that really doesn’t have a comparative or superlative, but the intent would be to suggest that whatever is broker than the Ten Commandments is broken into smaller pieces than the tablets had been. <S> Grammatically, it would be more broke if it were possible for insolvency to have a comparative; more broken if the state of being destroyed as the tablets were could have a comparative. <S> The intent of the phrase quoted in your question <S> — I was broker than the Ten Commandments —is to suggest that the speaker’s need for money was very intense, more so than one is assumed normally to assume is necessary. <S> (@Tᴚoɯɐuo reminds me that “Sinners break those commandments in a different sense”; that actually adds another level of meaning to add to the confusion: broker , meaning more (often, frequently) violated .) <A> A phrase common in the 1930s. <S> “'Listen, bud, I'm flat broke. <S> I'm broker'n the Ten Commandments". <S> (broker than , facetious / jocular usage meaning "more broke" than). <S> That's to say, "Dad liked his little joke", even if it was a bit "stale" <S> (his implication: <S> You tell me you're broke as often as people break the Ten Commandments - a lot ). <S> Any native speaker would recognise the "wordplay" here, even though it's not a "valid" usage. <A> It is a play on words. <S> Broke in US slang means without any money . <S> It is often used hyperbolically to mean with very little money . <S> Thus, used in this slang sense, broke cannot logically have a comparative form. <S> So that is joke number 1. <S> The Ten Commandments are not something to which money ever belongs. <S> So appearing to use broke in the slang sense about the Ten Commandments is absurd. <S> That is joke number 2. <S> But of course the Ten Commandments can be broken in the sense of violated . <S> One may believe that they are violated millions of times a day and so amount to very little. <S> So joke number 3 is to compare the monetary situation with humanity's moral situation, which is as ridiculously inapt as weighing an elephant in micrograms. <A> As Tara Westover , the writer, has mentioned Dad is a fanatic Mormon. <S> He belives that most of people are gentiles. <S> For example she says that: "There was scarcely a person in the church thatDad hadn’t called a gentile " <S> ( Educated p.84) <S> On the other hand, in Dad's view the people often are breaking the Ten Commandments <S> So: A/1- <S> The Ten Commandments are broken by the sinners.(As FumbleFingers mentioned) A/2- <S> The Ten Commandments were broken by Moses himself. <S> (As Jeff Zeitlin mentioned) <S> B- <S> The writer is intensely broke(without money) <S> c- <S> (=A+B) <S> The writer is broker than The Ten Commandments. <S> Note: <S> Broke has a comparative. <S> For example we can say:- <S> I'm broker than you, so don't try asking money from me. <S> (see for example urbandictionary) <A> "Broker" in this case means--or is supposed to mean--"more broken". <S> So the sentence is a jocular <S> --I won't say witty--way of expressing pennilessness of the person it's aimed at. <S> In this regard, it's like the way comedian Jack Benny described his blue eyes as "... <S> bluer than the thumb of a cross-eyed carpenter." <S> (The joke in this case is, of course, that a carpenter holds nails with a finger and thumb, and a cross-eyed carpenter trying to drive in a nail would be likely to miss the nail and hit his thumb with his hammer, bruising the digit badly.) <A> Broke according to Cambridge Dictionary means without money . <S> So broker means less money than that, and the phrase tells something about father's opinion of the Ten Commandments (otherwise he would have used another phrase).
| The sentence plays on the fact that one or more of the Ten Commandments are often broken and that "broke" means "without money".
|
present participle use in different ways I saw a speeding sedan down the road. The sedan was speeding down the road. The first one is an example of the present participle (as the word speeding is linked with the car acting like an adjective) But what about the second case. Is it a use of present participle? <Q> Yes, it is. <S> According to Merriam-Webster present participle a participle that typically expresses present action in relation to the time expressed by the finite verb in its clause and that in English is formed with the suffix -ing and is used in the formation of the progressive tenses <S> Examples <S> The verbs dancing in <S> He was dancing and “crying” in “The baby is crying” are present participles . <A> Yes. <S> The past participle of speeding is "sped". <S> Both these two sentences use an auxiliary verb to put the sentence into the past tense, so "speeding" is correct. <S> I saw a speeding sedan down the road. <S> The sedan was speeding down the road. <S> Without these verbs you would have to use the word "sped". <S> The sedan sped down the road. <A> Since the grammar I follow does not distinguish between a gerund and a present participle, "speeding" is referred to as a gerund-participle verb. <S> (You can call it a present participle still.) <S> Since the grammar I follow distinguishes between category and function, I wouldn't say it "functions like an adjective".
| It's a gerund-participle that functions as a modifier.
|
Answer to the question "where have you been?" How should I answer the question "where have you been"? Should a possible reply be "I've been cleaning the garden." or "I was cleaning the garden." ? I mean should I use 'present perfect tense' or 'past tense'? Note that I have just finished cleaning the garden. <Q> "I have been cleaning the garden." <S> and "I was cleaning the garden" are both acceptable, but neither one is present perfect or simple past. <S> "I have been cleaning the garden. <S> " is Past Perfect Continuous, and "I was cleaning the garden. <S> " is Past Continuous. <A> Consider that neither of your given responses directly answers the question of where you have been. <S> A direct answer would be, "In the garden." <S> Instead, you have (correctly) assumed that the question implies more knowledge than simply your prior location. <S> For example, why were you there? <S> If you understand what kind of information the question is intended to gather, then almost any answer that gives that information will be seen as correct. <S> I just finished cleaning the garden. <S> I was at the bank. <S> I was playing with my son at the park. <S> I did my homework then took out the trash. <S> I had to go to the dentist. <S> They are all perfectly acceptable responses (depending on the context), even though the tenses might not match up. <S> And if that doesn't tell the person what they need to know, they will tell you. <A> This question is asking for a location as an answer. <S> As a full sentence, the answer will most commonly be in the simple past: I was inside <S> I was at the park or the past progressive: <S> I was taking a walk
| Suitable short answers are: in the house at the park upstairs I was getting the car washed
|
Usage of "certain month" in a context Again, thank you for helpful support. Now, I became a "patron" of a singer, and I asked a question before about her song. She says, Welcome to my new Patrons, and to the old ones, thanks for sticking around. :) We're hovering right around $400 a month, so I figure it's time for me to invest in some percussion instruments! I want to build a little "kit" and I'm asking around for advice on what to include. Shaker, tambourine, cabasa, cajón... if you have any input or expertise, I'd appreciate it! I don't have any real percussion training, so I'm looking for things that will be easy for me to use. Certain months I would also like to put the $400 toward hiring a real drummer, depending on what songs we want to do and what they call for ! This can be complicated because I have to hire a drummer, find a place to record drums (it takes a lot of mics), and maybe have someone mix drums for me as well (I don't have much experience in making them sound good). That's why I've set the goal so high on this one. Interested to hear what you all think I input the whole sentence. (which I don't like somehow). What does certain months mean here? Also, I don't understand who they are when she says "what they call for!" <Q> In phrases that follow the pattern {preposition} certain {plural noun} or certain {plural noun} (on) <S> certain days certain times under certain conditions in certain places the word <S> certain is a way of saying "some in particular, but not all". <S> When the reference is to times , it is common to drop the preposition from the phrase especially in casual conversation: <S> Some days you just don't feel like going to work. <S> Certain days you just don't feel like going to work. <S> Some months <S> it's best not to eat oysters. <S> P.S. <S> Here's an attestation with a minor (irrelevant) change (in case the author didn't want to have their reddit post cited outside of reddit <S> , it will make it a littler harder to find): <S> All we have are beetles and crickets and certain months we can't seem to keep them out of the house. <A> The cited use of <S> certain is syntactically valid, but it's not really idiomatically acceptable. <S> The well-established "standard" usage fore the context is <S> Some weeks I'd like to do X. <S> But there's also a semantic issue involved. <S> In contexts such as... <S> The review board recommended parole for some prisoners <S> The review board recommended parole for certain prisoners ... <S> it's tempting to say the highlighted terms are interchangeable, but actually they're not exactly equivalent. <S> When certain is used in this way <S> , it doesn't just mean <S> some <S> - it always carries the implication some specific [weeks, prisoners, etc.] <S> , where (in principle, at least) there is some reasonably clear-cut way of identifying which particular weeks / prisoners fall into the relevant category (weeks when a drummer will be hired, prisoners who will be granted parole). <S> TL;DR: <S> When certain replaces some , it always implies certain specific / particular . <S> Which doesn't make much sense in OP's context, making the cited usage non-idiomatic to most native speakers. <S> The general principle (for many/most people, but clearly not all native speakers - as shown by certain/some 1 answers and votes on this page) is that some is often used to refer to a "random" subset, whereas certain normally implies reference to a "pre-determined" subset (or one for which the relevant inclusion criteria are available, at least in principle). <S> 1 <S> Using <S> certain in this exact context would strongly imply <S> I know exactly which posts I'm referring to <S> (and you could probably figure it out easily if you took the trouble) . <S> Any such implication is weaker or non-existent with some . <A> It is not good grammar. <S> This is not even good colloquial speech, but it is not surprising! <S> Some native English speakers do not use good grammar. <S> By "certain months <S> " she seems to be suggesting "some" months, but not all. <S> Without the context I am guessing, but it sounds like she has $400 set aside each month <S> and she is saying that some months that $400 will be spent on hiring a drummer, but not every month. <S> However as the singer goes on to say that the determining factor in this is "depending on what songs we want to do" it is clear <S> her meaning is looser and she intends to decide on a whim.
| In formal use, "certain" used this way should denote specific things.
|
Can "staff" ever be pluralized? I am under the impression that the word staff is uncountable/singular when referring to a collection of employees in a company. This is corroborated by some online sources I have found: Macmillan and this article . However, I just heard this in a YouTube video (at 1:36): These non-litigious companies typically have much smaller legal staffs . It seems the person in the video uses the plural form to talk about departments at different companies, thus using staff in a way similar to I'd like two waters, please . But is this usage common? Edit: I clarified which usage of water I was talking about. As one of the answerers CJ Dennis said in a comment, "It's the classification of individual words that drives grammar." I very much agree with this opinion and wonder if the connection I loosely made in my line of thinking is part of the classification at issue. Of course answers don't have to address the pluralization of water . <Q> Some people confuse the terms collective noun with mass noun or uncountable noun . <S> As a simple, relatable example, herd is a countable , collective noun. <S> You can have one herd or multiple herds, even though a single herd is composed of multiple members. <S> Twenty cows are crossing the road. <S> A herd of cows is crossing the road. <S> Three herds of cows are crossing the road. <S> Likewise with staff . <S> It is also a countable , collective noun. <S> Each company has one staff, which is all of its employees as a group. <S> Two separate companies have two separate staffs. <S> Individual: <S> cow tree <S> Collective: <S> staff herd <S> Uncountable: <S> water air Uncountable nouns can be used countably in informal language. <S> I'd like two waters please. <S> In formal language, they must be qualified by an amount. <S> I'd like two glasses of water please. <S> I'd like two drinks of water please. <S> I'd like some water please. <S> Note <S> : there are many other meanings of waters <S> that don't apply here. <S> These usages are always plural and are rarely counted. <S> e.g. the waters of Finland . <S> We don't say two waters of Finland and the water of Finland has a different meaning. <S> Collective nouns are always countable, however, in British English, even in formal language, they may be used either as singular or plural without changing form (see elsewhere for the full details): <S> The staff is very happy (one staff) <S> The staff are very happy (the members of one staff) <S> The staffs are very happy (multiple staffs) <A> A sentence like the following is also possible. <S> Two members of staff will join this month. <S> I believe that's the uncountable usage you are referring to. <S> ( source , definition 5, and note that 5e shows the uncountable usage) <S> As an aside, there are usages of water that can be pluralized. <S> But I feel that that's not related to this collective noun issue. <A> Okay, this is simple . <S> When referring to a collection of people that work somewhere <S> the word staff is a collective noun. <S> If you are referring to one or many individuals in the same collection, then there is still one collection <S> so staff is not pluralized. <S> If you are referring to multiple different collections, then staff should be pluralized as staffs . <S> e.g. <S> The staffs of many companies and organizations benefit from the centralized improvements in benefits. <S> is correct. <S> If you are are referring to any army with long sticks, you should use the plural staves , unless you are a colonial, okay with the accelerated simplification of the English Language, in which case, staffs would also be acceptable. <S> e.g. <S> The massed hordes brandished their staves . <S> P.S. <S> in this sense staff is not a collective noun but horde is <S> and yes, I do mean more than one horde. <A> Yes, it can be pluralised. <S> Such pluralisation is sometimes used to refer to the general staff (a military term, for example the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation ) of multiple countries. <S> An example is this article titled: The Role of the General Staffs in July 1914 , referring to the roles of different countries' general staff in the lead up to WWI. <S> The first sentence of the article illustrates the meaning: <S> The distinguished British military historian, Captain Liddell Hart, declared in 1934 that the general staffs of the great powers had played a role of decisive importance in the diplomatic crisis of July 1914 which unleashed the first world war. <S> Attribution (this is a republication, the original publication is dated 1965): <S> Turner, L. C. F. <S> "The Role of the General Staffs in July 1914. <S> " <S> Australian Journal of Politics & History 11, no. <S> 3 <S> (2008): 305-23. <S> doi:10.1111/ <S> j.1467-8497.1965.tb00440.x.
| Staff is a collective noun, so when you are talking about individuals within the staff, you would say something like 2 staff members But when you are talking about multiple collections, you can pluralize it to staffs , just as you would with families, and crews, and many others.
|
What is the opposite of 'picky'? What adjective would be used to describe an attitude where one is not too demanding about something (like the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc.). I'm looking for a word that sounds fairly informal or colloquial. <Q> I might use easygoing , which is synonymous with undemanding . <S> M-W lists it as any antonym of fussy , which can be applied to tastes in food or clothes. <S> One definition that fits this context is: easygoing ( adj ) relaxed and informal in attitude or standards <S> An example sentence might be: Diane is really picky about what she eats, but her sister Jill is much more easygoing . <S> An idiom that might work is go with the flow , which Macmillan defines as: <S> do what seems like the easiest thing in a particular situation <S> This may not a precise fit, but it could work depending on what you were trying to convey: <S> Every time we go to the mall, Diane is really picky about clothes, but Jill just goes with the flow. <S> She'll pretty much agree to anything we suggest . <S> The phrase go with the flow <S> suggests a calm and accepting attitude. <A> We can use flexible , which is often used casually. <S> Formally, this is defined as: (of a person) ready and able to change so as to adapt to different circumstances. <S> In context: - "I'm hungry, let's eat! <S> Any preferences?" <S> - "Oh anything's fine, I'm flexible ." <A> I would suggest: undemanding (if speaking about food or requirements) casual (about clothing or attitude in general) <S> In colloquial speech (bear in mind <S> I am a native British English speaker. <S> My colloquialisms may not be quite the same in American English) <S> you may hear: <S> "I'm easy" in response to a question about tastes, likes, dislikes. <S> This conveys a casual attitude, that you have no specific likes or dislikes. <S> Or: <S> "I'm not particular" (slightly more formal) <A> If asked for a general preference, e.g. What type of X do you like ? <S> the most natural responses to my ears are: <S> I'm not fussy . <S> I'm not picky . <S> I'm easy . <S> (adjective, sense 6) <S> Although easy can have a sexual connotation, most of the time it won't. <S> You'll get a knowing glance because of the double entendre , but people won't accidentally misunderstand. <S> If directly asked for a choice, e.g. What type of X do you want ? <S> other possible responses are: <S> I don't mind . <S> (verb, sense 3) <S> I'm not bothered . <S> I'm not fussed . <A> I would suggest unfussy . <S> It was my immediate reaction when I saw the question title. <A> Easy , easygoing , and game are all good choices and already mentioned. <S> Since no one posted it yet, though, I'll also throw out laid back or laid-back . <S> The OED has it in the figurative sense of 'relaxed' since at least 1974 : <S> It's all cheerfully grotty and relaxed in the usual laid-back Montreal style. <S> Wiktionary is unsourced but claims it goes back to the '50s . <S> Really, any synonym for 'relaxed' is going to work here with a little context. <S> Some fairly popular recent slang would be chill or down for whatever . <S> The later can have sexual connotations as a general description, but works just fine in response to a focused question. <S> Whaddya wanna eat? <S> Man, I'm down for whatever . <A> A less popular but still sometimes used word is catholic <S> (lower case "c"): 2 : comprehensive, universal; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests - a catholic taste in music Merriam Webster <A> Related to Martin Bonner's and Astralbee's answers, the best single-word antonym I can think of is unparticular : <S> adjective : Not particular; especially not exacting, fastidious, or fussy. <A> Relaxed is another good word: " <S> Don't worry, she's pretty relaxed about food." <S> Merriam-Webster defines it as "easy of manner" which seems to fit your request. <S> "Relaxed" also comes up in a search for a translation of "fünfe gerade sein <S> lassen" (literally "let five be even", <S> i.e. don't insist on formalities, don't be fussy, be flexible — the German answer to your question). <A> The opposite of finicky then would be unfinicky which is defined simply as: <S> not finicky <S> You could also consider the word unfastidious <S> which, as with unfinicky , is simply the opposite of fastidious : not fastidious: not extremely or excessively careful, selective, difficult to please, etc. <S> In all honesty though, you would probably be better off sticking to <S> not finicky and not fastidious rather than the contrived-sounding unfinicky and unfastidious : <S> He's not finicky about the food he eats. <S> So, when it comes to food, he's a person that's not very hard to please. <S> She's not very fastidious about the clothes she wears. <S> In fact, she buys most of her clothes in second-hand stores. <A> It may not be a special word, but in my experience, the most common antonym for picky is not picky . <S> "Where would you like to eat dinner" <S> "Oh anywhere is fine, I'm not picky." <S> "It's easy taking my daughter clothes shopping, she's not picky about brands." <S> "Did you see the guy Sheila was out with last week? <S> Looks like someone is not very picky..."
| "I'm not fussy" (informal) A word that's very similar in meaning to the adjective picky would be finicky . go with the flow ( phrase )
|
What's the meaning of " be over one's head"? I have found in the Free Dictionary 1 these definitions: Too complicated to be understood by one or someone else. Bypassing one's or someone else's authority. Lingering in one's mind as a source of concern or worry. But it (seems to me) doesn't fit with the rest of the phrase below: He said he loved me but this was over his head. So: 1 Could you please tell me what the meaning of " be over one's head" here is? 2 What does "this" refer to? The fuller text is: (It was extended after some comments made it essential!) When I arrived at the peak, Mother was making the Thanksgiving meal. The large oak table was covered with jars of tincture and vials of essential oil, which I cleared away. Charles was coming for dinner. Shawn was in a mood. He sat on a bench at the table, watching me gather the bottles and hide them. I’d washed Mother’s china, which had never been used, and I began laying it out, eyeing the distance between each plate and knife. Shawn resented my making a fuss. “It’s just Charles,” he said. “His standards aren’t that high. He’s with you, after all.” I fetched glasses. When I put one in front of him, Shawn jabbed a finger into my ribs, digging hard. “Don’t touch me!” I shrieked. Then the room turned upside down. My feet were knocked out from under me and I was swept into the living room, just out of Mother’s sight.Shawn turned me onto my back and sat on my stomach, pinning my arms at my sides with his knees. The shock of his weight forced the breath from my chest. He pressed his forearm into my windpipe. I sputtered, trying to gulp enough air to shout, but the airway was blocked. [...] Charles arrived early—Dad hadn’t even come in from the junkyard yet— and sat at the table across from Shawn, who glared at him, never blinking. [...] I passed Shawn carrying a large china plate of dinner rolls, and he stabbed my gut so hard it knocked the wind out of me. I dropped the plate. It shattered. “Why did you do that?” I shouted. It happened so quickly, I don’t know how he got me to the floor, but again I was on my back and he was on top of me. He demanded that I apologize for breaking the plate. I whispered the apology, quietly, so Charles wouldn’t hear, but this enraged Shawn. He grabbed a fistful of my hair, again near the scalp, for leverage, and yanked me upright, then dragged me toward the bathroom. The movement was so abrupt, Charles had no time to react. The last thing I saw as my head hurled down the hall was Charles leaping to his feet, eyes wide, face pale. [...] The next thing I remember, Charles was lifting me and I was laughing—a shrill, demented howl. I thought if I could just laugh loudly enough, the situation might still be saved, that Charles might yet be convinced it was all a joke. Tears streamed from my eyes—my big toe was broken—but I kept cackling. Shawn stood in the doorway looking awkward. “Are you okay?” Charles kept saying. “Of course I am! Shawn is so, so, so—funny.” My voice strangled on the last word as I put weight on my foot and a wave of pain swept through me. Charles tried to carry me but I pushed him off and walked on the break, grinding my teeth to stop myself from crying out, while I slapped playfully at my brother.Charles didn’t stay for supper. He fled to his jeep and I didn’t hear from him for several hours, then he called and asked me to meet him at the church. He wouldn’t come to Buck’s Peak. We sat in his jeep in the dark, empty parking lot. He was crying. “You didn’t see what you thought you saw,” I said. If someone had asked me, I’d have said Charles was the most important thing in the world to me. But he wasn’t. And I would prove it to him. What was important to me wasn’t love or friendship, but my ability to lie convincingly to myself: to believe I was strong. I could never forgive Charles for knowing I wasn’t. I became erratic, demanding, hostile. I devised a bizarre and everevolving rubric by which I measured his love for me, and when he failed to meet it, I became paranoid. I surrendered to rages, venting all my savage anger, every fearful resentment I’d ever felt toward Dad or Shawn, at him, this bewildered bystander who’d only ever helped me. When we argued, I screamed that I never wanted to see him again, and I screamed it so many times that one night, when I called to change my mind, like I always did, he wouldn’t let me. We met one final time, in a field off the highway. Buck’s Peak loomed over us. He said he loved me but this was over his head . He couldn’t save me. Only I could. I had no idea what he was talking about. <Q> As already indicated, it means "it is too complex for me [one] to understand" It always takes the possessive - my, his etc. <S> It has some modern idiomatic versions too... <S> These are all usually used as a metaphor, not literally Business/corporate version <S> It's above my pay grade <S> This ostensibly indicates that someone of greater rank would need to answer, but it is frequently used as a euphemism for 'I don't understand. <S> This is too technical for me.' <S> Colloquial/ <S> jocular version <S> It didn't even part my hair <S> It is so far above my head that it went past me without even making enough draught/wind to move my hair. <S> There's one not directly related but similar - Out of my depth which directly relates to swimming in water too deep to put your feet on the bottom, if you stop swimming you may drown. <S> Metaphorically it is to be unable to cope with a situation, through fear or inexperience. <S> As noted in comments - Your linked definition is not for a single metaphor type, the three are distinctly different & not really connected other than they contain some of the same words. <S> To go over someone's head is to go directly to their boss instead of them. <S> They are not connected to your actual question at all. <A> I think that the right choice is the first Too complicated to be understood by one or someone else. <S> There is a lack of context in your excerpt. <S> I didn't know exactly what is <S> this <S> but it's not present in the excerpt. <S> It may be all the problems that she have with her dad, her brother, the metaphorical needles, <S> her metaphorical time travels - I'm kidding in this last point - ... <S> He couldn't save her from all those problems. <S> I have no idea what she is talking about exactly. <S> Only someone who has read the book could help you. <S> I've read more after your edit <S> and I maintain my opinion. <S> She is not describing an specific problem with this . <S> The whole situation with her family and with her entire life seems too complicated . <S> Charles can't understand that he can't not help her, he don't get the whole picture. <A> He said he loved me but this was over his head. <S> In the above sentence, this , refers to love. <S> The speaker does not take the persons claim of love seriously because they believe the concept of love is too complicated to be understood by the person claiming to be in love. <S> Additionally, the person in your excerpt has a very complicated, almost irrational, view of love. <S> The character most likely will never believe that anyone can understand love, or love them in return.
| For something to hang over one's head is to have a nagging worry.
|
to lock out vs to lock in vs to lock down Give, please, a detailed explanation between the next phrasal verbs: to lock out to lock in to lock down I am especially confused between the meanings of "lock out" and "lock in", they are similar by meaning but have different prepositions, "get in and get out" - it's ok they differ by opposite actions... <Q> to lock out - Something is locked and you cannot get into it, so it is locked <S> and you are out (outside). <S> You lost your key at the pub and the door to your house is locked, you are locked out (outside). <S> You could also lock <S> your spouse out of the house if you are angry. <S> This is also commonly used for smartphones and computers in the same way. <S> You may be locked out (cannot use the phone/get into the phone) until you enter a code or password or you are locked out for a time because you failed multiple times. <S> to lock in - Something is locked and you cannot get out of it, so it is locked <S> and you are in (inside). <S> You got into a fight at the pub, <S> the police arrest you and you are locked in (inside) <S> a jail cell. <S> You could also lock yourself in the bathroom if you are angry at your spouse. <S> This may also mean something of a contract or guarantee. <S> Something that can be "fixed" or restricted from change. <S> If you sign the loan contract today then your interest rate is locked in at 4% and cannot change. <S> to lock down <S> - One meaning is a combination of lock in and lock out . <S> If there is a security crisis at a building, campus, prison etc. <S> it may be locked down , or in lock down . <S> No one comes in or out and movement of people inside may be restricted. <S> Also used in reference to computers or information systems to represent that security controls have been tightened to only allow certain authorized access and functions. <A> The word lock (used as a verb) can be followed by several prepositions. <S> to lock out means to prevent a person/people getting into a room/building/institution to lock in means to prevent a person/people getting out of a room/building/institution to lock down <S> is a phrase used to describe the action by security forces when they surround a building and prevent anyone from entering or leaving, typically in a situation involving terrorists or individuals posing a threat. <S> to lock up means to detain or to imprison when it's used of people, and to keep under lock and key when it's used of objects. <S> People can also lock themselves into or out of vehicles and <S> buildings accidentallyand often do. <A> "To lock out" and "to lock in" differ in a very similar way to "get in" and "get out", actually. <S> If I lock someone out , I have locked something such that they cannot get in (i.e., they are trapped outside the thing I locked). <S> This is reflected by the definition in Cambridge Learner's Dictionary : <S> lock sb in/out to prevent someone from entering/leaving a room or building by locking the door <S> but the order they use is confusing -- "lock in" is to prevent from leaving , "lock out" is to prevent from entering . <S> You ask for "lock down", but I'm also going to include "lock up", since it's another lock + <S> preposition phrasal verb that can be confusing. <S> Unlike "lock in" and "lock out", "lock up" can take either a person or a thing as its object. <S> When you lock something up, you're locking all the doors/windows/etc. <S> of something, usually as you leave or go to sleep or something. <S> When you lock someone up, you're locking them in somewhere -- usually a prison or something similar from which they cannot escape "To lock down" typically takes a prison, school, or other important institution (like a governmental facility) as an object, and it describes elevated security measures in which you make the people involved (prisoners, students, etc.) <S> stay locked inside their cells/rooms/etc. <S> during an emergency for safety/security purposes. <S> Police will "lock down" an area after a crime, for instance. <S> It's also often described as "going on lockdown", particularly when it's a school involved, and many schools (at least in the US) have what are called "lockdown drills" where they practice locking down the school in case <S> there's a school shooter or bomb threat.
| If I lock someone in , I have locked something such that they cannot get out (i.e., they are trapped inside the thing I locked).
|
What does 'high temple' mean? The following is an excerpt from a travel guide transcript about New York City. I can guess the meaning of high temple in the passage, but I am not sure I know what it means literally and figuratively. I looked it up in a number of dictionaries, but I failed. New York has always been the gateway to the Land of the Free. But it is also the city of the spree — the shopping spree. The city is shopaholic heaven. And Fifth Avenue with its eye-popping window displays, is the high temple of the retail world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtCMtC50gwY <Q> Temple is not restricted to gods and idols. <S> It also means something else! <S> Straight from the Oxford Dictionaries, definition 1.5 A place devoted to or seen as the centre of a particular activity or interest. <S> Undoubtedly, the Fifth Avenue at the Big Apple is the center of retails! <S> Ah, I wish to shop there! :) <A> A temple is a building devoted to worship of a god or gods. <S> Fifth Avenue is where the figurative god of shopping is worshipped. <S> temple 1 NOUN 1A building devoted to the worship of a god or gods. <S> Temple (Oxford Dictionary) <A> I found a sentence while I was looking for a sunglasses. <S> It goes "An oval-shaped face works with any style of Classic frame..... <S> just stick with the high temples"I <S> just guessed that high temple means shop which sells some fine goods (with high price tag)
| The high temple is the most important temple in the land.
|
What verb should I use for a roll call in a classroom? (see example) The teacher entered the classroom and did/made/read/gave a roll call. From the results I found on google, it seems as if the term "roll call" (a reading of the students' name to check if they are present) is not used this way and none of the options in bold are common. What are the most used phrases to say what I mean in the example? <Q> 'Did' or 'took' are commonly used; other words or phrases are possible, such as 'performed', 'carried out', 'undertook'. <S> roll call noun [ C ] UK /ˈrəʊl ˌkɔːl/ <S> US /ˈroʊl <S> ˌkɑːl/ <S> If someone <S> does a roll call, they read aloud the names of all the people on the list to make certain that they are present. <S> Roll call (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> roll call <S> also roll-call Word forms: plural roll calls 1. <S> variable noun <S> If you take a roll call, you check which of the members of a group are present by reading their names out. <S> Roll call (Collins Dictionary) Exact-phrase Google searches can give an idea of frequency of usage: <A> This US English speaker would say that the teacher called roll or called the roll , because in roll call , the noun is call , and the verb that you do with a call is, well, call it. <S> For example, In Sunday school one day, he called roll... <S> ... <S> some groups rotate how they call roll. <S> This usage actually seems to be more common than make or take or <S> do a roll call or anything else: Google Ngrams graph here <A> "Take roll" is most natural to me.
| The roll was called.
|
What is the phrase for the looks of something regardless of the inside "My relationship with my mother looks like it's OK but I don't know about the reality" What phrase can I use (instead of that long sentence) to say that this is just from what it can be seen not the reality of it. <Q> If the speaker wished to suggest that their relationship with their mother looked OK (good, acceptable, healthy, etc) on the surface but might not be OK deeper down, then that person could say "My relationship with my mother looks OK on the surface". <A> Qualifiers such as "superficially" and "on the surface" all carry an implication of <S> it actually not being so underneath. <S> If you want to avoid any such implied meaning, you would need to use additional qualifiers: <S> My relationship with my mother is <S> at least superficially okay. <S> Using <S> at least reduces the implication that it's necessarily the opposite in reality. <S> (Because there could be more than just appearance.) <S> However, the problem with both of those phrases is that your own doubt about the situation ("but I don't know about the reality") <S> isn't implied. <S> Also, using such additional qualifiers doesn't meet your criterion of keeping the sentence short . <S> If you are really trying to express both outward appearance and some of your own doubt, I would suggest something different: <S> My relationship with my mother seems okay. <S> The word seems does double duty for both objective appearance and internal belief, and emphasizing it (either in text or verbally) acts to highlight your own uncertainty about the situation. <A> The word you're looking for is superficial <S> According to Oxford Dictionary superficial <S> Not thorough, deep, or complete; cursory. <S> 3.1 Lacking depth of character or understanding. <S> My relationship with my mother is superficial. <S> As pointed by @Michael Harvey, superficial may not convey your whole sentence. <S> My relationship with my mother is pure façade. <S> EDITED: <S> I've been criticized and downvoted <S> but I still think that in most cases you just can say that a relation is superficial if such relation is good or friendly on the surface <S> but you don't know really much about the other person's feelings or thoughts about you or about anything. <S> Usually it's when the relation is superficially bad when you specify or add more content: <S> Superficially it seems that she hates me <S> but I'm sure that she really loves me.
| My relationship with my mother at least looks okay on the surface. The word 'superficially' could be used instead of 'on the surface'. You may prefer to use façade (or any of its synonyms ) façade a false appearance that makes someone or something seem more pleasant or better than they really are
|
Why is it "arrived in" and not "arrived to" or "arrived at" in the following sentence? This is the sentence: He’d miss Japan once he'd arrived in/at/to Hawaii. A native English Speaker told me that it was in. I found that strange, because I always see "arrived at" and "arrived to," but I rarely see "arrived in." <Q> Consider these two examples: <S> He arrived at the building at 9:00am. <S> This could simply means the person reached the exterior of the building. <S> He arrived in the building at 9:00am. <S> This specifically means the person entered the building at that time. <S> The difference can be important. <S> Generally, we speak of arriving in a country, not "at" . <S> You may say that you arrived at the airport, but not the country itself. <S> I can't really explain why, that is just the accepted norm! <S> But it makes sense that you would use "in" if you are actually in the country, not just at the perimeter of it (as you might say about a building in the examples above). <S> I would say this is also the norm when speaking about named towns and cities etc, although sometimes (British English at least) names of airports and railway stations are abbreviated to just the name of the town or city they serve, and in those instances you may sometimes hear at used, eg the train arrived at Preston at 11:05 , although I wouldn't like to say if this is technically correct. <S> Finally, we never say " arrive to ". <S> "To" expresses motion in a particular direction (eg traveling to Japan) and once you have arrived you are no longer traveling so it simply does not make sense. <A> We arrive in a country, territory, or large city, e.g. arrive in Canada, arrive in California; we arrive at a smaller place or specific location or point, e.g. arrive at the North Pole, arrive at John's house, arrive at the crossroads; we don't use 'to' after 'arrive'. <S> Warning: <S> We don’t say arrive to a place <S> Arrive (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> I agree with user3067860 that, in normal conversation, I would probably say that "I got to" a country, town or specific location, rather than "I arrived in" or "I arrived at". <S> I would probably only use the latter two phrases in a formal conversation or report. <S> That being said, I would say that "I arrived in" a particular country/city/region/town etc, if the exact location within that area was not particularly relevant. <S> However, if I was referring to a specific location (eg an airport, railway station, hotel, convention centre, supermarket, someone's home, etc), I would say "I arrived at...". <S> In this context, I would also agree that you arrive at the border of a country, state, or county. <S> I would probably say that "I arrived at" a very small town or village, or even a reasonably-sized town if it was not my final destination, but merely a marker on the way to somewhere else. <S> I would rarely say that "I arrived on" a location, unless it was a very small island, or possibly landing by helicopter on a ship (which I have never done). <S> While agreeing with J.R. that it is possible to have sentences that contain the phrase "I arrived to.. <S> ",(and J.R. gave some good examples of such), it is important to emphasise that a native English speaker is not likely to say "I arrived to" a particular country, state, town or place. <A> As a test, replace “I arrived” with “I am”. <S> The same preposition is used in either case: <S> I am at the airport. <S> I arrived at the airport. <S> I am in Dublin. <S> I arrived in Dublin. <S> Other languages may work differently here: some use the same preposition for location and direction, others pair their equivalent of “arrive” with a direction. <S> “ <S> *Arrive to” is typically used by non-native speakers coming from one of these languages.
| With “arrive”, the reached destination is preceded by a preposition indicating location, not direction . Each of at , in or on would potentially be correct—it depends on the nature of the destination which is the correct one to use.
|
Meaning of "onto" as in "The window looked out onto the terrace" I would like to ask about the 2nd meaning of the preposition onto defined by Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary as follows. used with verbs to express movement on or to a particular place or position. For example, Move the books onto the second shelf . used to show that something faces in a particular direction. For example, The window looked out onto the terrace . I don't get where the 2nd meaning there comes from. And I get the 1st meaning since onto is a combination of on and to . <Q> So, if the window is oriented in such a way that it faces a position on the surface of the terrace, then you can see the terrace through the window -- hence it looks out onto the terrace. <A> Don't take any notice of grammarians / pedants telling you the single-word form onto <S> either is or isn't "correct" in the cited context. <S> This is an area where usage has changed significantly over the past century... <S> Obviously if you want to be in the current majority , you should use the one-word form. <S> But that's not because it's more "correct" <S> - it's just become the more common form. <A> The complement of onto can be a prospect or anything that leads away . <S> The preposition on can refer not only to to the placement of something ( She put the hat on her head ); it can refer to the direction in which one (the one being spoken about) is facing. <S> Hence onward and They marched on . <S> And direction always has two elements, relative orientation and continuation. <S> to has the sense movement in a direction. <S> He went to the window and looked out. <S> Combined, on + to indicates something with extension-in-space there in the direction in which one is facing. <S> The doors opened onto a large terrace. <S> A person standing at that place, having opened the doors, will find a terrace there in front of them. <S> We would not say (except in a jest or ironic use) <S> The doors opened onto a small broom closet. <S> A broom closet lacks real extension-in-space-in-the-direction-one-is-facing (not to mention the fact that the closet door doesn't swing out into the closet area). <S> The door opened onto an alley which eventually opened onto a wide thoroughfare.
| Onto literally means " to a position on the surface of" [1] , which explains its origins in on and to .
|
English words for '闺蜜' 闺蜜 in Chinese means two girls have very good relationship, and much closer than normal good friends but they are not lesbians. 闺: boudoir 蜜: connotes honey; 闺蜜 could be short for 闺中密友, which literally means the intimate friend in a woman’s bedroom or private sitting room. The best I can get are terms like besties, intimate relationship . Besties seems like best friends, which can be used for both men and women. Well, 闺蜜 is women only. Intimate relationship seems to connote a romantic relationship like lesbians. Any othersuggestions? <Q> You may be getting hung up on it having to be specifically female. <S> Some of these terms might not be explictly female (indeed the chinese term isn't explitly female either) but would generally be applied to women. <S> Bestie (sounds like school-girl slang, or young women) <S> Best friend (could be male or female, but "she is my best friend" works. <S> This is by far the simplest solution) Bosom buddy/friend (this used to be applied to both men and women, but now seems to be almost entirely female) <S> Girlfriend, (when used by a woman of another woman can just mean "friend who is a girl, especially in US English) <S> Cater cousin (old-fashioned and rather rare) <S> Sometimes it is better to describe rather than translate: <S> She was more than a good friend; we did everything together. <S> If I had to go for one compound, I'd use "bosom friend". <A> The closest I can think of is to say they get along like sisters. <S> This would suggest that the relationship is closer than friends, but decidedly not sexual. <S> Although obviously sisters don't always get along, I would only use this for women who do get along and feel comfortable around each other. <A> The term soulmate is one that can be used for both men and women and yet its meaning ranges from close sexual relationship to best friends . <S> Here's how Wikipedia defines it: <S> A soulmate is a person with whom one has a feeling of deep or natural affinity. <S> This may involve similarity, love, romance, comfort, intimacy, sexuality, sexual activity, spirituality, compatibility and trust. <S> Example: <S> Susan and Betty were real soulmates . <S> They shared all their intimate secrets with each other. <S> Although they were each other's confidantes could make sense in certain situations, this is not how it's usually used. <S> Depending on the context, you might find it useful too. <S> Here's its definition: Someone's confidante is a woman who they are able to discuss their private problems with. <S> Example: <S> You are her closest friend and confidante .
| Another good word would be confidante , but this one only applies to a single woman and not a pair of women.
|
"I'll be down first thing tomorrow" Can you help me figure out what does "I'll be down first thing tomorrow" mean exactly in this context? And I also wonder if somebody uses that expression, and if so how frequently is it used? Because I have checked it on NGram and it didn't show me anything. A: Can you change me my credit card from a college to a normal account? B: Of course, but you will have to come to the bank to do that. A: Alright, I'll be down first thing tomorrow . <Q> In this context, 'down' is "any direction, but I'll arrive where you are" . <S> In short, it means there , where you are. <S> "I'll be at your establishment early tomorrow" is the full intent. <S> The rest is 'pseudo-random direction' depending on the height difference, geographical centre, any vague hint of directionality. <S> Natives use these all the time. <S> Uphill or downhill, out to the outskirts of the city or into the centre, indoors or outdoors, upstairs or down. <S> To the listener, they indicate some element of 'travel' but the absolute direction is often actually irrelevant to the overall meaning. <S> Late edit <S> I was assuming 'first thing' wasn't the issue. <S> If it is, then 'first thing' implies intent to be there at approximately opening time. <S> It indicates the importance to the speaker of early arrival at that destination. <A> In the context set out in the question, the response literally means that A will be at the bank when it opens in the morning of the following day, or possibly shortly after it opens. <S> However, the response need not be interpreted too literally. <S> This expression, or others similar to it, is commonly used in English. <S> The full expression: I'll be down first thing tomorrow. <S> may be too long to look up in Ngram. <S> Try just looking up: <S> first thing tomorrow <S> instead <S> and you should see some results. <A> The sentence can be rephrased as: "I'll be there, first thing tomorrow." <S> Which implies: "Meeting you is the first priority for me tomorrow."
| "I'll be [up/round/down/in/about/over]" is relative to where the speaker considers they currently are in relation to where they're going. In reality, A is emphasising that the transaction is important to her/him, and indicating she/he will go to the bank the following day, probably earlier in the day than later.
|
What is the job title of a professor who teaches Classics? Someone who is qualified to teach history is called a History teacher Someone who teaches music is a Music teacher … who teaches English to native speakers is an English teacher … teaches English as a second language can be referred to as an English language teacher But what about classics ? A person who teaches the civilisation, history and art of the ancient Greeks and Romans is a…? It seems that the title Classical Studies teacher is still in use in the UK but less so in the USA. Paul Found, Classical Studies teacher and former OU (Open University) student What do you call someone who teaches Classics in the US? Would “Classical Studies teacher” be understood there? Can I say that someone is a Classicist professor at XYZ university? It sounds awkward to my ears, so is there a more common expression in the US and/or in the UK? <Q> I wouldn't say a "classicist professor" but simply a classicist : an advocate or follower of classicism a classical scholar an expert in ancient Greek and Roman language, literature, art, architecture, or culture <S> someone who prefers a traditional and usually graceful and simple style in art, literature, music, architecture, etc. <S> : a person who favors classicism <A> Classics teacher (in school). <S> Professor of Classics at university (Professor has a different meaning in the US compared with the UK). <S> A particular person may have a specific job title: Professor Mary Beard. <S> Professor of Classics. <S> (Cambridge); Alvan Talcott Professor of Classics (Yale) Professor Simon Goldhill. <S> Professor of Greek Literature and Culture; Fellow and Director of Studies in Classics at King's College; <S> However the basis of most classical education is the study of the Latin Language, so "Latin teacher" is how such a person would probably be known at school. <S> Even if they also teach classical civiliation or Greek, Latin is the core part of their job. <A> classicist professor is not idiomatic. <S> Classics professor or Classics teacher is what the person is called informally in the US. <S> The "job title" may vary according to where the person is on the "tenure track": Assistant Professor of Classics. <S> Associate Professor of Classics. <S> Professor of Classics. <S> If the person is not on the tenure track: Adjunct Professor of Classics. <S> Adjunct Instructor of Classics.
| One who teaches in the Classics Department is a classicist aka Classics scholar.
|
as you enter=while you are entering? Let's say you are describing a house. And you say: ” As you enter towards the 2-storey house, there is a cobblestoned pathway which makes your walk easier. Is this the same as: While you are entering towards the 2-storey house, there is a cobblestoned pathway which makes your walk easier. Are they the same? Googling doesn't have any result in this query unfortunately. (Edited) As you enter the 2-story house, there is a cobblestone pathway which makes your walk easier. While you approach the 2-story house, a cobblestone pathway before the house will make your walk easier. <Q> Ok first of all.. <S> "As you enter towards the 2-storey house..." ..is incorrect. <S> You don't " enter towards ". <S> Entering and exiting already indicate a direction, so there is no need to add any further direction. <S> You would simply say: "As you enter the 2-storey house..." <S> " Entering " is the action of going inside. <S> As for the different between enter and entering - the latter is ongoing. <S> Just how long does it take you to enter a house? <S> If you literally just step through a door then nothing much is going to happen "while you are entering". <S> I don't think there are many cobblestone paths actually leading into houses, so <S> I'm guessing you don't meant to say entering. <S> I think you mean to say: <S> "As you approach the 2-storey house there is a cobblestone pathway which makes your walk easier. <S> or Before you enter the 2-storey house, there is a cobblestone pathway which makes your walk easier. <S> or, if there was some land around the house you could say: As you enter the property there is a cobblestone pathway which makes your walk towards 2-storey house easier. <S> Lastly, you would normally say "cobblestone pathway", not "cobblestone d ". <S> It is a path made of cobblestone. <S> You wouldn't say a "wooded door" or a "glassed window". <S> RE: <S> your edit <S> Since my original answer <S> you have re-written the following two sentences: <S> As you enter the 2-story house, there is a cobblestone pathway which makes your walk easier. <S> As previously stated I don't think the cobblestone pathway is "as you enter the house". <S> The cobblestone path will likely stop before the door leading to the house. <S> You walk along the cobblestone path as you approach the house. <S> While you approach the 2-story house, a cobblestone pathway before the house will make your walk easier. <S> Again, no. <S> You use "while" to show that two things are happening at the same time. <S> For example " whistle while you work " - you can stop whistling and stop working, but the cobblestone path isn't an event that happens. <A> (1) How do you "enter towards"? <S> If you are going "towards" a house, then you cannot also be entering the house. <S> It is this part that sounds really strange to me, a native English speaker in the US. <S> Based on context, I will suppose the you are really entering a gate of some sort, and in the process going/coming towards the house. <S> If so, I would say "As you enter a gate, towards..." instead. <S> (2) <S> " <S> If tell of you entering a yard and a thing (like a dog) happens to be there right then ... I would normally say "while you are entering..." or "as you are entering...". <S> If tell of you entering a yard and a thing (like a stone pathway) is always there, day or night... <S> then I would normally say "as you enter...". <S> So in this context "as you enter" sounds better to me. <A> Yes, both means the same and can be used with both simple and progressive forms. <S> However, "while" is more common in using progressive forms than "as" because "as" has several other meanings as well. <S> For example, as can be used to show the reason. <S> Example: As I was busy doing my homework, she went to the shop herself (it is reason).
| As you enter..." / "While you are entering..." mean the same thing... mostly . "While" is not correct here.
|
What's the meaning of "it could just as easy be us"? I have searched many online dictionaries but I cannot find structure like this: I remembered Dad saying it could just as easy be us. So, Could you explain to me what the meaning is? The full text is here: There was one thing I still didn’t understand: Why had federal agents surrounded Randy Weaver’s cabin in the first place? Why had Randy been targeted? I remembered Dad saying it could just as easy be us . Dad was always saying that one day the Government would come after folks who resisted its brainwashing, who didn’t put their kids in school. For thirteen years, I’d assumed that this was why the Government had come for Randy: to force his children into school. Educated by Tara Westover <Q> The correct expression is: <S> It could just as easily be us. <S> If you are sure you read/heard it said as "easy" <S> then this is probably an example of an eggcorn . <S> The expression "could just as easily" means that another possibility is just, or almost as likely as the actual outcome. <S> For example, if you saw a car accident happen to somebody else just a few cars ahead of you, you might well say " that could so easily have been us ", because had circumstances been ever so slightly different that really might have been you in front instead. <S> Sometimes though, people use the expression to make "vain" claims - for example if somebody you knew from school became a famous singer and you said "that could so easily have been me" you would have had to have the same talent, opportunities and ambition to achieve that, and that isn't "easy". <A> I remembered Dad saying it could just as easy be us. <S> This seems to be saying "I remembered Dad saying it could just as easily have been us." <S> In other words, the Government could have come to our house (instead of coming to Randy's house) and that would have been just as easy for the Government. <A> I think this is the same as the phrase I use (and which has a wiki article) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/there_but_for_the_grace_of_God_go_I <S> Proverb: <S> there but for the grace of God go I <S> Humankind's fate is in God's hands. <S> More generally, our fate is not entirely in our own hands. <S> he is using the last meaning, the govt. <S> have come for Randy today <S> it could be us next week.
| A recognition that others' misfortune could be one's own, if it weren't for the blessing of the Divine, or for one's luck.
|
How do you refer to [something] that is united/joined to [another thing] by [something]? I am making a video game and I need to explain to the user how a skill tree works. Basically, when you increase the level of the "up" skill, the skill "below" becomes unlocked, however "up" and "below" is not correct since it can be on the right side like this: So, when the user presses the locked skill, I need to use a little phrase that explains it. I was thinking something like this "Unlock the previous skill united by the line." However, that sounds very bad to me. How do you refer to [something] that is united/joined to [another thing] by [something]? <Q> I would probably have the tool tip explain that "a prerequisite is missing" or "a prerequisite skill's level is too low". <S> Here's an example of a skill description that uses "prerequisite" (although not exactly in the same context): <S> Master Warrior <S> Skill Point Cost : 1 <S> Skill Point <S> Prerequisites : <S> Overpower Chain Throw or Kill Loot or Adrenaline 2 <A> "Linked Skill" is the most common phrase I have seen in video games that comes to my mind right away. <S> I have also seen these called 'Parent Skills' before. <A> " X " Level " N " is required; Then user can follow relations in the Tree to find " X ".In <S> this case, I prefer to use " Depends on " or " Related to ".
| The skill that you must unlock before you can unlock the next skill is a prerequisite , or "something that is necessary before something else can happen or be done".
|
"What happened during the earthquake" or" what did happen during the earthquake"? I somehow know that the first one is the correct one. I just don't know how to justify it. What do you think? Do we have to use an auxiliary all the time or is it correct not to in this case? Why? <Q> If you ask “What did happen during the earthquake?”, you’re effectively saying “I know what people said happened, but what actually happened?” <S> The use of the word ‘did’ like that, even without the emphases in my examples, still implies a sense of disbelief in a previous statement. <A> "What happened" (past tense) is correct. <S> This applies to other verbs that refer to events, such as "occurred" and "transpired," and verbal phrases such as "took place." <S> The auxiliary "did" and present tense "happen" <S> give the question additional emphasis, the same as asking "what really happened? <S> " For example, if you heard two different accounts of an event, you might ask a third person, "what did happen?" to convey that more detail or clarification of the story is needed. <A> "What" is a pronoun, so it replaces a noun. <S> " <S> What" is used for forming questions. <S> The noun that "what" replaces can either be an object or a subject of the sentence. <S> Here are two examples: <S> What did you eat? <S> I ate a hot dog. <S> What ate the hot dog? <S> The bear ate the hot dog. <S> In the first conversation "what" replaces the object. <S> Usually objects come at the end of sentences, but in a "what" question, the question pronoun comes first. <S> In the second conversation, "what" replaces the subject. <S> There is no inversion and no auxiliary verb "did". <S> You can make an emphatic sentence <S> What did eat the hotdog? <S> Ok <S> I lied, there was no bear. <S> I ate it. <S> Using "did" suggests that the questioner doesn't believe the previous answer. <S> Now. <S> The verb happen is intransitive. <S> It doesn't have a direct object. <S> So you form questions as in the second converstion What happened during the earthquake? <S> Buildings shaking happened during the Earthquake. <S> (actually you would say "The buildings shook", but I wanted to show how what is standing for a subject in the question.) <S> It suggests that you don't believe what you have heard. <S> What really did happen during the earthquake. <S> I've never felt one. <S> Was it noisy? <S> Did any buildings fall down?
| Saying "What did happen" is emphatic.
|
Word for selling something that you don't use anymore Is there a single word (or a short expression) for selling something (usually online, like on craigslist etc., also possibly garage sales) that you don't use anymore? <Q> You haven't provided sufficient context to give you much of an answer beyond generic phrases like selling used or pre-owned or second-hand items. <S> You could be getting rid of junk <S> you don't want. <S> You could be selling items that some people would consider rare finds. <S> You could be selling items that still have lots of life and use left that shouldn't go to waste. <A> I don't know of any one specific word for selling a single item. <S> Something close to what you are thinking of might be the phrase 'declutter.' <S> If a family was going to hold a garage sale to get rid of things they really don't need anymore <S> they might say they are going to 'declutter' the house. <S> As in "get rid of the unneeded clutter." <A> I have updated my answer. <S> " <S> The noun cast-off (as opposed to the adjective obsolete ): Something, especially a garment, that is no longer wanted. <S> ‘I'm not going out in her cast-offs!’ <S> While the act of selling something can have different descriptions (and you would need to clarify the intent behind it), the thing itself could be considered obsolete : <S> a : <S> no longer in use or no longer useful · an obsolete word b : of a kind or style no longer current <S> : old-fashioned · an obsolete technology · farming methods that are now obsolete <S> This is not to say that if something is obsolete for you <S> it is necessarily obsolete for somebody else. <S> (Hence the saying "one person's junk is another person's treasure.")
| For the actual act of selling, and using as few words as possible: " Selling your cast-offs.
|
What are the expressions used to say when one graduates with the highest grades? I graduated at the top of my/the class I graduated first in my class I graduate with honors I graduated cum laude I found the above expressions on google, but I'm not sure whether they mean the same thing. If not, what are the differences? Are some of them more formal than others? Or used in British rather than American English? <Q> "Honors", including—but certainly not limited to— Latin honors such as cum laude , magna cum laude , and summa cum laude , is something that one's institution confers on one. <S> Other types of honors include the hono(u)rs degree . <S> One's institution may or may not specifically honor this achievement; if they do, it may be valedictory in form. <S> "Top of my class" is much more vague and could mean almost anything. <S> It's sometimes possible to generalize what a certain term means in British or American English; see the British undergraduate degree classification , for example. <S> In other cases, it's most useful to look at the definitions used by the institution of interest. <S> For example, every year the United States Military Academy, commonly known as West Point, specifically recognizes the graduate with the highest class rank, which is only partially based on academic performance. <A> Generally speaking, regardless of how good your grades are, you should not use the terms "with honors", "cum laude", "magna cum laude" or "summa cum laude", unless these honors have been conferred on you by the institution from which you graduated. <S> Where such honors have been conferred, they will almost always be inscribed on your diploma, and they will also be recorded on your academic record. <S> If you graduated with higher grades than any other student, but were not awarded any of these honors, or if you attended an institution that does not award such honors, you can certainly say that you graduated first in your class; you would be foolish not to. <S> I would not personally use the phrase "top of my class" unless I was referring to my performance in my final year at a secondary school. <S> Finally, the honors system summarised above, usually called Latin Honors, is most commonly used in the USA. <S> It is also used in some overseas countries. <S> The UK, and most Commonwealth countries, have different ways of awarding honors. <A> British and American usage are very different. <S> Expressions like "cum laude" are not used. <S> In Britain, as a result of "grade inflation" nearly all bachelor degrees are "honours degrees", with the class of the degree being 1st (the best), 2:1, 2:2, and 3rd (the lowest honours class) <S> Some universities have their own ways of describing particularly succesful students. <S> In Cambridge, the mathematics student who gets the highest mark in the final exam is known as the "senior wrangler" (while the lowest 3rd class degree was awarded a wooden spoon). <S> If you want to describe your own degree you can't use British descriptions, unless you come from a country which uses the same classification. <S> You can't say "I got a 2:1 from Harvard" because American Universities don't classify degrees in the same way. <S> Instead, you use the native description, supplemented by an explanation in English. <S> I graduated with distinction, which put me in the top 10% of my class. <S> At university I was placed first out of my class of 150 students.
| "First in my class" means that one ranked first in terms of some metric (e.g., grade point average). They are all potentially different.
|
How can you recognize "uncle" is father's brother or mother's brother? (Is there any "default option"? ) Sometimes the speaker(or author) specifies what he/she means when he/she uses the word "uncle" for example: The gelding was mine, a gift from a great-uncle on my mother’s side.( Educated by Tara Westover) but suppose that you read about someone's uncle in a certain text and the writer doesn't mention if the uncle is: his father's brother or his mother's brother or his father's sister's husband or his mother's sister's husband Could you please tell me how you can recognize which one is the "uncle" ? Basically, is there any "default option" in the absence of uncertain answer? PS : In some languages like Albanian, Arabic, Persian, and Polish, unlike the English language, no single inclusive term describing both a person's kinship to their parental male sibling or parental male in-law exists. Instead, there are specific terms describing a person's kinship. For example, the Persian language has a special word for the uncle of the father side (amou-عمو) and the uncle of the mother side (daiyee-دایی) *This postscript was added after some fine answers had been offered. <Q> You can't. <S> There is no "default". <S> Generally, if it's not clarified in the text, it's probably not important. <S> This may seem odd from the point of view of someone coming from a language where the difference is part of the terminology used but as with many familial terms like grandmother/father, cousin, or nephew, only the direct relationship in English is there without adding modifiers. <S> My mother's mother -> <S> my grandmother on my mother's side or maternal grandmother <S> My father's brother -> <S> my uncle on my father's side or paternal uncle <S> My father's brother's son -> <S> my cousin who is the son of my father's brother <S> It gets a bit wordy <S> but, there you have it. <S> We don't really have a better way of doing it. <S> When it comes to aunts and uncles by marriage - the spouse of your parent's brother or sister - one might use "uncle-in-law" but (as a native American English speaker) <S> this seems silly and would likely be something I would only do when joking or teasing that person... and it still doesn't solve the problem of whether it's your father's or mother's sibling's spouse. <A> In English and in other languages, unlike the Arabic language (for example) that has a special word for the uncle of the father side (am- عم) <S> and the uncle of the mother side (khal-خال), there are no special words for distinguishing between these two types of uncles (father and mother sides), but both are simply called uncles . <S> English is not an exception, I mean, not only many European languages behave the same as English - in this case, even Semitic languages such as: Hebrew, Akaddian, Aramic languages, don't make this distinction. <S> (But a few languages in Europe and many in Asia do, as you can see here in the comments). <S> When talking about the father's sister's husband, or the mother's sister's husband, then it's the same thing. <S> You can always differentiate between them by saying directly who are you talking about. <S> For example: "His father's sister's husband (or paternal uncle / maternal uncle) came to visit him and gave him a present." <S> Later on, you can mention him as an uncle and it will be understood. <S> Another way is to mention their name with their state in the family and later on just mention their names and it should be clear. <S> This is how it's in fact in literature. <A> In cultures where the primary ¹ language is English (or any other language that does not make this distinction), the distinction is simply not relevant. <S> There are no distinct social functions/roles for those different kinds of uncles (and e.g. also grandfathers), i.e. in general, there is no behaviour expected from/towards one kind of uncle but not the other. <S> This may of course be different in particular families, but there is no overall societal rule about it. <S> While constructions like "father's sister's husband" or "paternal uncle by marriage" express the technical relationship, they are not commonly used. <S> Rather, to refer to a particular one of their own uncles, most people would probably use uncle + first name (or nickname) or some other characteristic (e.g. place of residence "my uncle from Arizona"). <S> ¹ Note that e.g. in India, there are local languages, many of which do distinguish between different kinds of uncles, and English is learned by most as a secondary language. <A> In some languages, like Hindi, there is a proper distinction between all of them as they all are assigned different names. <S> In Hindi, we have : ' Chacha ' or ' Tau ' for Father's brother (depending on whether the brother is younger than the father or not) ' Masa ' for Mother's sister's husband ' Fufa ' for Father's sister's husband and ' Mama ' for mother's brother. <S> So, the answer basically depends on the language of choice. <S> I am well versed in both English and Hindi and can confirm that this facility is available in the latter but not the former, and find it impossible to distinguish between them if using English. <A> In Francophone Canada, the corresponding terms are "poncle", "moncle", "p'tante" and "m'tante". <S> Although the gender neutral "zbibi" is gaining ground.
| If it's not clearly stated, you have to ask. In Anglophone Canada, it's normal to refer to the father's brother as "funcle", mother's brother as "muncle", father's sister as "faunt" and mother's sister as "maunt".
|
"Norms" A Negative word? Now kindly help me understand the word at the title. A textbook gives me two sentences. Because there are many norms in existing in society, occasional violations are unavoidable. Sanctions are punishments used to enforce conformity to norms. According to Merriam Unabirdged, there are 5 definitions. 1 : an authoritative rule or standard : model, type, pattern; specifically : a hypothetical mineral composition of a rock calculated according to certain definite rules and usually differing widely from the actual mineral composition or mode 2 : a standard of conduct or ethical value : a principle of right action : maxim; especially : an imperative statement asserting or denying that something ought to be done or has value 3 : an ideal standard binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior 4 : average : such as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group specifically : a production quota set for a worker b : the average score of a specified class of persons on a specified test c : a pattern or trait taken or estimated to be typical in the behavior of a social group because most frequently observed d : something (as a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom) that is normal or expected 5 a : a real-valued nonnegative function defined on a vector space and satisfying the conditions that the function is zero if and only if the vector is zero, the function of the product of a scalar and a vector is equal to the product of the absolute value of the scalar and the function of the vector, and that the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the functions of the two vectors; specifically : the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute values of the elements of a matrix or of the components of a vector b : the greatest distance between two successive points of a set of points that partition an interval into smaller intervals Now, whereas it seems the word norm(s) of the textbook is used negatively to me, the dictionary seems to me to give just "normal" uses, which is standard or average, and so on. Which definition would the word norm in the textbook fall under? I decided to pick Andrews's answer as the best. The reason is, I encountered another text. Quote In all societies, heterosexuality is the norm. No society encourages homosexuality. Keeping off if the homosexuality is thought be one of the "norms" in today's society, the speaker's intention, published by a Japanese TOEFL preparation school, which comprises of many English native speakers, became clearer to me. Anything is relative. Any norm, however it is "welcomed" in a society, is relative. Thank you Andrew. ( I did not select his as the best because of the number of the upvotes, kindly be reminded. ) <Q> "Norm" is neutral by default. <S> Any negative or positive connotation is implied by context. <S> When you visit another country, you should always try to follow societal norms <S> so as not to cause offense. <S> How can I follow those so-called "norms" when I don't want to be anything like the other kids at school? <S> In my first example sentence, "norms" is neutral or slightly positive to mean "what is common and courteous" . <S> In my second example sentence "norms" means more like the negative <S> "what everyone else does because they aren't original or interesting" . <S> Of course, a "norm" is a matter of perspective. <S> What seems normal to one person might seem outrageous or even offensive to another. <S> Again, context is everything. <A> This is a matter of perspective. <S> A norm can be considered smart, prudent, and desirable, or it may be considered an unnecessary and undesirable obstruction. <S> It all depends on your point of view. <S> Everything is relative. <S> For example, you might consider the boiling point of water to be a very hot temperature, but if you are trying to forge steel it would be way too cold. <A> Which definition would the word norm in the textbook fall under? <S> 4c & d ' The normally expected behavior in society ' is pretty much the usual definition at this point. <S> It's used to distinguish such expectations from formally enacted laws and regulations on the one hand and personal preferences on the other. <S> Right now, the norm is for 'norm' to carry negative connotations because (a) American discussions of societal expectations default to supporting individual choice, (b) including freedom from societal censure for those choices, and (c) that goes double for any norms involving race, gender, or sexuality. <S> It's also somewhat negative to conform or adhere to a norm instead of being exceptional or groundbreaking. <S> That said, there are clinical and scientific uses of norm that are perfectly neutral. <S> Your textbook examples are actually precisely such clinical cases, but you picked up on the pejorative undercurrent which views many (notionally neutral) norms as oppressive or discriminatory, particularly to minorities.
| 'Norm' can also take on positive connotations when discussing moral or professional behavior that someone is thought to be transgressing, the main current example being obvious .
|
What is difference between "be known as" and "be known to"? What is difference between "be known as" and "be known to"? I think the meanings are same. is there any difference in usage or syntax..? <Q> Well, the main difference is <S> According to Cambridge Dictionary be known as sth <S> If someone or something is known as a particular name, that person or thing is called by that name: <S> And this is Terry, otherwise known as "Muscleman". <S> be known to be/do sth <S> If something or someone is known to be or do something, people know that it is true or happens, or that someone is or does something: A daily intake of 20 mg of vitamin C is known to be sufficient in most cases to ward off scurvy. <S> Basically, the first is used when you have an alias or a knickname; the second is used when people know you for something that you do. <S> Other examples for the second meaning taken from MacMillan <S> She is known to be interested in pop music. <S> They are known to have spoken to the President about it. <S> As I have stated below in comments, I've not found references for "be known to [verb]" in general, but seeing the example provided by @joiedevivre, I think that we can say that "be known to [verb] <S> " is practically If something or someone is known to [verb] <S> (something, if verb is transitive), people know that it is true or happens, or that someone [verb] something: <S> The drug is known to cause seizures. <S> The drug is known to cause [verb] seizures [something] <S> People know that drugs cause seizures. <S> " <S> Drugs cause seizures" is a true premise known by people. <A> You can "be known as" a name or something else (usually something you'd be famous for): <S> He was known as Tom She was known as an actress You can "be known to" others: <S> I am known to Tom. <S> This means, simply, that Tom knows who I am. <S> However, "be known to" is used more often when a person is not the subject: <S> The drug is known to cause seizures. <S> This means that people know that the drug causes seizures. <A> This could be their name, or some defining characteristic about them: <S> His name is Robert, but he is known as Bobby. <S> Edmund Hillary was known as an intrepid explorer and a concerned philanthropist. <S> However, when we use be known to , we are generally talking about someone's behavior . <S> This phrase is often followed by some action: <S> He was known to eat the same restaurant every Thursday. <S> She was known to cancel interviews at the last minute. <S> While I would not call them "interchangeable," there can be a lot of overlap between the two. <S> With just minor adjustments in the wording, we can often express very similar sentiments using either expression: Pablo Picasso was known as a painting pioneer. <S> Pablo Picasso was known to paint in novel ways. <S> Also, these expressions are flexible, and I don't claim my definitions here are the only ways these phrases can be used. <S> For example, be known to can also be used to mean that someone was aware of something, as in: <S> The suspect's violent past was known to police. <A> Put simply: To "be known as" refers to someone's general reputation, as in 'he came to be known a s an angry man'. <S> To "Be known to" refers to a personal reputation (used when a relationship that has become more intimate), as in 'she came to be known to me a loving woman'.
| Generally speaking, when we say be known as , we refer to someone's identity .
|
Use of the word 'desire' I want to know about the word desire used in religious texts. Does the word 'desire' alone represents 'sexual desire'? Supposing, if we say: Those who refrain from desire, God is pleased with them. In this the word desire is meant the sexual desire. Does this suffice? Is this understandable that the writer means sexual desire by writing only the word 'desire'? <Q> Desire does not only mean sexual desire. <S> Indeed in Buddhism we have the "noble truth" that "All suffering is caused by desire". <S> We know from the rest of Buddhist tradition that this isn't "sexual desire", it covers all forms of desire. <S> If you mean "sexual desire" you need to use the adjective, or provide sufficient context for the readers to understand. <S> She felt a surge of love and desire for him (Sexual desire, from the context) <S> You should refrain from desire. <S> (could be desire for anything) <S> You should refrain from sexual desire (explict) <S> Men should refrain from the desire of women (implictly sexual) <S> Men should refrain from the desire of doughnuts. <S> (not sexual) <A> I believe in this context only you can take that "desire" refers to any "bad desires" (whatever that religion defines as bad), such as greed . <S> But you can't take it that the word "desire" alone always means that in any context, religious or otherwise. <S> Most religious texts were written in ancient languages and subsequently translated into modern languages like English. <S> It surprises some to learn that far from being simplistic or primitive, many ancient languages were far more complex than the languages of today. <S> Take the Bible for example - the Christian part of the bible was translated mainly from ancient Greek texts. <S> They had multiple words to describe different aspects of "love" - such as love for your family, which is very different from romantic love. <S> But in English we just have the one word - we can love our wife, and we can love chips, not really the same thing at all! <S> But context should determine how you understand it. <S> Likewise with the word "desire", you should consider the context. <S> I'm not assuming you are speaking exclusively about Judeo-Christian religion here - but to show that the word can be used both positively and negatively in a religious context I can give you two example texts from the Christian bible where they are quite different. <S> The ancient Greek word translated "desire" is e·pi·thy·meʹo . <S> This word is used at 1 John 2:17 in a negative way, to describe people with "bad" desires - it also speaks of different kinds of desires which proves it is not just referring to sexual desire. <S> However Hebrews 6:11 uses a form of the same word in a positive way, to indicate that the writer "desired" good things for those he was writing to. <S> The context of these two passages makes the connotations of the word clear. <S> By way of a disclaimer I should just point out that I have endeavored to give this answer in the most secular way possible. <S> I have used inverted commas around any point of religious belief to show that I am quoting in context rather than making a statement. <A> Well, no. <S> It can also be 'desire for materialistic pleasures' or 'desire for sensual pleasures - food, sex or something else'. <S> Desire means having a strong want for something, and that want is usually so strong, specially when used in religious contexts, that it starts interrupting your mental piece and becomes a cause of unhappiness in your life. <S> Since the writer has used only 'desire' in this sentence, my assumption is that he/she must've detailed on the types of desire he is referring to in the preceding sentences which might give you some context to understand what he means by it.
| More context is needed to understand if 'desire' in your sentence means 'sexual desire' or not.
|
What's the correct word to replace 'antiness' or 'againstness' in the following context? "Antigen is a substance that causes 'antiness' ." another one "They always in the side of ' antiness '." I'm looking for a word (noun) that means ' state of being anti ' (anti=against) for something, something like ' antiness ' or ' againstness ' (if something like that would exist... I mean, these two words don't really exist but they absolutely can give an hint for what I'm looking for.) Editing: the word againstness exists in English. My mistake. (thanks to Malik) <Q> There are certainly other options in some contexts, including rewording the sentence. <A> "Reaction" is fairly close to both of the original post's requests. <S> For example: An antigen is a substance that causes an immune reaction. <S> They are reactionaries. <S> (In politics, reactionaries "react" to changes by trying to go back to the way they imagine things were before the changes.) <S> In physics (and other fields subject to conservation laws): Every action is associated with an equal and opposite reaction. <A> Well, you said it! <S> Againstness is the word for that. <S> I also see that it has been made popular recently (20th century!) <S> Here you go: <S> againstness - <S> The state or condition of being against or in opposition to an established view, etc. <S> See the origin of the word!
| For the examples you've given, the best word would probably be opposition .
|
"Awakened" as transitive verb With awakened being a transitive verb requiring a direct object, in the sentence He was awakened by a loud crash. is “he” both the direct object and the subject of the sentence? The sentence was given in this answer as an example of “awakened” as a transitive verb with a direct object. When I looked at it, as if to conjugate, I saw "he" as the subject, so not a direct object, but passive. <Q> The question has some false presuppositions, which lead to confusion. <S> To start with, With awakened being a transitive verb requiring a direct object is not true. <S> (inchoative) <S> He slowly awakened, dimly aware of the smoke in the air. <S> (this is less likely than simple past awoke , but still grammatical) or <S> cause to come to be awake (causative). <S> The smoke in the air slowly awakened him. <S> (again, woke is more likely) <S> Only the causative is transitive, and therefore only the causative can be passivized. <S> He was slowly awakened by the smoke in the air. <S> Second, no word can be both the subject and the object of a clause unless it's repeated or reflexive <S> Bill saw Bill in the mirror. <S> Bill saw himself in the mirror. <S> * Bill saw in the mirror. <S> * Saw Bill in the mirror. <S> What you appear to be asking about is the Passive construction. <S> The Passive changes the subject and object specifications for a clause. <S> In the original transitive clause, there is a subject NP (call it A ) and an object NP (call it B ). <S> In the Passive transformation of the clause, B becomes the transformed subject NP and <S> A is either deleted (most of the time) or stuck at the end in an agent by phrase (occasionally) <S> , viz: <S> Bill saw Mary in the mirror. <S> (Original: Subj = <S> Bill = A ; DO = Mary = B ) <S> Mary was seen in the mirror. <S> (Passive: Subj = Mary = B ; <S> A deleted) <S> Mary was seen in the mirror by Bill. <S> (Passive: <S> Subj = Mary = B ; A in by -phrase) <S> The mistake is in thinking of a phrase as always being the subject or the object of a clause, even when the clause is transformed. <S> Grammatical relations like "subject" and "object" are likely to change under transformations, whereas semantic relations (like "agent", "patient", or "receiver") don't change under transformations. <S> And Passive is a transformation that always changes grammatical relations. <A> In passive constructions, the grammatical subject of the sentence (here, he ) is the entity acted upon, not the entity doing the action. <S> He was awakened by a loud noise. <S> passive A loud noise awakened him. <S> active <S> When awaken is transitive it means "to cause someone to become awake". <S> You can awaken a sleeping person. <A> Awaken can be used either transitively or intransitively. <S> In passive voice, transitive verbs can be used without a direct object, because the thing the verb acts upon becomes the subject. <S> Note, however, that as John Lawler pointed out in the comments, sometimes the indirect object can become the subject, in which case the verb will still take a direct object. <S> However, only transitive verbs can be converted to passive voice, which means that, even though they may no longer be shown with a direct object in passive voice, verbs that are used in passive voice are always transitive. <S> Edit: <S> I have to walk back my statement somewhat. <S> Sometimes the object of a preposition can also be used as the subject in passive constructions, and then intransitive verbs can be in the passive voice, too. <S> For example, the verb to laugh is always intransitive, but it's possible to use it in a passive construction, as follows: <S> Active: <S> Everyone laughed at him. <S> Passive: <S> He was laughed at. <S> When an intransitive verb is used in a passive construction, it will be followed by a preposition. <S> When a transitive verb in used in a passive construction, it won't. <S> In the end, though, if you're trying to illustrate a point about transitivity, I would generally suggest not illustrating it with an example in passive voice. <S> I think it makes it much harder to understand.
| Awaken is a causative/inchoative verb, meaning either come to be awake
|
What a native speaker would say in the below case? I was at the supermarket, and the cashier asked me, “how many bags do you need?” I was about to say, i need the number of bags enough to include all my stuff. But, unfortunately, ahe didn’t understand me. Ao i said, “i just want four.” So, what would a native English speaker say in this case? I need as many bags as enough to contain all my stuff. I need a number of bags to accommodate all my stuff. I need many bags to have all my stuff. I am struggling with english for many reasons and one of them is using words what are used only in writing and, at the same time, sounds weird when are used for speaking, especially when I do communicate with English native speaker. <Q> A native speaker would likely say As many as it takes. <S> You can smile at this point, to let them know you're not trying to be a smart-ass. <A> A native speaker would say "four" (or perhaps "four bags please"). <S> Saying "as many bags as I need" is a smartarse answer and so borderline rude. <S> Saying "as many as I need" doesn't communicate anything to the cashier. <S> Of course you need enough bags to hold all your stuff, but how many is that? <S> Other smartarse answers <S> What time is it? <S> — Time for you to get a watch. <S> Do you have a pencil...? <S> — <S> Yes, I do. <S> (The questioner is implicitly asking to borrow the pencil.) <S> Where was the declaration of indendence signed? <S> — <S> At the bottom. <A> A formally correct answer would be, "As many as are necessary to hold all my purchases. <S> " Few people would actually say that, though. <S> "I need as many bags as enough to contain all my stuff. <S> " <S> Almost right. <S> But that's getting a little formal again. <S> "I need a number of bags to accommodate all my stuff. <S> " <S> That doesn't say how many, even indirectly. <S> " <S> A number of" basically means more than 1 but not "many". <S> "I need many bags to have all my stuff. <S> " <S> Again, this is no clue how many, beyond the vague "many". <S> In any case, if the cashier is asking, she doesn't want to figure out how many bags you need, she wants you to tell her. <S> So saying "as many as needed to hold all my stuff" doesn't answer the question.
| You could say, "I need as many bags as would be enough to contain all my stuff" or "... as many bags as are enough ...". As Robusto says, a native speaker would be more likely to say "as many as it takes" or "as many as are necessary" or something like that. She wants you to say "four" or some specific number.
|
How to identify passive voice or simple past Can we change sentence having no subject into Passive voice? E.g. a) 2 person were killed. b) A person was electrocuted. Is possible to identify if sentence is Passive voice or informative or state. Without reading further context? a) 2 person were killed in accident. b) A person was electrocuted in yesterdays mishap. <Q> Your two sentences are both passive voice: no context is required to determine this. <S> There is some possibility for confusion is <S> a word can be either a past participle or an adjective, for example broken : <S> The window was broken on Thursday. <S> If broken is a past participle, this is passive voice: we are talking about somebody breaking the window on Thursday. <S> If broken is an adjective, the state of the window on Thursday was broken : it actually broke some time before that. <S> In such situations, context is required to identify the correct meaning. <S> Note that it is not necessary to specify an agent in a passive voice sentence. <S> Indeed, one of the main reasons for using passive voice is that you don't know (or don't want to say) who the agent was, for example: My car was stolen last night. <S> This phone was made in Korea <S> If you know who the agent is, and it is important for the sentence, you would normally use it as the subject in an active voice sentence: <S> That man stole my car! <S> You only use passive voice and specify the agent if the object/patient is the most important thing in the sentence, and the agent is of some lesser relevance to the story: <S> My husband was attacked by two youths last night. <A> I think, perhaps, you are confusing two unrelated grammar rules. <S> The grammatical rule for passive voice is simple, and is what JavaLatte said it is. <S> However, rules for stative and dynamic verbs are (partially) <S> what determine whether passive voice is talking about state or not. <S> A transitive verb that is always stative can be in active or passive voice, but when it is in passive voice, it is always talking about state: <S> Active: <S> Everyone liked her. <S> Passive: <S> She was liked. <S> Her state was "liked," because the verb "to like" is always stative. <S> This can't possibly be referring to any kind of dynamic past action. <S> When used in the passive voice, a verb that is dynamic can usually only refer to an action that happened (not state). <S> Both of the verbs you chose in your question are examples of this. <S> However, this isn't a hard and fast rule, some dynamic verbs (such as break ) do have past participles that can refer to state. <S> In short, if it follows the grammatical construct for passive voice, then it is passive voice. <S> Whether or not it refers to state depends entirely on whether or not the past participle always, never, or sometimes refers to state. <A> He killed two people (active) <S> "He" is the subject, "two people" are the object of the verb "kill". <S> In your sentence a) <S> the agent, the subject that was in the active voice, is missing but it is understood by the speaker. <S> a) <S> 2 people were killed. <S> (passive) <S> "2 people" are the subject in this sentence, in grammar the subject in passive clauses is referred to as the patient or the recipient, which means the thing or person(s) that received the action. <S> WE, the reader, do not know who or what killed the two people. <S> They might have been murdered by someone or they might have been killed in a road accident. <S> WE do not know unless more context is provided but, usually, the speaker does know. <S> Note that I changed the singular noun "person" to its more conventional plural form, "people". <S> ACTIVE <S> The singular noun, person, was changed to the plural form (by me) PASSIVE See Wikipedia's article on the passive voice on how to identify the English passive
| If you have a sentence whose construction is [noun] [be-verb] [past participle] it must be passive voice.
|
"Far common" means "very common" or "not common"? My dictionary says far can mean a lot or very much . I have been trying to figure what it would mean if I say: This word is far common. To me, far common sounds like the word is far from being common, that is uncommon . But according to the definition from my dictionary, it could be interpreted as the word is very common . So, what would be the right interpretation? Thanks! <Q> It is not grammatical to say "far common" like this, at least not in any variety of English that I'm aware of. <S> (For reference, I checked both the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English and neither had any hits for "far common" like in your question, matching up nicely with my intuition as a native AmE speaker.) <S> You could say The word is by far the most common <S> This means that the word is more common than others by a big margin. <A> According to the Oxford Dictionary , you can use far as an adverb either about distance (meanings 1 and 2), time (meaning 2) or as an adverb of degree (meaning 3), meaning <S> By a great deal. <S> With meaning 3, you cannot apply it directly to an adjective in the same way that you can say very good . <S> You can only ever apply to a comparative (the -er version of an adjective), for example: <S> His new car is far faster than the last one. <S> If you want to use it with an adjective that you can't make a comparative with, you should use more and the adjective, for example: <S> This word is far more common. <S> To answer Dan's comment about the expression "not far wrong", you can also use far to modify adverbs, and the word wrong can be an adverb. <S> The expression was probably initially used in sentences like this: If you follow my advice, you won't go far wrong . <A> He is able to function far better than usual. <S> or This word is far common. <S> Functioning as an adjective , it means situated at a great distance in space or time . <S> So, when you say The word is far from being common. <S> you mean the word is not common.
| Functioning as an adverb , the word far means by a great deal .
|
Difference between "mother to" and "mother of"? I hear people saying both. What's the difference between these two? And yeah, once I heard aunt too as well. It confused me alot. Could someone please state the meaning of these? Ive heard people saying multiple things . As in the biological mother saying im mother to the cute little guy. <Q> There is hardly any difference. <S> Normally we would just say "She is John's mother.", but we could say "mother to John" or "mother of John". <S> The simile is perhaps more common <S> "She is like a mother to John" (perhaps she is an older sister who takes care of baby John). <S> The "mother of" form is also seen in "Mary, mother of Jesus", for example. <S> Also, you are unlikely to use "to" in phrases like "mother of three". <A> you are the mother of someone, that is a biological relationship. <S> But you can be a mother to anyone. <S> she is like a mother to me being an excellent example. <S> The same works with aunts. <A> The following is based on my own experience with this idiom, not from any in-depth study. <S> Where a child is specifically named, it is more common to hear, "Mary is John's mother", than it is to hear, "Mary is the mother of John", or "Mary is the mother to John. <S> " 'Mother of' or 'mother to' is more commonly heard when referring to the number of children that someone has. <S> e.g. "She is the mother of three children." <S> This usage is somewhat old-fashioned or formal; it is more common to hear, "She has three children. <S> There are two common exceptions to this. <S> The first exception is the case when someone raises a child, or children, but did not give birth to them. <S> In that case, especially if they raise the children with great care, love and attention, it is common to hear someone say, "She is 'a mother to' those children", or more commonly, "She is 'like a mother to' those children". <S> In this particular case the article before 'mother' is usually 'a' rather than 'the'. <S> However, even in this case, it is not unusual to hear someone say,"She is the mother of two children by adoption", or "She is the mother of two children by marriage." <S> The second exception is the case where a person takes very good care of others, especially if he or she frequently offers advice . <S> Such a person is frequently referred to as 'mothering' the people he or she looks after, or being a 'second mother' to them. <S> e.g.: <S> The second grade teacher was like a mother to her pupils. <S> The coach was like a mother to the younger members of the team. <S> Mary was like a mother to the other girls in the sorority.
| There is generally no difference in meaning between the two. " 'Mother of' is more commonly heard than 'mother to'.
|
Mary's house is near to/next to the hair salon. Mary's house is _____ the hair salon. Do you think you can find it? a. Near to b. Next to When I was filling out this question, my answer was "near to" but is wrong according to the page. So now I have that doubt about whether there are any rule about these two combination. <Q> Next to implies an immediate vicinity; whereas near to implies "a short distance away." <S> In this way, you can have a next-door neighbour, who lives next to you, but your bank, a short drive away, could be near to your house. <S> The key to the answer, I think, is the question, <S> "Do you think you can find it? <S> " <S> This would imply that it's easily found by simply looking around. <S> Therefore, it's the "closer" of the two phrases that's being suggested. <S> (If it was only near to , and you couldn't see it, finding it might involve having to ask for directions or looking for it on a map.) <S> Although I suspect that it's more common to use just near (or nearby ), adding <S> the to <S> is not wrong. <S> I've heard and used both forms myself. <S> It seems that near to is more common in the UK—and, hence, Canada where I live—than in the US. <S> Those in the US might find that near to sounds strange. <S> I also found this reference to a discussion of the syntax of the "complex preposition near to ." <A> Most (not all) native speakers say near {some thing or some place} rather than near to {some thing or some place} . <S> And we say next to {some place} never next {some place} <S> She left her umbrella near the door. <S> The hair salon is next to the bookstore. <S> In your test question, there is a confusing and misleading clue: <S> Do you think you can find it? <S> If something is next to something else, it is adjacent to it, so it is very very easy to find. <S> So the clue is pointing you away from the correct answer, next to . <S> Who would not be able to find something which is located immediately adjacent to something else?! <S> If you are standing next to your friend in a picture, you are elbow-to-elbow. <S> But if you are only near your friend in a picture, and there are quite a few people in the picture, it may not be so easy for someone to spot your friend in the crowd. <A> I think the question is trying to emphasize that, out of convention, most native speakers would say either "near the salon" or "next to the salon", and likely not "near to the salon," and certainly not "next the salon." <S> The problem many test writers seem to overlook is that a question like this can really trip up a learner, because the natural follow-up questions that arise are: <S> "Wait? <S> Couldn't we use either one? <S> Is near to incorrect for some reason?" <S> The answer to that is more complicated than most exam books want to delve into. <S> There are times when "near to" is idiomatic, and I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's "incorrect" in a context like, "Mary's house is near to the salon." <S> But getting back to the main thrust of the question, even if I wouldn't deem it "incorrect," I certainly think "Mary's house is next to the salon" is a marked improvement, so I don't have too much of a beef with the point the test question is presumably trying to emphasize.
| As for near to versus just near , both can be considered correct .
|
Why wasn't "When I was in Sharm El-Sheikh, I *have sunbathed* a lot" a good answer? When I was in Sharm El-Sheikh, I .... a lot A) Have sunbathed B) Was sunbathing C) Would sunbathe D) Sunbathed why it can't be "have sunbathed" as verb sunbathe means to make the skin brown or darker and that has an affect and continue for a period of time so why it can't be A <Q> The present perfect is used to speak about something that happened at an undisclosed time in the past and which has a relationship with the present. <S> The verb "was" is in the past tense. <S> This is not to say that the present perfect and past tenses can never be used together; they can, e.g. I was in Sharm El-Sheikh last week, I have vacationed there a lot. <S> Sunbathing means to sit or lie in the sun. <S> It does not mean "to make the skin brown or darker", although that is often a consequence of sunbathing, and frequently an intended consequence. <S> The correct term for "making the skin brown" is tanning. <S> People will sometimes say they are sunbathing when they are actually lying in the shade, enjoying the warmth. <S> In this case the likelihood of tanning is reduced. <S> People can sunbathe for many reasons other than to get a tan, e.g.: <S> they may have a medical condition that is improved by exposure to UV radiation, such as psoriasis or vitamin D deficiency, sunbathing releases endorphins that make them feel good, they are relaxing for a period in between swimming at the beach or pool. <A> In order to use the present perfect with a time-phrase, the time-phrase must not exclude the present. <S> When I was in Sharm El-Sheikh ... <S> is a time-phrase that refers to the past <S> and it thus excludes the present. <S> It and the present perfect are incompatible. <A> Because "have sunbathed" does not match the verb tense of the rest of the sentence. <S> A. <S> When I have been to Sharm El-Sheikh, I have sunbathed a lot. <S> B. <S> While I was in Sharm El-Sheikh <S> I was sunbathing a lot. <S> C. <S> If I were in Sharm El-Sheikh <S> I would sunbathe a lot. <S> D. <S> When I was in Sharm El-Sheikk I sunbathed a lot.
| The verb "have sunbathed" is in the present perfect tense. The phrase "When I was in..." implies that you are about to tell us something that happened in the past, so you must use some variant of the past tense (e.g. past, past continuous, etc) to do so.
|
The verb "comprise" Is there any "necessity" to be divided into transitive or intransitive? Anytime I encounter this verb, "comprise", it makes me wonder why there are transitive ( mostly ) and intransitive ( often with the preposition, of ). Especially considering the definition of 5 a of the transitive and the definition of the intransitive. ( As is shown below ) From Merrian U Is there any instance when we should particularly use the intransitive ( and vise versa ). Or to say in another words, is there any definite distinction between them? <Q> When we say The funds of the association shall comprise of member subscriptions. <S> we are saying that the sole source of funding for the association shall be member subscriptions. <S> Another way to specify that exclusivity: <S> The funds of the association shall be comprised of member subscriptions. <S> When we say The association's funding shall comprise member subscriptions. <S> we are not specifying anything about the exclusivity of the funding. <S> There may be funds from sources other than member subscriptions. <S> School lunches shall comprise two vegetables. <S> School lunches shall be comprised of two vegetables. <S> School lunches shall comprise of two vegetables. <S> Which <S> sentence(s) wouldn't you want to find in the school's legal contract with the food service company? <A> It only requires a direct object, and therefore... <S> the fortress comprises (verb) <S> many miles of entrenchment (object) ... is quite correct. <S> " Comprised of " is used as an expression, but it is technically incorrect. <S> "Comprises" means "consists of", so the "of" is redundant. <S> And yet it is quite widely used! <S> I didn't realise how widely until I Googled it - the expression has found its way into legal language in the US. <S> So to answer your question of "is there a necessity" - no , there isn't. <S> But everyday English is full of redundancies: <S> "Reverted back" "past histories" "the reason for this" Once an incorrect expression starts to be used, it can spread like wildfire because often people learn language by "chunking"; that is imitating phrases and expressions rather than learning the intricacies of how that phrase has been put together. <A> The Oxford dictionary of English discusses this in a note : <S> Comprise primarily means ‘consist of’, as in the country comprises twenty states. <S> It can also mean ‘constitute or make up a whole’, as in this single breed comprises 50 per cent of the Swiss cattle population. <S> When this sense is used in the passive (as in the country is comprised of twenty states), it is more or less synonymous with the first sense (the country comprises twenty states). <S> This usage is part of standard English, but the construction comprise of , as in the property comprises of bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, is regarded as incorrect .
| Comprises is as you say, a transitive verb.
|
noun phrases functioning as adverbials Could you tell me which one is correct and the meaning of each sentence: Yesterday, I went to the place you had recommended. I went to the place you had recommended yesterday. I went to the place yesterday which you had recommended. <Q> The first sentence is grammatically correct and it means: <S> You had recommended a place. <S> I went to that place yesterday. <S> The second one is grammatically correct and it can theoretically mean two different meanings. <S> The most likely meaning is: You had recommended a place yesterday. <S> I went there(When? <S> It's not sure). <S> The other meaning is the same as the first one. <S> However, this meaning is very unlikely.(But theoretically possible) <S> The third one is grammatically not good. <S> You should not separate a noun from its relative clause referring to it. <S> So you can put it somewhere else. <A> Most likely you want to go with the first sentence. <S> Yesterday, I went to the place you had recommended. <S> You can even remove "had" <S> Yesterday, I went to the place you recommended. <S> The second sentence indicates that the recommendation is what took place yesterday, so when you went to the place is somewhat ambiguous. <S> The third sentence has a weird construction which seems to indicate that the recommendation was to go to the place, specifically yesterday. <S> eg: You had better go to the place tomorrow since they're having a big one-day sale. <A> (1) Yesterday, I went to the place you had recommended. <S> (2) <S> I went to the place you had recommended yesterday. <S> (3) <S> I went to the place yesterday which you had recommended. <S> Grammatically, they are all acceptable, though it's not clear why the preterite perfect tense is used here in the subordinate clauses. <S> Semantically, in (1) and (3) "yesterday" denotes when you went to the place that you had at some unspecified previous time been recommended. <S> (2) is strictly speaking ambiguous as to whether "yesterday" denotes when you went to the place, or when it had been recommended.
| " Yesterday " separates the noun "the place" from its relative clause "which you had recommended".
|
What is the equivalent of "flip through" for movies? According to Oxford Dictionary , flip through means: Look or search quickly through (a volume or a collection of papers). Is there a similar phrase that can be used for a movie? To get the main idea or search for something quickly, for instance. <Q> If you mean to view a film or video rapidly by jumping from point to point, you can "fast-forward" through it. <S> With digital media you can move forward using the mouse, keyboard, remote control etc and often select a multiple of the normal speed e.g. 2x 4x etc. <S> I would still use fast forward to denote this action. <S> fast-forward verb <S> If you fast-forward a recording, or if it fast-forwards, you make it play at very high speed so that you get to the end or a later part more quickly: <S> I hate this song - I'll fast-forward to the next one. <S> The tape jammed while I was fast-forwarding it. <S> Fast-forward (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> Sometimes, "flip through" will work just fine. <S> He flipped through his movie collection, but the one he wanted wasn't in the DVD case. <S> The phrase is also commonly used for TV channels. <S> She flipped through the channels, looking for something to watch. <S> " <S> I browsed Netflix yesterday to see if they had it yet. <S> Finally, you might prefer the word scan, which can mean "to look through multiple movies" or "to look through a single movie (for a person or scene)". <S> I know Matt Damon is in this movie, scan through it yourself if you don't believe me! <A> You can scan a listing of movies, or as PlutoThePlanet says in that answer, scan through such a listing.
| You can also use the word browse , if what you're wanting is "to look through multiple movies.
|
Does the O-S-V sentence sound normal in a formal context Does O-S-V sentence like this sound normal for native speakers? (context: a wiki page for a knowledge database) The detailed information you can find in chapter 1. Or I had better use one of these: You can find the detailed information in chapter 1. (S-V-O) The detailed information can be found in chapter 1. Thank you for you help! <Q> You're definitely better off in most situations going with one of the other two options (in my opinion), though you don't need "the" in either: <S> You can find detailed information [about this subject] in chapter 1. <S> Detailed information [about this subject] can be found in chapter 1. <S> Your first sentence reads to me like a fragment. <S> It's definitely part of a good construction and would be quite formal <S> but you're missing half of the statement: <S> The detailed information you can find in chapter one will help you better understand this subject. <S> With this formatting, it makes much more sense. <A> <A> OSV can certainly arise naturally, but usually only in the context of a marked subject. <S> For instance, it can be used to contrast the subject with some other object: <S> After the party, Alice was left with a bottle of white wine and a bottle of red. <S> She gave the white to Bob. <S> The red, she drank. <S> In this example, "the red" has been fronted , partly to contrast it with the other bottle, and partly to lend the sentence an air of finality. <S> I spent quite a lot of time debating with myself whether the comma was necessary, but I eventually decided to include it to denote the ellipsis of the word "bottle." <S> Regardless of whether it is correct, a native speaker would almost certainly pause at that point. <S> In more typical contexts, however, OSV is rare. <S> While your first example is perfectly grammatical, it places an emphasis on "the detailed information" which really only makes sense if you had just been talking about some other, non-detailed information. <S> For example: You will find only summaries in this slide deck. <S> Detailed information you can find in chapter 1. <S> Even this is a stretch, however, because academics simply do not write like that. <S> They tend to prefer more straightforward sentence structures, like one of your alternative constructions: <S> This slide deck is a summary. <S> You can find detailed information in chapter 1. <S> Most native speakers would find this version easier to read and understand, even if it doesn't sound as fancy.
| Fronting the object like this is perfectly grammatical, but it is highly marked, and would only be used when there is a particular reason to put emphasis on the object.
|
Why use 'they' to answer "what are those?" There's a simple test: What are those? A. Those are apples. B. They are apples. The answer key is B . This might just be a simple question, but I don't have a strong reason why A is not correct? Any thoughts? Thanks! <Q> "Those" is a demonstrative pronoun. <S> It can be used to refer to an object that hasn't been mentioned before, by indicating it as "the ones distant from the speaker". <S> "They" is a personal pronoun. <S> It refers to an object that has already been mentioned. <S> "Those" can refer to objects that are distant from the speaker, but may be close to the listener. <S> As such the reply could be "These are". <S> However there is no need to use a demonstrative pronoun to refer to something, as it has already been referred to by the first speaker. <S> This means I can just use a personal pronoun to refer to "the same thing that you are talking about". <S> When it is possible to use "they" it is preferable to using "those" as it avoids repetition. <A> A is not incorrect. <S> It's just another way of responding to that question. <S> A native speaker would more likely use they in unexceptional circumstances, especially if no emphasis were required. <S> But it would not be wrong, nor even unusual, for one to use those in slightly heightened circumstances. <S> Teacher opens a folder and begins handing out papers. <S> Alarmed, a boy in the back row raises his hand: <S> Student : What are those? <S> Teacher : <S> Those are quizzes. <S> We're going to find out who read the assignment. <S> It is a slightly more mannered way of answering the question, but it would cause no confusion to anyone. <S> It would also not be uncommon for the word to be stressed slightly. <A> those points (verbally) at something. <S> When do we physically point at something? <S> When it is not close to us <S> and we're pointing it out to someone who may or may not be close to it. <S> Look at <S> those birds up on the wire. <S> I've never seen that species around here. <S> Or when it is close to us but far from the person we are speaking to. <S> these points (verbally) at something close to the speaker. <S> These shoes I'm wearing are new. <S> Consider this exchange: <S> These shoes I'm wearing are new. <S> -- <S> Hey, those are nice shoes. <S> Where did you get them? <S> I got them at the shoe store on Main Street. <S> -- They look very comfortable.
| Both "Those are" and "They are" are grammatically possible, but "They are" is more likely.
|
A question regarding usage "by the time"? Suppose you send a message to a person which is not online! I know By the time you see this message I will have been done with my task means that my task is already finished some time before he or she sees the message. I want to know what is the difference in meaning if I change the second clause to a present perfect: By the time you see this message I have been done with my task. Is it grammatical at the first place? This question comes just from my curiosity. <Q> The first sentence is ok. <S> The second one is unappropiate because the second clause should bear an action in the future. <S> I started to do my task at 5 a.mIt takes about 2 hours to finish it. <S> You will come home at 7.15 a.mBy the time you see this message, I will have finished doing my task. <A> To me, none of your two sentences looks perfect. <S> The first sentence, though correct, sounds a little odd and can be changed to either - <S> By the time you see this message I will be done with my task or <S> By the time you see this message I will have done my task <S> As far as the second sentence is concerned, it doesn't convey anything. <S> The structure is too odd to construe anything meaningful out of it. <A> The present perfect is not compatible with time-phrases that exclude the present. <S> The phrase by the time <S> you see this message is a reference to the (speaker's) future which excludes the present no less than a reference to the past <S> excludes it. <S> The correct tense is future perfect, will have been done .
| By some point in the future, the point when you see this message, my task will have been done (not has been done ).
|
“s**t” with the indefinite article? ...and there’s a bill for £300, and an actual human shit in the ashtray. Well, I think it’s a shit. I’m standing up and freaking out – totally freaking out – and shouting “This is a shit! This is an actual human shit!” It's a short excerpt from a book by a British writer. As far as I know, ‘shit’ in the sense of solid body waste is an uncountable word. Of course there are idiomatic expressions like take a shit/have a shit , but it's not the case here. So can anybody explain why the author uses a/an with ‘shit’? <Q> This is somewhat similar to the question about using an indefinite article with "water" . <S> In English, we often use the indefinite article with an uncountable noun as a short cut to mean "one portion/serving of [noun]." <S> That's what the usage "take a shit <S> " does - it uses the indefinite article to say that the person doing the action is going to create one "portion" of shit from beginning to end, just like " <S> I'd like a coffee" says that you want one cup of coffee, even though the noun coffee is normally uncountable. <S> This makes the literary effect more vivid than just saying "some shit," which could be a little smear or a small amount. <S> Instead, this definite article is telling you that someone apparently performed a full and entire excretory activity directly into the ashtray. <S> I do believe that this particular usage of "a shit" is more common in British English than in American English - your excerpt reminds me of an Irvine Welsh novel. <S> In American English, as mentioned in the comments, it would be more usual to refer to the object as "a turd" or something like that. <A> shit is uncountable when it refers to the excrement itself. <S> When it refers to the bodily process, it can be countable. <A> From Wiktionary : <S> Noun shit ( usually uncountable, plural shits ) <S> ( countable, uncountable, colloquial, vulgar ) <S> Solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels; feces. <S> Note: usually uncountable, plural shits ( countable , uncountable, colloquial, vulgar ) <S> Even though it's usually un countable it still has a plural, and the literal faeces can be both count able and uncount able. <S> You are correct that shit is uncountable, but contrary to what you'd expect, this does not mean it can't also be countable at the same time. <S> So, This is a shit! <S> This is an actual human shit! <S> needs no further explanation.
| In your example, the speaker is using "a shit" to emphasize that it is one entire piece of shit of the size that a person would usually produce in one, um, sitting.
|
A word denoting something taking place for the last time in an indefinitely large series I've been looking for the word denoting something taking place for the latest time in an indefinitely large series, for example, the solar eclipse occurring for the______ th(?) time from the beginning of the World. Being aware of the words "umpteenth" and "umptieth", both meaning coming after all others in an indefinitely numerous series, I'm not sure they perfectly match the idea of repetition of the event for only god knows what time. Asking this, I bear in mind that suffixes "-teenth" and "-ties" in ordinal numerals are used to form those either from 13 to 19 or tens from 20 to 90. So is there a single word/common expression to comply with my request? <Q> As suggested by @EllieK in a comment, umpteenth is a legitimate word, which means essentially the same thing: very many : indefinitely numerous Hundreds of companies create data about people on the internet from Google to umpteen obscure little companies. <S> Origin and Etymology of umpteen blend of <S> umpty (such and such) and -teen (as in thirteen ) <S> When discussing writing , Google Ngram Viewer shows that nth is more common than umpteen , but I suspect that umpteen is more common in informal speech. <S> (If I heard somebody say nth in a bar, I'd stare at them oddly; if I heard them say umpteenth , I might grin <S> but I wouldn't find it strange.) <S> So, it would depend on context which to use. <A> We use nth to mean an unspecified position in a sequence. <S> For example: the nth element in a list <S> It's the nth <S> time I've explained it to you. <A> The word you're looking for is latest (you cannot mean <S> last as you say in your title, if the series is of indeterminate length). <S> Latest implies that there have been more than one to date, and that there will probably be others to follow. <S> In his latest tweet, ... This latest eruption was orders of magnitude more powerful than those preceding it.
| "Umpteen" usually describes an indefinite and large number or amount, while the related "umpteenth" is used for the latest or last in an indefinitely numerous series.
|
What's the meaning of "Run away now, there's a good girl"? It's a sample sentence in Google Dictionary: run along phrasal verb of run 1. informal go away (used typically to address a child). " run along now, there's a good girl " synonyms : go away, be off (with you), shoo; More ( https://www.google.com/search?q=run+along&oq=run+along&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j0l4.2010j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ) Do it mean "If you go away now, you are (still) a good girl"? Or "You'd better hit the road now, especially when/because there's a good girl (somewhere else) waiting for you"? <Q> In essence it means, I am asking you to leave and, as you are a good girl, I expect you to do so. <A> According to Cambridge Dictionary there's a good boy/girl/dog! <S> used to show approval or encouragement <S> It matches your first idea: <S> If you go away now, you are a good girl <A> " Run away " and " run along " may seem similar but are used quite differently. <S> The difference is idiomatic. <S> Your question title says one but the body of your question asks about the other, so I will address both. <S> Run away is self explanatory. <S> Run along is an idiom which is an order to leave, not in any particular direction, but "along" implies that the person continue with their other business. <S> Your example: <S> "run along now, there's a good girl" I would describe this as quaint British English and would expect to see it in period literature, either said to a little girl by an elder as a way of asking her to perhaps go and play elsewhere; or perhaps said to someone older as way of patronising them. <S> The implication is that they are behaving, or being a "good girl" by following the order to go away. <S> In this instance "there" is not used as a direction, but as a sort of introduction , the way you might say "there's somebody at the door".
| It means to depart (at speed) from something, because "away" is a relative direction meaning anywhere but here.
|
what is the Difference between being married and being into registered civil partnership? I found this wierd expression in Collins reading book for IELTS preparation <Q> It's somewhat complicated and requires some understanding of recent history. <S> Until fairly recently, homosexual couples were not allowed to legally marry . <S> "Marriage" itself is a legal term that includes various benefits (tax breaks, visitation rights, property ownership, etc.) <S> and consequences (divorce laws, joint child custody, etc.). <S> However "marriage" is also a social and religious term, and many people, even today, are opposed to the idea that homosexuals should be allowed to "marry" each other. <S> Some countries, and some of the US states, proposed a compromise solution where homosexual couples could engage in "civil partnerships" (called "civil unions" in the United States) which carried the same benefits and consequences of a legal "marriage" (without using the actual word "marriage"). <S> Under the law those who entered into a civil partnership were treated much the same as those who entered into a marriage. <S> Recent changes in the laws of many countries now allow homosexual couples to officially "marry" each other, making civil partnerships relatively moot. <S> Still, there are existing civil partnerships, and some couples may choose to enter into a civil partnership instead of a marriage. <S> More information Civil Partnership in the United Kingdom Civil Unions vs. Marriage in the United States <A> It's more of a legal question than an English language question, and the answer will differ depending on the laws of any particular country. <S> In general a civil partnership (sometimes called a civil union) gives you the same or similar legal rights as marriage (eg. <S> being able to inherit your spouse's wealth, or visit them in hospital), but is not recognized as marriage. <S> People entering civil unions usually do so either because the country does not allow them to legally marry (for example, England from 2004 to 2014 did not allow same-sex couples to marry, but allowed them to enter civil unions), or because they want to avoid the social burden of marriage while still securing the aforementioned legal rights. <A> If you are discussing the UK a civil partnership was an interim piece of law to allow gay people to legally register their marriage, before that became legal. <S> I will be summarising this website for the rest of the answer https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/ <S> Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents ofthe parties. <S> Marriage certificates include the names of only thefathers of the parties. <S> Adultery cannot be used as a reason todissolve the Civil Partnership. <S> In a marriage, if one party isunfaithful this is grounds for divorce. <S> This isn’t the case in civilpartnership dissolution. <S> Adultery isn’t recognised in same-sexpartners. <A> The main difference is that, in the recent past, homosexual couples were not legally allowed to marry. <S> Instead, they had to enter into something different: a civil partnership . <S> Marriage laws have changed in some places, but not in others. <S> (And some places don't recognize civil partnerships either.) <S> Here is an interesting article from the BBC that discusses the differences between the two—as well as a heterosexual couple who wanted to enter into a civil partnership (rather than marriage) but, ironically, were denied because they were not the same sex.
| Fundamentally there are no major differences between civil partnerships and marriage but there are some differences including: Civil partners cannot call themselves “married” for legal purposes.
|
A word for taking a picture by satellite I'm looking for a countable noun for an act of taking a picture by a satellite, to say for example several "action of taking a picture". I think that word "shooting" doesn't fit here. I want to say something like this: This satellite performed 10 [taking a picture acts] over the last day. I don't want to say "took 10 pictures last day", instead I want to focus on the act itself. another example we got corrupted data from the navigation system during 5th [taking a picture act]. Here corrupted data in no way relates to taking a picture. Taking a picture act here just marks a period of time when it happened. <Q> You could use "capture". <S> " <S> The satellite captured the image of the volcano." <A> So, the term used when a satellite goes overhead <S> is a " pass ". <S> A pass, in spaceflight and satellite communications, is the period in which a satellite or other spacecraft is above the local horizon and available for radio communication with a particular ground station, satellite receiver, or relay satellite (or, in some cases, for visual sighting). <S> Satellite passes imply a wide variety of things - connectivity to a ground-based receiver, visual access (for scanning/photography), GPS availability, etc... so "pass" by itself <S> doesn't necessarily imply that it's for the purpose of photography but with sufficient context or the addition of the term "imaging" or "photography", it should be clear. <S> So, for your specific examples, I think what you're trying to say is something like: <S> And, similarly in your other example: We got corrupted data from the navigation system during the 5th [imaging] pass. <S> In the second example, if it's already known that the purpose of the pass is to collect images, you can exclude the word "imaging". <A> We also say that a satellite camera does sampling and scanning, so countable nouns would be samplings and scans . <S> P.S. <S> The phrase OP uses, "taking a picture acts" [sic], is meant to be a generic placeholder, of course, but "picture" is vague and imprecise nonetheless. <S> Lay folk tend to use the terms "picture" and "taking a picture" for a very wide array of activities, still photography, thermal scans, radar imaging, and so forth. <S> Satellites could be doing any or all of those things. <S> But let's stipulate that OP is referring to using a camera with a high-resolution optical magnifying lens to capture visual detail. <S> Even then we could use the terms "sampling" and "scanning". <S> To sample means to "take a representative selection of something", and there is no requirement that the selection be a tiny amount, or that it be of a physical substance. <S> A satellite-mounted camera could take snapshots at periodic intervals which is a kind of sampling, or it could take snapshot-after-snapshot in fairly rapid succession, thereby simulating a terrain "scan". <S> Even a "moving picture" is simply a collection of snapshots. <S> Another way that sampling is used in satellite imaging is with respect to the granularity or resolution of the image. <S> The distance between pixels might correspond to one meter to one centimeter. <S> So the image itself is only a kind of sampling of the terrain's visual detail. <A> It's not clear what you are asking, but a common way to refer to this is satellite images or imaging . <S> Examples: <S> With the increasing resolution of satellite imaging , higher performance compression algorithms are in demand. <S> Weather satellite images of the area taken from synchronous orbit show an immense circular area of dense clouds above the impact site. <S> As a verb, a satellite can take an image of something. <S> Satellites took images of Hawaii's volcano as it happened. <S> You can also use image itself as a verb: <S> These cyclones seem remarkably stable over the time that Juno (a probe orbiting the planet Jupiter) has imaged them in the visible and infrared. <S> However, if you want to talk like a NASA scientist, then you can say a satellite captures or acquires <S> certain images: <S> This image is one in a series of images taken in an experiment to capture the best results for illuminated parts of Jupiter's polar region. <S> source Aerial and satellite images, known as remotely sensed images, permit accurate mapping of land cover and make landscape features understandable on regional, continental, and even global scales. <S> Transient phenomena, such as seasonal vegetation vigor and contaminant discharges, can be studied by comparing images acquired at different times. <S> source <A> I think you're trying to do something with the language that native speakers don't. <S> There might be words that would describe certain types of picture taking, <S> but there isn't one that generally fits the act of a satellite taking a picture. <S> We would just say, We got corrupted data from the navigation system when it was taking the fifth picture. <S> This is perfectly erudite, acceptable and understandable. <A> This satellite performed 10 <S> [taking a picture acts] over the last day. <S> could be: <S> This satellite performed 10 picture-taking sessions yesterday. <S> This satellite performed 10 image capture sessions yesterday. <A> Also consider acquisitions . <S> This is typically used in the industry to refer to the gathering of data of the earth's surface by satellites, be it optical, radar, or other. <S> For example, it's <S> use in context can be seen in the FAQ's for the USA's Landsat program (well known optical satellites providing open data) where the "Long Term Acquisition Plan" is described.
| "The satellite was used to capture the image of the volcano." The satellite performed 10 imaging passes over the last day.
|
"dead for five minutes" vs "dead five minutes" I came across this sentence in my dictionary: He hadn’t been dead five minutes before those vultures from the media were after his widow. I am wondering why the prep for is not used there. I also see these sentences: Her mother had been dead for ten years. "You're a widow?"—"Yes. My husband's been dead a year now." It seems to me that for is optional. So, are there any differences in those sentences with or without for ? <Q> The better option is using "for" because it is clearer to read, i mean "dead five minutes" can be thought as:5 minutes being dead, or wasted or something. <A> There are circumstances where you can omit for , but I don't know of any summary of the situations when it's acceptable. <S> There are few situations where it's not acceptable to use for . <S> One example is when you use be with the time interval as the object: <S> I will be five minutes - correct <S> I will be for five minutes - wrong <S> One suggestion for when it can be omitted is given in this answer , which suggests that it's OK to omit for when the time phrase includes more than , less than , etc. <S> In the same way, emphasis would certainly be relevant to your first example: <S> He hadn’t been dead five minutes before those vultures from the media were after his widow. <S> One could argue that the the widow in the second example wants to emphasize what a long time it seems to her: <S> "You're a widow?"—"Yes. <S> My husband's been dead a year now." <S> Certainly, with for included, this would seem a more neutral statement. <A> Excerpt from the English Grammar in Use by Cambridge University Press : It is possible to leave out for (but not usually in negative sentences): They've been married (for) ten years . <S> (with or without for ) <S> They haven't had a holiday for ten years. <S> (you must use for) <S> We do <S> not use for + <S> all ... <S> ( all day <S> / all my life etc.) <S> : I've lived here all my life . <S> ( not for all my life) <S> You can use in instead of for in negative sentences ( I haven't ... etc.) <S> : <S> They haven't had a holiday in ten years . <S> (= for ten years) <S> But as you may have noticed the above doesn't apply to your first example. <S> And I guess this is probably because it conveys a bit different meaning: <S> He hadn’t been dead [when it was] five minutes before those vultures from the media were after his widow. <S> If we had 'for' it would mean that he was alive throughout that five-minute period of time <S> but here this is not clear.
| My impression is that the omission of for is a stylistic trick that adds emphasis to what you are saying, for example in this sentence it emphasizes that five minutes is a very short time: I was only gone five minutes and they stole my car!
|
Am I in or at lecture? Which preposition is the correct for being present in /at lecture? "Sorry, I am in a lecture now", or "I am at the lecture now"? <Q> Both are used interchangeably and in colloquial speech I'm fairly sure nobody would correct you for using either. <S> Technically, " at " doesn't mean you are actually in the lecture. <S> For example you might say that you have "arrived at the store", which could simply mean you have reached the exterior of the store and have not yet entered it. <S> You may even use "at" when speaking about somewhere you have not yet reached, for example " <S> I'm at a concert tonight". <S> Saying you are " in " <S> somewhere is much more specific. <S> To be completely correct therefore you should use "I'm at a lecture" when speaking about attending a lecture in the future or if you had arrived at the venue, and only use <S> "I'm in a lecture" if the lecture is in progress. <A> @Astralbee has already answered but In your context, I think that the correct one is <S> I'm in a lecture now <S> If you're talking with someone using a mobile device and you want to hang up; or if you want to end a conversation because you have to go to the lecture, you can use some additional particle for emphasizing the present moment <S> Sorry, I'm in a lecture <S> right now. <S> Byeeee. <S> Sorry, I'm currently in a lecture. <S> Byeeee. <S> During my "research", I found this in a students forum online. <S> It seems that someone was a bit bored. <A> In my experience you are more likely to hear 'in a lecture' than 'at a lecture', although either version is acceptable, This is supported by this Ngram . <S> Relying on my experience again, the use of 'I am in (a particular location)' or 'I am at (a particular location)' is inconsistently applied for different locations. <S> e.g. I have often heard 'I am at the movies', but never 'I am in the movies'. <S> To me, the latter implies that the person is an actor in a movie. <S> Similarly, I hear 'I am at school' more often than 'I am in school', but I hear 'I am in class' more often than 'I am at class'. <A> At X is used if X is a place. <S> Some properties of places are below. <S> people can freely enter and exit at any time. <S> it's a wide open area. <S> someone could give you directions to it if asked. <S> it's considered a public event <S> So using at X to refer to a lecture can usually work, especially if the place is dedicated to hosting lectures. <S> Can you be in a place? <S> You can be inside of its borders, fences, or buildings. <S> If a lecture is taking place at a lecture hall, in X would be reasonable. <S> In X can also be used if X has some notion of a session - sessions have a start and end (borders) and saying you are "in" <S> them means you are there while it's happening. <S> Since typically all lectures are planned and have well-defined start and stop times (sessions), in X <S> has a higher chance of being appropriate. <A> I would say "I am at the lecture now" <S> is correct (though in practice "in" is also used (some answers here prove it)). <S> I'd use "at" because a lecture is a kind of event. <S> We would say "I'm at the meeting" or "I'm at the concert" for the same reason. <S> MyGrammarLab Intermediate by M.Foley <S> and D.Hall explains it a bit differently though: To support my "event" idea, I'd like to refer to English Grammar in Use by R.Murphy: <S> Here are a few examples like that with "at" + event: <S> Both my friends are at the lecture. <S> At the lessons in our workshop you will be able to make any flower - exotic, bright and unique! <S> Activities: <S> Publication of compilation of speeches given at the seminar on international protection of human rights. <S> See the examples below: She referred to Professor Jones's work in her lecture on Shakespeare's imagery. <S> In the second lecture you will learn about it. <S> Given all that, I assume "I'm at the lecture" is more grammatical.
| "In the lecture" is more like "during the lecture" (though my perception may be different from the one of some other people).
|
The meaning of "half woman, half girl" "It was the same mirror I'd gazed into as a child, then as a girl, then as a youth, half woman, half girl." Educated by Tara Westover What does " half woman " mean? (For example: A girl that has boyfriend?) What does " half girl " mean? Would you please explain it to me? Note : The speaker is about 25. She has a boyfriend but she is notmarried. There is another text that contains the same phrase: "The old man went back to his room and, sinking into his chair, covered his eyes with his hands and sat as if lost in thought—and memories. And, strangely enough, it was not of the young man he was thinking, but of a very beautiful woman, half woman, half girl , with black hair and brilliant eyes, with the blood of the South mantling in her cheeks, with the fire of the South, passionate, impetuous, uncontrollable, in eyes and cheek; a woman of fire and strong will, hard to understand, impossible to control; a woman to make or wreck a man's life. The woman whose vision rose before the old man, who sat, a bowed and desolate figure, in his chair, had wrecked his." The Woman's Way (Esprios Classics) By Charles Garvice <Q> The text has nothing to do with whether she has a spouse or boyfriend. <S> She's referring to back to a past time when she was a youth , which is a noun meaning "a young person between adolescence and maturity." <S> The phrase "half woman, half girl" is a poetic way of saying that as a youth , she was not yet an adult, but not a child either. <S> There were probably some ways in which she felt similar to an adult and other ways she felt similar to a child. <A> "Half woman" and "half girl" are not idioms or anything. <S> She's trying to evoke a more literal meaning, using this "half X, half Y" construction similarly to how you could describe a mule as "half horse, half donkey" or a mermaid as "half woman, half fish". <S> " <A> Briefly, "half girl, half woman" practically equals Britney Spears' "not a girl, not yet a woman" which means that she has almost grown out of her childhood <S> and she is no more a girl, but she hasn't yet become a woman. <S> She is somewhere between still having something from a girl and already having something from a woman. <S> Both the former and the latter can be perceived in many ways. <A> I do not think the expression implies that she is half one, half the other. <S> Instead it is a poetic device to describe someone at the cusp of adulthood, with the simultaneous qualities of both a woman and a girl. <S> Someone who is physically beyond adolescence but without the wisdom and experiences that come with full adulthood. <S> The awkward age girls, especially, face when they find themselves, still teens emotionally, trapped in an adult body. <S> The closest use of a similar metaphor that came to my mind was Neil Diamond's "Girl <S> , You'll Be A Woman Soon," re-popularized in the Tarantino film Pulp Fiction .
| Half woman, half girl" is one connected statement in which the narrator is describing herself as being somewhere between womanhood and girlhood but not quite fitting either (a feeling familiar to youth).
|
Which of these is a good way of expressing that the damage I caused to the three items occurred on a single occasion? Which one(s) of the following is/are correct? And which one(s) would a native speaker use? a. [when I found out he broke my window, I got back at him three times as hard by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera] b. [when I found out he broke my window, I paid him back with interest by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera] c. [when I found out he broke my window, I got my back on him three times over by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera] What I am trying to say here is that the damage I caused to the three items occurred on a single occasion. <Q> I think those are all correct as a native english speaker. <S> Since you are going with the notion of 3, you should exclude b as it is not specific enough (still a valid phrase to use though). <S> You need a slight alteration to c though c. <S> [when I found out he broke my window, I got back at him three times over by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera]Instead of "got my back on" it should be "got back at". <S> Here is what I would say: d.[when <S> I found out he broke my window <S> , I paid him back threefold by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera] <A> Your title says that you want to convey the idea that you broke all three items on one occasion. <S> None of the suggestions contain anything that indicates that this is the case. <S> In your first example, "I got back at him three times as hard" only tells us that the damage that you inflicted was three times harder than the damage that he inflicted. <S> There's nothing in the sentence that tells me that you didn't break each item on separate occasions. <S> In your second example, "I paid him back with interest" only tells us that what you did to him was more than what he did to you. <S> It doesn't tell us whether you broke all three objects on one occasion, and unlike your first option it doesn't even tell us how much more you did to him than he did to you. <S> For instance the broken window might have been $100, while the broken bike, cellphone, and camera might have been only $50 each. <S> So while you might have broken three times as many items as he did, you only caused him 1.5 times as much damage as he caused you. <S> In your third example, "I got my back on him three times over" also means that you did to him three times what he did to you. <S> (Though it should probably be rewritten as "I got back at him three times over".) <S> Like the first two examples, there is nothing in the sentence to indicate the number of occasions. <S> If you want to convey the idea that you broke all three items on the same occasion, you need to add something to the sentence that tells us that. <S> There are various different phrases you can add. <S> You can simply state it explicitly: <S> I broke his bike, cellphone, and camera all on one occasion. <S> Or you can use a phrase that won't be as clumsy: <S> I broke his bike, cellphone, and camera in one fit of revenge. <S> Or: <A> c. <S> [when I found out he broke my window, I got my back on him three times over by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera] <S> (Incorrect) <S> when I found out he broke my window, I got my own back three times over by breaking his bike, cellphone, and camera (Correct)
| I broke his bike, cellphone, and camera in one fell swoop. Assuming that your title correctly represents your question, none of your three suggestions (nor the suggestions in either of the existing answers) work.
|
Vocabulary to describe a great football (soccer) victory If a soccer team scores 4 goals while its opponent scores only 1 in a match, how can we describe this kind of victory? What idioms and/or soccer jargon are there? <Q> Blow out and blowout in British English is slang and means to eat a large meal, throw a large party or burst a tyre. <S> It has no connection to any kind of 'victory'. <S> 'War-like' or fighting terms could all be used, <S> whipped , beaten , <S> thrashed , hammered , etc. <S> Resounding victory is fine. <S> Others could be 'decisive' victory for the winners, or 'embarrassing' loss for the losers. <S> Had it been 4-0 rather than 4-1, then it would be termed a ' whitewash '. <A> I don't know much about soccer, but I know that the scores are typically low (1-0, 2-1, etc). <S> (M-W) <S> blowout <S> a sports competition in which one side wins by a very large amount: If the game is a blowout, fans start to leave before it’s over. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> A 4-1 soccer/football game is a runaway win . <S> This phrase can be used in any sport and it is used throughout the world by English-speakers. <A> You could say it was a resounding victory or in American English: <S> whop: ( <S> US) Defeat; overcome. <S> ‘the Astros whopped the New York Mets in Saturday's game’
| If in the world of soccer, 4 is considered a large score, then you could possibly call this a blowout : blowout 4 : an easy or one-sided victory
|
The meal / food is ready or is prepared? Which choice sounds more natural when talking about meal or foods that are already on the table waiting for their diners. Should it be The meal / food is ready . or The meal / food is prepared ? <Q> Technically it seems like they should be used interchangeably but in common usage you wouldn't normally hear "prepared" to mean "ready". <S> In fact, in British English we use the word "preparation" more to describe the early stages of a task. <S> Recipes may describe chopping of vegetables prior to cooking as the "preparation" stage before the cooking "method". <S> Consider these examples: <S> The food is prepared in the kitchen. <S> This does not mean the food is ready. <S> It doesn't even mean that the preparation is underway. <S> It simply means that food is prepared in the kitchen. <S> The food is ready in the kitchen. <S> This means that the food is fully prepared and is in the kitchen. <S> If you wanted to use the word "prepared" then it would be better as: <S> This confirms the preparation has been completed. <S> But your question is specifically about which is more natural <A> Both sound natural, as long as you change "prepered" to "prepared", which I assume, was just a typo. <S> The meal is ready. <S> might be seen as less formal, but otherwise both examples are the same. <A> As a British English speaker, I'd expect either The meal is ready. <S> or, more formally, The meal is served. <S> The phrase "the meal is prepared" feels more like it's been translated from German. <A> I think the difference is that "is ready" describes a current state, whereas "is prepared" (in relation to food) describes something that happens to the food over a period of time. <S> To confuse this, saying "I am prepared" means almost exactly the same as "I am ready". <S> For reasons I can't fully explain, "I am prepared" works very differently from "the meal is prepared". <A> My two cents: When the preparation is done, the food is cooked. <S> In other words, you are done with cooking. <S> But since you mentioned that it is on the dining table, waiting for people, you better use ready. <S> On the market too, we have food that are ready-to-eat <S> not prepared to eat! <S> I may also take it this way - I prepared a burger but then after garnishing and decorating (making it presentable) with veggies around, it's then ready (to eat). <S> So, in short, prepared food is done with cooking, ready food is done with cooking as well as presenting to the eaters. <A> As a Dutchman I learned in school that the English sentence "The food is prepared" means that someone is preparing the food now, so this means explicitly that it is not yet ready. <S> So the two sentences would mean very different things. <S> This is a trap for Dutch speakers as a literal translation to Dutch ("Het voedsel is klaargemaakt") <S> would mean that the food is ready. <S> This should in English be said as "The food has been prepared".
| and so I have to say that " ready " is the word you would most likely hear in English. The meal has been prepared.
|
Description of an active person If something is up and running, it is in operation: The engineer soon got the air-conditioning up and running again. The Transfer Council is up and running . The Conference has tried for over 10 years to get this organization up and running . What words/phrases/idioms could we use to describe a person who is fully prepared (for the day, work etc.) and is already working? The other day I heard "I am up and running" but it sound like a metaphor to me because a system or a machine is usually up and running. So, what would you say to describe such an active person, presumably an early riser, who is already up and... well, running errands, working hard etc.? <Q> (M-W) <S> ‘I'll be ready and raring to go’ <S> Very enthusiastic and eager to do something (OD) <S> After a good night's sleep, Paul said he was raring to go. <S> If you say that you are raring to go , you mean that you are very eager to start doing something. <S> (CD) <A> There could be many, but I generally use... alive and kicking <S> If you are alive and kicking, you are full of vigor, enthusiasm, and liveliness. <S> Note that there are many occasions where you use this phrase major being in the context of someone who's recovered from some illness. <S> Interestingly, you can also use this phrase not just for humans but also for industries . <S> After years of slow earnings, the industry is now alive and kicking! <A> We also say ready to hit the ground running . <S> She woke up ready to hit the ground running. <S> She had a lot to do.
| ready and raring to go full of enthusiasm or eagerness
|
Is it considered a mistake to use "I will not agree" instead of "I will disagree"? Is it considered a mistake to use "I will not agree " instead of "I will disagree ", or it's just a matter of taste or emphasis. Examples: I'll not agree with them. I'll disagree with them. <Q> I don’t know why, but to me as a native American English speaker, “I’ll not agree with them” sounds like something that a British speaker might say, but not a native American speaker. <S> which sounds a little like a threat) or “I won’t agree with them” (which is probably the most common). <A> Depending on the context "I'll not agree with them. <S> " can be seen as having an emphasis through the "not". <A> I'm going to give a different answer from the others here. <S> If you assume that there are only two states—agreement and disagreement—then the two sentences would convey the same meaning. <S> However, that's not actually the case. <S> I have no opinion. <S> I don't really know. <S> I'm keeping an open mind and withholding judgment until I hear more. <S> In all of these cases, the speaker neither agrees nor disagrees. <S> They are neutral. <S> Therefore there are two possible interpretations of your first example: 1) <S> I will not agree with them, but I will not disagree with them either . <S> 2) I will not agree with them, and, further, I will actually disagree with them . <S> Your second example matches my second example—but not my first. <S> Therefore, it would be a mistake to say that your two sentences necessarily have an equivalent meaning. <S> (Although some people might assume such.)
| I don’t think it’s technically wrong to say “not agree,” but I would definitely prefer “I’ll disagree with them” ( It is not a mistake, because they have the same meaning.
|
"Leave it" instead of "put it away" When a teacher sees his student play with a phone while having class, and the teacher doesn't want the student to that, can he say " Leave it please" (in meaning of not holding it in hands) instead of "Put it away please" Reading Cambridge dictionary definitions for the word "leave" doesn't give me the confidence for using it in this meaning. <Q> You could be more emphatic. <S> Leave it please kind of works, but it doesn't really imply a command, more a request. <S> A teacher ought to be more specific in their demand that it needs to be put down now. <S> There are many idioms associated with 'leave' as you will have seen from that dictionary entry, but perhaps one of these would work... <S> Leave it alone <S> Idiomatically, don't touch it. <S> Implies 'put it down now & don't pick it up again' <S> Similarly... <S> Leave <S> it be <S> Perhaps more archaic & might best be left to natives for most usages, but in effect is the same as 'leave it alone' <A> Leave X can mean exit the area X, but it can also mean to go/stay away from X. <S> While X is usually a place, or a person, it can also be a smaller item or object. <S> So it implies walking away and getting a significant distance from X when X is a place, but if X is a small item then the distance can be short, especially if you tell someone to leave it there or leave it on the desk (example). <S> Leave can also be used like this: leave X alone = <S> ignore <S> X <S> leave X <S> be = stop bothering X leave X out = <S> don't put X away <S> leave <S> X Y = don't change X's state from Y <S> The student may be allowed to have the phone for emergencies, and thus need to see it, but the teacher simply doesn't want the student doing anything with it. <S> And Commands with fewer words are less polite and more demanding sounding, so <S> leave <S> X without the last word may be something you say firmly to someone who is being difficult and should know what you mean. <S> But then you might want to tack on a "please" at the end <S> so you don't sound too harsh. <S> So it's not unreasonable to use leave in the way it's used in your question. <A> But that is a very specific situation and context. <S> Also, with that meaning, I have never seen it with a "please", because it is more an order than a plea. <S> So, in your example, it can't be used instead of "Put it away please".
| "Leave it" can be used to tell someone not to do something, in cases, when that someone hasn't started doing it, yet.
|
"solved in two different ways" or "solved by two different ways"? I have two different methods to solve a problem, and I intend to specify this in a passive sentence by using the word verb . This problem can be solved in two different ways. This problem can be solved by two different ways. Which one is more correct? I think the second one is more conventional. <Q> This problem can be solved by using Pythagoras’ theorem . <S> This problem can be solved by a 5-year-old <S> If you are not describing the method "solved in" is better <S> This problem can be solved in 2 ways <S> This problem can be solved in 5 minutes <A> This problem can be solved by two different ways . <S> In this sentence, it sounds like the problem can be solved by the ways themselves <S> as though they were animated objects that were physically capable of doing such things as solving problems. <S> Compare it with the following sentence: <S> This problem can be solved by John . <S> A more fluent way to say it would be one with no prepositions at all: <S> This problem can be solved two different ways . <S> You can think of the phrase two different ways as some sort of adverbial that describes the way the problem can be solved. <A> You could use: This problem can be solved using two different methodsOr <S> There are two approaches to solving this problem...
| Using "Solved by" expects a description of the method or the person who can solve it.
|
Can I be "a few players short"? I was discussing a topic on English usage and found conflicting opinions on the following: Our team is a few players short. or We are a few players short. One opinion was that this is not correct. Is that true? Could I say that or not? The suggestion was to say it like this: We are short of a few players. which another commented deemed incorrect, unless it goes on like this: We are short of a few players to beat the other team. So I am really confused. In addition, if I supplement the sentences above, would that work? Our team is a few players short of being invincible. We are a few players short of being invincible. <Q> You could use Our team is a few players short. <S> We are a few players short. <S> We are short of a few players. <S> or even, at a push [but this is very colloquial & may not work in different English speaking areas.] <S> We are short a few players. <S> However, they all convey the same meaning - <S> that you don't have enough people to make up the full numbers required for the team... <S> you're playing 5-a-side football with only 4 players. <S> It doesn't convey the intent that you have the correct number, but some are lacking in talent, which is what your last paragraph would seem to be implying. <S> You would have to add that intent, <S> specifically We are short of players with sufficient talent... <A> According to the Cambridge Dictionary , be short (of/on something) means to be lacking something. <S> Some of the examples use of or on to indicate what you are short of, but in the third and fourth examples, the thing that you lack appears before short : <S> The bill comes to £85, but we're £15 short. <S> I'm <S> a little short <S> This demonstrates that it's OK to say something like <S> We are a few players short. <S> The other version, using of , is also correct. <S> The following sentence is ambiguous: the first part works, but it's not clear what the part following to is supposed <S> to mean- "in order to", "if we are going to"... We are short of a few players to beat the other team <S> The next sentence seems like a contradiction: "a few players" doesn't quite go with "invincible". <S> If you made it hypothetical and just one player, it might work: <S> We are maybe one player short of being invincible. <S> Note that, when the thing that you are lacking appears before short , you can put of and use something to describe what you would have if you weren't lacking, for example: <S> We're a few players short of a team <S> There are quite a few ways to suggest that somebody is not very bright using this format: <S> He's a few pennies short of a shilling - 12 pennies used to be one shilling <S> He's a few cans short of a six-pack <A> It means almost the same as "We are short of a few players". <S> This alternative suggests that particular players are not available, for example if you have fixed team list, and some people on that list are not available <S> Otherwise the meaning is very similar. <S> In the particular examples, I prefer "We are a few players short of being invincible". <S> You can use "I am a few pieces short." <S> (if you are missing some pieces when you want to play chess). <S> Or "I am a few pounds short" (if you find you don't have enough cash to pay for your shopping). <S> "I am a few miles short" (if you run out of petrol a few miles before your destination)
| "We are a few players short" is perfectly accceptable.
|
difference in the use of "specifically" and "specific" in sentence-meaning What is the difference between saying: Additionally, those who are in power can monitor communications specifically for opinions, particularly political attitudes, and track down opponents. and Additionally, those who are in power can monitor communications for specific opinions, particularly political attitudes, and track down opponents. I know that the meaning changes, but I'm not really sure how? Thanks for the help! <Q> The first sentence uses an adverb, which modifies the verb "monitor" - so the sentence means that those who are in power can focus their monitoring on opinions, political attitudes and tracking down opponents. <S> For example, if I developed a new monitoring tool for the government, I could say that now they can monitor the Internet specifically for dissent, instead of having to monitor everything and sift through it manually. <S> Your other sentence uses an adjective, which modifies the noun "opinions" - so the sentence means that those who are in power can search for opinions, but not just any opinions - only the ones that interest them. <A> Based on the OP's clarifying message, I think what is meant is Additionally, those in power can monitor communications of attitude or opinion, explicitly political opinion in particular, that oppose the powerful. <S> In other words, the OP is not trying to limit what is being monitored to overtly political opinion, but recognizes that the boundary between the political and the cultural is fuzzy and that attitude affects opinion. <S> I doubt that those in power care whether anyone prefers Dryden to Pope, but they may care whether someone is a fan of Hegel. <S> If that indeed is the intended meaning then neither specific nor specifically clarifies that intent. <S> Questions of usage and grammar frequently come down to intended meaning. <A> @fael, I have problems with both of your sentences, mainly because they are ambiguous. <S> I am not sure <S> if you mean, 'Those who are in power can monitor communications and they can also track down opponents', or, 'Those who are in power can monitor communications so that they can track down opponents'. <S> If you mean the former it would be better to include the phrase 'track down opponents' first, so that it does not get confused with the remainder of your sentence, <S> eg: <S> Additionally, those who are in power can track down opponents and monitor communications for specific opinions, particularly political attitudes. <S> If you mean the latter then 'track down' needs to be changed to 'to track down' or 'tracking down'. <S> The preposition 'for' in the prepositional phrase 'for specific opinions' will be carried through to the phrase 'track down'. <S> However, in English we do not say 'for track down', the correct phrase is 'to track down', if you wish to retain 'for' then the phrase could be changed to 'tracking down opponents'. <S> This would then change the sentence to either: <S> Additionally, those who are in power can monitor communications for specific opinions, particularly political attitudes, and to track down opponents. <S> or Additionally, those who are in power can monitor communications for specific opinions, particularly political attitudes, and tracking down opponents. <S> I also agree with Jeff Morrow that matching 'specifically' (or 'specific') with 'particularly' and 'opinion' and 'attitude' tends to muddy your intended message. <S> In particular 'opinions' should not be conflated with 'attitudes'. <S> "Attitudes are assumed to be more affective than cognitive, whereas opinions are more cognitive than affective." ( Attitudes, Opinions and Why Dinner Matters ). <S> In other words, attitudes are based on what we feel and opinions are based on what we think. <S> It should be noted that attitudes can influence opinions, but opinions are less likely to influence attitudes. <S> Taking all of this into consideration, I would suggest that you might say: Additionally, those who are in power can monitor communications [specifically] for [specific] opinions (eg political opinions) and to track down opponents. <S> In the context of this sentence it does not matter if you use 'specifically' or 'specific'
| "Specifically' means 'to be exact, clear or precise'.
|
What is the point where you can make a U-turn called? What is the point where you can make a U-turn called? Can we use "turnaround"? <Q> The descriptive phrase you may be looking for is a break in the median or median u-turn <S> The " median " is what separates the two sides of a major road and may be fairly wide. <A> In British English the land between the two lanes is called the central reservation and the wall or fence put on that land is called the traffic barrier <S> So this could be described as "a break in the traffic barrier". <S> On UK motorways making <S> a U-Turn is strictly forbidden, and there are no breaks in the traffic barriers. <S> On some dual-carriageways, there might be a break in the central reservation to allow traffic from a side road to access both carriageways, but there are usually signs prohibiting U-turns at these points too. <A> Indeed you can use turnaround : <S> 3 : a space permitting the turning around of a vehicle <S> It is a more general term, however. <S> If somebody simply says "turnaround," it may not be clear that they are referring to "a break in the median" specifically (as opposed to a different type of turnaround).
| In American use " turnaround " may be possible, but that is more often used for the area at the end of a driveway or cul-de-sac rather than on a road.
|
What do you say when your friend has to leave for call of nature and his seat is most likely going to be taken by somebody else? What do you say when you are going to make sure nobody else takes it? Like you are going to occupy the seat for him. Sorry if it was a bit unclear... <Q> If someone tries to take the seat, or if they ask if the seat is available, the usual thing to say is: <S> I am sorry but this seat is already taken. <A> "I'm holding this for my friend, he'll be back soon. <S> "Or anything to that effect that is succinct and to the point. <A> I'm sorry <S> but my friend is (already) sitting here. <S> I'm sorry, but this seat is taken. <S> As a related bit of culture, in the US we often put an article of clothing (like a jacket) or a purse/backpack on the seat to indicate the seat "is taken".
| If no-one is actually trying to take the seat, you do not have to say anything.
|
Draw or tie in sports This is valid for many sports, but in the context of the FIFA World Cup it makes sense to particularize it to football. A team, say X, can win or lose. Then we say X won or X lost . Sometimes it happens that both teams end up even, i.e. in a draw or tie. What is the appropriate way to express that? I always find myself a bit puzzled about this. Talking about the two teams involved, Can we say they got a draw or went into a draw ? Is it exactly the same for tie? Is there a verb version of 'draw' or 'tie'? as in they tied or they drew ? I don't know if these exist, but I write them to make my point clear. <Q> There are so many sports, all have their own terminology, and I couldn't possibly comment on them all. <S> From my point of view as a native British English speaker I believe the following to be generally true: <S> "Draw" is used almost exclusively in British football (soccer, to Americans). <S> Football pundits almost never say "tie". <S> "Draw" however is not normally used mid-game , as it refers to the final score . <S> During a game you may speak of two teams or players "tied", but only "drawn" once the game has ended. <S> (thanks to @PeterCordes for highlighting this point) <S> There may be a slight bias towards the word "tie" in American English; although the expression "tie-breaker" is widely used in British English for any extra round in a game or quiz to determine a final winner after a draw. <S> Regarding your questions on usage: "Can we say they got a draw or that went into a draw?" <S> Not really, because a draw is where both teams scored the same, so you would speak of each team or player individually and their own score. <S> It is the entire game which is said "to be a draw", eg: <S> "It was a draw." <S> "They drew." <S> "Is is exactly the same for tie?" <S> Yep! <S> "It was a tie." <S> "They tied." <S> "Is there a verb version of draw or tie? <S> as in they tied or they drawn? <S> " <S> Yes, see examples above. <S> Also: <S> "The teams have drawn". <S> " <S> In the event of a draw..." <A> In the context of football, both a draw and a tie are appropriate. <S> In other sports, a tie typically involves some sort of equal score, while a draw doesn't have to - so a single chess game can be drawn , but generally not tied . <S> Grammatically, draw or tie are most commonly used either as nouns, or referring to the game rather than the teams (eg. <S> the match was drawn / tied ). <S> But it's also okay to say "Team A tied / drew with Team B" or "Team A and Team B <S> tied / drew ". <S> As for your examples - if Team A "gets a draw/tie", I'd read it as Team A wanting to draw the match, for example because they're weaker and getting a draw is a success. <S> "Go into a draw" seems not to be a common expression. <A> I would like to add as a native American English speaker, it has been my experience that "tie" can typically be used to describe a sporting event during and at the end of a game; whereas, "draw" is rarely used to describe an event that has not yet finished. <A> I'll add one interesting sport where there is a distinction made. <S> In cricket a tie refers specifically to when there is an even score on both sides, but a draw may refer to a situation where the game does not complete <S> and so no winner is determined, but the score wasn't even when play ended. <A> You don't say your location, and most of the answers here are for American English, so I'll add (what I feel is) <S> the standard in the UK. <S> Scores can be tied , but you rarely hear that a completed game is tied ; if I were to hear the game was tied , I would likely assume that it was to be completed at a later date. <S> Similarly, scores cannot be drawn ; instead, if I were to hear the game is drawn <S> then I'd assume that the game had just finished and there was no winner. <S> Hearing <S> the game ended in a tie , or the game was tied , is a little more common, but still overwhelmingly it's <S> the game ended in a draw or the game was drawn , or the game ended with the scores tied . <S> Someone mentioned a tie-breaker . <S> This word is used consistently with the above, in that the game is not yet over, and it breaks the tie in the score. <S> I've never heard draw-breaker , as draw is used for completed games. <S> Finally, team <S> A drew team <S> B was mentioned a couple of times. <S> This is a completely different meaning of the word draw -- it's a more classical meaning, possibly coming originally from drawing names/teams out of a hat (for example). <A> I've always heard (US northern midwest) <S> tie to mean a condition of equal scores, which might be during or after a game, <S> while draw is an outcome resulting from an inability to declare a winner (either because a tie went unresolved or some other reason, as in the chess example above). <S> I frequently hear that a game is tied, <S> but I hear that it ended in a draw rather than being drawn. <A> In America, we don't use "draw" very often. <S> We typically use "tie". <S> Examples: <S> "The game is tied, 2-2. <S> " <S> "The game is tied up at 2-2. <S> " <S> "The game ended in a tie." <S> "It's a tie game right now." <S> "One more goal will tie the game." <S> "One more goal and the game will be tied."
| Both "tie" and "draw" are universally understood and are mostly interchangeable when speaking about a final score.
|
Which is correct in this instance - "meaning that I got" or "meant that I got"? Which of the following is correct? "I was seven time zones away meaning that I got few disturbances." or "I was seven time zones away meant that I got few disturbances." Thanks in advance for helping me out! <Q> "I was seven time zones away meaning that I got few disturbances." <S> or "I was seven time zones away meant that I got few disturbances." <S> Neither seem completely correct, but I believe the intended meaning is: <S> "I was seven time zones away, which meant that I got few disturbances. <S> Other ways of rendering it could be: " Being <S> seven time zones away meant that I got few disturbances." <S> "I was seven time zones away <S> and so I got few disturbances." <A> Your first is fine (though I'd put a comma before meaning ). <S> The second doesn't make sense. <S> The first is equivalent to which means/meant that . <S> (I put the present or past there because the participle meaning is neutral as to tense, so in general it could be either. <S> But I agree with Astralbee that the past which meant that is more natural there.) <S> The second would be equivalent to <S> which is/was meant that , because the so-called past participle meant is inherently passive, so if you expand it to a full clause you need the passive form is/was meant . <S> But which was meant that I got few disturbances <S> doesn't make sense. <A> If you were to write this as two sentences, you'd write: <S> I was seven time zones away. <S> That meant that I got few disturbances. <S> But how do you combine these two sentences into one? <S> Since "that" is the subject of the sentence, you need to use the active participle . <S> The active participle of "to mean" is "meaning." <S> (The active participle is also called the present participle, but this is misleading.) <S> So the combined sentence is: <S> I was seven time zones away, meaning that I got few disturbances. <S> The passive participle (also called the past participle) is used when you're talking about the object of an action. <S> For example, consider these two sentences: <S> I walked into the kitchen and saw my husband baking some cookies. <S> I looked inside the cookie jar and saw some cookies <S> baked by my husband. <S> In both of these sentences, we use a participle in order to say that my husband baked the cookies. <S> In the first sentence, we use "baking" (the active participle) because my husband is the subject of the sentence "my husband baked the cookies. <S> " In the second sentence, we use "baked" (the passive participle) because the cookies are the object of the sentence "my husband baked the cookies."
| The word to use here is "meaning," not "meant."
|
meaning of "just" in "people that actually are working and just can't afford housing" I would like to know what just means in the following piece of remark . " I’ve got economically zero unemployment in my city, and I’ve got thousands of homeless people that actually are working and just can’t afford housing, " said Seattle City Councilman Mike O’Brien. " There’s nowhere for these folks to move to. " In Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary , the definitions of just are listed as follows. To pick one as just an assumption, the 10th meaning I made bold looks the most appropriate but I am not sure. exactly at the same moment as no less than; equally by a small amount used to say that you/somebody did something very recently at this/that moment; now going to do something only a few moments from now or then simply only (informal) really; completely <Q> In your example sentence, just has the meaning <S> simply : . . . <S> I've got thousands of homeless people that actually are working and <S> simply can’t afford housing <S> (Although, in this case, the meaning might be clearer if the word still were used instead—because that would better reflect their inability to pay for housing despite the fact that they have jobs.) <A> I’ve got <S> thousands of homeless people that actually are working and taking all possibilites into account can’t afford housing <S> So the meaning is closest to completely . <A> Taking the definition you have placed in bold into account, along with the answers by Peter and Jason, you might paraphrase that remark as ... <S> but there is simply no way that they can afford housing.
| In your example just has the meaning taking all possibilities into account
|
Meaning of - "I will mind my row" I saw the following question in a book. Question : What will you do if the teacher is not in the class? Answer : I am row leader so that's why I will mind my row. Can you please explain the meaning of "I will mind my row" <Q> Presumably, this would require the row leader to ensure that the other students behave themselves and do whatever work the teacher has set until the teacher returns. <A> It most probably goes for <S> I'll take care of those who sit in the same row as me, so that they won't misbehave and the teacher won't have to tell us off because of it . <S> Check the definition of row in LDOCE (5th edition): <S> row <S> 1. <S> a line of things or people next to each other → column 2. <S> a line of seats in a theatre or cinema <A> At least in British English, a minder is a person whose job it is to look after someone or something. <S> eg:"a baby-minder" The Answerer in your example has a duty to make sure the people in their row of desks aren't mis-behaving, deputised from the teacher. <S> So while the teacher is away they'll continue to look after their row.
| Mind has many meanings, one of which is: "to look after someone, usually on a temporary basis" The person in your example is saying that, when the teacher is not in class, they will take care of the other students in the same row to which they have been appointed as row leader.
|
What to call an image-displaying unit which is integrated into a machine? I'm writing a technical document for a large wall-mounted machine. The machine has one or more of what we would normally call "screens" integrated into it. I'm looking for a word, or a phrase, which I can use for unambiguously referring to the "screens". Here's some background context: Each "screen" unit consists of a display and a touchscreen. The unit is manufactured by disassembling a monitor, which is serially produced in very large quantities, and extracting needed components from the monitor. To make things even more interesting, the unit will be displaying screens, such as pop-up screens, menu screens and so on. I'll most likely need to use all 3 words in the same document. So up until now, the terms monitor, display and screen are already reserved. I could use something like "video display unit", "physical display", "display/touchscreen assembly", but I'm looking for something that is less cumbersome to use and a bit shorter. So is there any alternative word, or short commonly understood phrase, which can be used to refer to what I have? <Q> If I understand you correctly, there is a touch-screen device accompanied by at least one monitor-like device. <S> If you consistently refer to these devices as follows, hyphenated and in mixed upper-and-lower case, you can avoid ambiguous references to Reactor Temperature Control <S> Screen or whatever. <S> Display-Screen <S> Touch-Screen <A> A display and touchscreen can be thought of as a (modern) terminal : 2 : a combination of a keyboard and output device (such as a video display unit) by which data can be entered into or output from a computer or electronic communications system <S> Note <S> : The definition of the adjective is the first shown at the linked webpage. <S> Scroll down to get to the noun. <S> As an update, I have discovered a definition for kiosk that does not imply "screen-only," but provides for the addition of user input (something which I had not understood it to mean until now). <S> This could be a more modern take on terminal . <S> 2 : a small stand-alone device providing information and services on a computer screen · a museum with interactive kiosks <A> If I understand your configuration correctly, you have a component that is a normal monitor/display (no touch capabilities) and another component that is a touch-input device. <S> You then connect these two* components into an assembly your documents refer to as a screen. <S> If I have the scenario correct, then here are my thoughts: <S> These components are hardware, first and foremost. <S> When hardware is invented, the intent is to build something that will perform a specific function. <S> These early versions of the device are usually "bare-bones" as far as abilities go. <S> Over time, features are added to the hardware device either by software (drivers, firmware, etc) adding hardware (adding a button, or an antenna, etc) <S> Over time, we end up with a piece of hardware that is "feature-rich" <S> I think, for your scenario, try to go back to the roots of the actual hardware devices - for instance, after reading your question, <S> the phrase that popped in to my head was "view-port" or "viewing-portal." <S> I would also seek to eliminate the word "screen" from the term used to describe the touch-input device. <S> In my opinion, the word "screen", when added to "touch", evokes the idea that data will be displayed, which can be interacted with by touching it. <S> So, with all that said, here are some words/phrases that might be closer to what you are looking form, for the various components: View portviewing portaloutput portaldisplay-outputtouch-input <S> I would plug these into a thesaurus - you might find exactly what you need. <S> *other parts of assembly not important to this question. <A> I would suggest " control panel ". <S> (by extension) <S> A computer display offering a number of controls or options. <S> A second option is " human-machine interface " which is just shortened to " HMI ". <S> Both of these suggestions have the disadvantage of being generic terms that can refer to many different similar things. <S> However, in my experience they are frequently used to refer to a specific thing in a particular context. <S> Since you are writing the documentation, you have the opportunity to define the term for your context. <S> Control panel can also refer to a panel with physical buttons or dials, so you should take care to avoid confusion if the machine also has something like that. <S> In my industry (water treatment, USA), these touchscreen controls like you describe are frequently called human-machine interfaces, which is shortened to HMI or colloquially, HMI screens. <S> This may be regional or industry specific.
| You could substitute "Device" for "Screen" if the hyphenated reuse of the word gives you the willies.
|
how to write an offer like this one? In "kids" offer, you can get the "kids meal" and another meal. For this other meal , you can choose between "Chicken meal" or "Beef meal". I feel like using the phrases (Another meal) and (for this other meal) is not suitable. I asked someone I know what do you call a meal for adults, he said that it's just called a "meal". So how can I make sure that our clients understand that there's only one type of kids meal and two types of "Adults" meal and they can choose one of them? Are the phrases correct and okay to use? I need the sentence to be as short as possible. <Q> Buy any beef or chicken meal - get a Free kid's meal <S> * <S> Then you put any restrictions in really small type right at the bottom of the page... <S> * <S> Kid's meal is chicken nuggets & chips. <S> One kid's meal offer per adult. <S> Child must be accompanied by parent or guardian. <S> Under 14s only. <S> Terms & conditions apply. <S> Participating outlets only. <S> ;-) <S> More seriously, the way you have it worded at present makes it sound like any child can walk in, buy themselves a kid's meal, then get a free large meal for their parent... which I imagine is not how the offer works. <S> If it's an advert - a poster or in-store offer - you need to get the essential message across really quickly. <S> Details come later. <S> Get them to understand that what you are actually selling is the beef meal & the chicken meal. <S> The "special offer" is the kid's meal. <S> Don't give them the impression, however fleeting, that what they are about to pay for is the kid's meal. <S> It's not worth the arguments at the till between your staff & the customers who don't read so well, or don't read thoroughly. <A> In American English, the phrase a regular meal is often used in fast-food contexts to refer to an adult meal that is a regular part of the menu. <S> So you could say Buy one kid's meal, and get a regular meal for free † † beef or chicken. <S> or Buy one kid's meal, and get a regular beef or chicken meal for free <A> So how can I make sure that our clients understand that there's only one type of kids meal and two types of "Adults" meal <S> and they can choose one of them? <S> You have almost answered your own question! <S> There is one type of kid's meal and two types of adult meal, beef or chicken . <S> For the Kids Offer you may choose one adult and one kid's meal. <S> Using phrases like "another meal" is wordy , and unclear <A> List the childrens offer separate from the adult offers. <S> (OR that an an adult Chicken or Beef meal is free with "kids meal" purchase if that is what you really meant to say in your question) <S> "Kids Meal" is a generally accepted phrase that won't cause offense, but some people don't like for their "children" to be called kids. <S> Not sure this applies in UK and doesn't apply everywhere in the USA <S> (it is an individual preference, not a regional thing). <S> "Kids Meal" is generally less expensive than most other 'adult' items.
| In the children's section (where you spell out what the "kids meal" is), mention that a kids meal is free with an adult Chicken or Beef meal.
|
What's the meaning of "shield of feathers"? The title of chapter 10 of Educated (by Tara Westover) is: shield of feathers . I could n't find any relationship between the title and the text itself. Does "shield of feathers" have an idiomatic meaning? Or it simply means some feathers which attached to a shield, like an Aztec shield of feathers. The last part of chapter 10 may be significant. My own memory of Shawn begins in the kitchen, perhaps two months after the second accident. I am making corn chowder. The door squeaks and I twist at the waist to see who’s come in, then twist back to chop an onion. “You gonna be a walking Popsicle stick forever?” Shawn says. “Nope.” “You need a chiropractor,” he says. “Mom’ll fix it.” “You need a chiropractor,” he says again. The family eats, then disperses. I start the dishes. My hands are in the hot, soapy water when I hear a step behind me and feel thick, callused hands wrap around my skull. Before I can react, he jerks my head with a swift, savage motion. CRACK! It’s so loud, I’m sure my head has come off and he’s holding it. My body folds, I collapse. Everything is black but somehow spinning. When I open my eyes moments later, his hands are under my arms and he’s holding me upright. “Might be a while before you can stand,” he says. “But when you can, I need to do the other side.” I was too dizzy, too nauseous, for the effect to be immediate. But throughout the evening I observed small changes. I could look at the ceiling. I could cock my head to tease Richard. Seated on the couch, I could turn to smile at the person next to me. That person was Shawn, and I was looking at him but I wasn’t seeing him. I don’t know what I saw—what creature I conjured from that violent, compassionate act—but I think it was my father, or perhaps my father as I wished he were, some longed-for defender, some fanciful champion, one who wouldn’t fling me into a storm, and who, if I was hurt, would make me whole. <Q> A shield of feathers is also a phrase used by ornithologists when describing the plumage of birds. <S> P.S. A shield decorated with pendant feathers wouldn't really be called a shield of feathers . <S> In that construction with of , the object of the preposition, here feathers , is what the thing is made of, similar to feet of clay , say, or a curtain of beads . <A> I think that echoes the title of chapter 6--"Shield and buckler", which is a quote from Psalm 91:4. " <S> He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler" <A> There is no particular idiomatic meaning. <S> However Native American people decorated ceremonial shields with feathers. <S> It may allude to something that represents protection, but isn't a practical object. <S> It could therefore allude to the character "Shawn", or how she sees Shawn as a "father and defender" <A> This question is probably more about literary interpretation than dictionary definition . <S> A shield is a device used to protect yourself from some kind of attack or threat. <S> Shields are often made from hard, durable substances like thick wood, or metal -- whatever material is strong enough to actually provide meaningful protection. <S> A "shield of feathers" is therefore one that is essentially useless. <S> This is a metaphor. <S> I gather that, in the same way, the narrator has many people in her life who pretend to be supportive and helpful while actually being a constant physical threat. <A> Given that many of Westover's chapter titles are drawn from the Bible, she may be alluding to Psalm 91, which reads "He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. <S> " It is definitely an ironic allusion, as she wishes at the end of the chapter for a father who would protect and heal her.
| The "shield of feathers" provides the appearance of a protective device, without actually offering any kind of meaningful protection.
|
What is this type of sentence called? How are you feeling today? Bad The second sentence, does it have a name, is it a one-word response? <Q> It's called a sentence word or a one-word sentence : <S> A sentence word (also called a one-word sentence) is a single word that forms a full sentence. <A> But there are other more creative ways you could describe such a statement. <S> " Monosyllabic " describes both a single syllable statement and can be used to describe a person who speaks in such a way. <S> In novels, verbs such as "grunted" may be used to describe the speech someone who spoke in single syllable utterances; for example: "How are you feeling", asked Sue. <S> "Bad", grunted Bob. <A> A sentence can be defined as: a word, clause, or phrase or a group of clauses or phrases forming a syntactic unit which expresses an assertion, a question, a command, a wish, an exclamation, or the performance of an action, that in writing usually begins with a capital letter and concludes with appropriate end punctuation, and that in speaking is distinguished by characteristic patterns of stress, pitch, and pauses <S> However, it's more common for it to be thought of in the following way : <S> In grammar, a sentence is the basic grammatical unit. <S> It contains a group of words and expresses a complete thought. <S> A sentence consists of a subject and a predicate. <S> For example in the sentence " Bill writes good poems " Bill is the subject of the sentence and writes good poems is the predicate. <S> The one-word sentence <S> No seemingly contains none of those things. <S> However, those things are both implied by and inferred from the context of the sentence that came before: <S> "How are you feeling today?" <S> "(I'm feeling) <S> Bad (today). <S> " <S> In this case, No is known as an elliptical sentence , where one or more words have been omitted yet are assumed to exist in context. <S> (Omitting all but a single word is an extreme form of elliptical construction.)
| As already answered, the correct English term for a complete sentence composed of just one word is a sentence word .
|
What do you call someone who fuses multiple objects together? What do you call someone who fuses multiple objects together? Is "fusioner" the right adjective of the noun "fusion"? I cannot find it in the dictionaries. EDIT: I am developing a machine learning algorithm that combines multiple neural networks. The way it does it is by fusing the last hidden layers, which in computer language, are numeric vectors like the following: LHL1 = [2,4,6,2,7,3,2,4,6]LHL2 = [6,3,4,7,8,3,2,4,9]LHL3 = [2,2,8,8,9,9,3,2,4]fused_LHL = [2,4,6,2,7,3,2,4,6,6,3,4,7,8,3,2,4,9,2,2,8,8,9,9,3,2,4] I am thinking of a name for my algorithm and inspired by the operation of vector fusion, I thought to name it "Neural Network Fusioner". But as already mentioned, I am not sure if the word "Fusioner" exists, and if not, which would be the most appropriate alternative word. <Q> If you are committed to thinking of the operation as "fusion", then I'd agree with some other commenters that the noun is "fuser". <S> If all of your fusions are concatenations (as they are in this example), concatenator seems like a good name, as suggested in another answer. <S> This is somewhat more common for strings than for vectors, but it works. <S> You could also look at this operation as flattening , which is an established name for taking a vector of vectors of A, and joining them together to make a vector of <S> A. That would make the the node that does the flattening a flattener . <S> A more-general option is to see this as a reduction , that is to say that the operation is a reduce operation. <S> That makes the noun reducer . <S> This is quite a common name in functional-programming contexts. <S> The main problem with this name is that it is quite general indeed; you probably have other parts of your machine learning pipeline which would fit this word as well. <A> The original poster is concatenating arrays, so he is a concatenator . <S> The process of welding fuses material together. <S> A person who welds things together is a welder . <S> Extracting the flavor of something into a liquid is infusion. <A> You are right that the suffix -er can be added to a verb, thus creating a noun that refers to the person or thing that does that action. <S> So, for example: a dancer is one who dances a jogger is one who jogs a framer is one who frames a washer and dryer are appliances that wash and dry <S> Many of these words are common, immediately recognizable and having their own dictionary entries – for example, teacher, writer, farmer, stapler, skydiver , etc. <S> However, it's not always quite so simple. <S> For example, the person that conducts an auction is called an auctioneer , not an "auctioner," and a person that works puppets is a puppeteer , not a "puppeteer." <S> Moreover, the person who pilots a plane is called a pilot , not a "piloter" or "piloteer," while a person who is typing is usually called a typist , not a "typer." <S> Some verbs simply don't get turned into nouns that often, and if you try to do so, your word processor might use a red squiggly line to alert you that you're using a non-standard word. <S> For example, you may win a chess match, but people might look at you funny if you claim to be a "checkmater;" a trucker may jackknife his truck, but you probably won't find many credible news outlets calling him a "jackknifer." <S> So, could you use "fuser" or "fusioner" to mean "one who fuses multiple objects together"? <S> You could, but, as your research has already shown, it's not a very common word. <S> I can think of three ways to handle this: <S> Use a more precise term, depending on what kind of "fusing" is being done. <S> Words like welder, combiner, mixer, builder, etc., are not as generic, but won't frazzle your spellchecker nearly so much. <S> If you are writing a paper, you could coin the term in your paper. <S> That is, you could write something like this: We call the person who fuses these components together the fusioner . <S> You could used scare quotes to signal the reader that you know <S> this is a non-standard word, but you are using it anyway because you can't think of anything more suitable. <S> For example, you could write: <S> The components are joined together by a "fusioner" who typically builds four units per hour.
| A device used to infuse things is an infuser .
|
Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender by looking at the calendar before they are born My question is about the location of " before " and " by ".I am not sure which one should be close to " learn ". Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender by looking at the calendar before they are born. My intended meaning is: Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender by looking at the calendar. When are they trying to learn it? Before they( their babies ) are born. So, which one is better? 1-) Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender by looking at the calendar before they are born . or 2-) Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender before they are born by looking at the calendar. In the first sentence, " before they are born " seems to refer to " looking ", not " learn ". But I want it to refer to " learn ", not " looking ". In the second sentence, "by looking" seems to refer to "are born" and of course, it is not my intended meaning. Finally, which one is better? I think that they are both correct. <Q> Um, why do you want to attach "by looking . <S> . ." to "to learn . . ."? <S> As a native speaker, I find that association to be nonsensical. <S> You and I seem to share the opinion that no such learning occurs, that they are trying and failing, even if they don't recognize the failure. <S> If you did somehow manage to attach "before [the babies] are born" to "to learn . <S> . <S> . <S> ," wouldn't that imply that these babies are never born? <S> When does the learning occur? <S> Perhaps it's just an opinion, but from this method I'd say never . <S> When does the looking occur? <S> Before these babies are born. <S> When does the trying occur? <S> Is there a potential difference between the conditions of the calendar before and after birth? <S> Probably not. <S> So, "the calendar before they are born" isn't likely to be read as a coherent phrase. <S> Is there a difference between the genders of the babies before and after birth? <S> Again, probably not. <S> So, "their babies' gender before they are born" isn't likely to be read as a coherent phrase. <S> Is looking at a calendar a potential method of being born? <S> Not according to my seventh-grade health instructor. <S> Yet another potentially ambiguous phrasing that simply doesn't cohere. <S> In your example 1), "before. . ." naturally attaches to "looking . <S> . . ." That seems quite sensible. <S> In your example 2), "before . . <S> ." naturally attaches to "trying . . <S> . ." That also seems quite sensible. <S> By the time we reach the meaning of the clause as a whole, the difference is inconsequential. <S> Those two differently-named actions are the same event. <S> I like example 1) better, but that's a personal preference and a question of style. <S> As a question of grammar and basic semantics, I don't see anything to recommend one version over the other. <A> 2) seems to be the closest, though I would write: Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender before they are born by using the calendar. <S> using defines the means for making such decision (boy vs. girl). <S> Of course looking at the calendar is necessary and implied in using it. <S> I can't form a clear idea from any of the given examples <A> If OP is trying to state this more clearly: <S> The Chinese are trying to learn the gender of their as yet unborn babies by consulting the [zodiacal] calendar. <S> or To learn the gender of their babies in utero <S> the Chinese consult the [zodiacal] calendar. <S> The verb learn can mean "to discover, to find out". <S> OP writes in a comment: <S> It doesn't seem good to me to put subordinate clauses such as "because, before, after, if, although" in the middle of a sentence. <S> before they are born and by consulting the calendar are not the problem you believe them to be in that sentence. <S> Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender by looking at the calendar before they are born . <S> Chinese people are trying to learn their babies' gender before they are born by looking at the calendar . <S> The restrictions that affect placement of by looking at the calendar and before they are born have to do with semantic confusion. <S> We move them around for the sake of clarity, not because syntax constrains their position. <S> Both sentences are acceptable. <S> There is no chance that the listener will think birth is the product of consulting a calendar. <S> How was the baby delivered? <S> It was delivered by consulting the calendar. <S> There is no chance that the listener will think that people are consulting the calendar before they're even born. <S> She was always organized, so organized in fact that she consulted the calendar before her own birth and picked a convenient day to arrive. <S> Semantically we connect trying to learn with by looking at the calendar <S> (instrumental by introduces the mode or method of the attempt or effort) and we connect before they are born with babies because of the pronoun they and adjective born <S> and we also connect it with <S> learn because of the temporal meaning of before ; we understand learn here to mean prognosticate or <S> predict and thus before is temporally associated with the meaning of learn .
| At the same time as the looking, since looking at the calendar is the method of trying.
|
The meaning of "unholy intrigue" In my English language class, we had to write short, scary stories. I wrote a story about a man who brings his wife back from the dead, and one of the lines in the story was: From that day, it was not love that drove him forward, but unholy intrigue. What I wanted to convey with this sentence is that, at one point, his project was driven forward by morbid curiosity and he no longer cared about getting his wife back. My teacher took off points for the phrase "unholy intrigue", saying two things were wrong with it: "Unholy" means 'against a religion', and would give a sense of 'driven forward by the devil', which is not what I wanted. "Intrigue" as a noun means "a secret plan", and it makes no sense to say his secret plan was driven forward by his secret plan. Her definition of intrigue agrees with my dictionary , but it still feels correct to me in the context. As for unholy , the 2nd definition on the linked website uses it in the same way I do, except it says it must describe a group of people. Does this sentence make sense in English, and does it mean what I want it to? <Q> Keep in mind that, when writing for an English class, the teacher is going to grade on proper use of English. <S> Thus, even if the meaning can be deciphered (or even if it's obvious), you may still lose points if it is technically incorrect. <S> That does not mean a general reading audience would disapprove. <S> In fact, avid readers tend to embrace more creative writers and shun those who are rigidly correct on a technical level. <S> Certainly your phrase is unusual, but in the context I think "unholy" makes sense. " <S> Intrigue" doesn't work for me, though. <S> I think "curiosity" or "fascination" or something along those lines would work better. <A> Your teacher's criticism that " Unholy means driven forward by the devil " is nonsense. <S> That is religious fundamentalism. <S> There is no devil except in allegory and archetypes and description. <S> Stick to your guns, it reads quite nicely. <A> Merriam-Webster gives three senses of unholy : 1 : showing disregard for what is holy <S> : wicked 2 : deserving of censure · an unholy alliance 3 : <S> very unpleasant : <S> god-awful · an unholy mess <S> Further, its first definition of holy is: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness <S> None of these things specifically relate to the Devil and, even if one of them did, that doesn't exclude the other senses—or the fact that you could be writing in a metaphorical sense. <S> As for intrigue : <S> 1 <S> a : a secret scheme : <S> MACHINATION b : the practice of engaging in secret schemes 2 : a clandestine love affair <S> I don't understand where your teacher gets the idea that that you are saying "his secret plan was driven forward by his secret plan. <S> " Yes, I follow the "secret plan" part from intrigue <S> but your sentence doesn't use the word intrigue twice, nor does it you use "secret plan" at all. <S> In fact, if you take the second and third senses of unholy and combine them with the first and second senses of intrigue , then what you end up with is: <S> From that day, it was not love that drove him forward, but a very unpleasant and secret love affair that was deserving of censure. <S> I fail to see how that's at all inappropriate for somebody who's involved in a romance with his dead wife . . .
| Intrigue implies that there is something mysterious, possibly even devious, afoot, which implies intent on both sides (someone doing it; someone else trying to figure it out).
|
A word for something that is too visible? How to call something/someone that is too visible, more that it/she should or deserves, or more than it is natural and accepted? The word I have in mind is "over-visible". Are over-visible and over-visibility correct/idiomatic words? I want to say that someone is too visible, as in the following sentence: Unlike philosophers who suffer from invisibility in the society, sociologists enjoy over-visibility. Is the use of "over-visibility" in the above sentence correct? <Q> The most common term would be overexposure. <S> In such a context, it means what you are trying to say. <A> It depends what you mean by <S> too visible A revealing dress can make the wearer too visible . <S> If an animal which uses camouflage in the forest is on a beach, it can be too visible . <S> Possibly the word you are looking for is <S> overexposed <S> which can describe something which has been very visible for too long . <A> Maybe you're familiar with its antonym inconspicuous , which is normally used to describe someone or something that blends in with the surroundings to the point of being unseen. <S> As you would expect "conspicuous" means that something is very easily seen, attracting notice or attention. <S> These two words have more depth of meaning than <S> visible and invisible , which solely focus on whether or not something <S> can or cannot possibly be seen. <S> Conspicuous adds the meaning that something is readily noticeable, perhaps more than intended. <A> With regards to your example, the word "prominent"/"prominence" comes to mind (though it doesn't actually mean too visible, so we'd have to add that in). <S> It's also quite a sophisticated/erudite statement, and so I'd probably phrase it something like: <S> Unlike philosophers, who suffer a degree of invisibility in society, sociologists enjoy perhaps a little too much prominence.
| I think the best word for something that is "too visible" is: Conspicuous.
|
have been ill/ was ill Is it correct to think that if I say I have been ill for a week it could both mean I am still ill or I just got better? I thought that if you have recovered you should say I was ill for a week. <Q> We use the Present perfect progressive tense <S> (e.g. I have been [something]) to describe an action that began in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future. <S> This tense is formed by using has/have been and the present participle or an adjective. <S> We use the (simple) <S> past tense (I was [something]) to express or describe an action or situation that was started and finished in the past. <S> Thus, "I was ill for a week" means that I started being ill at some unspecified time in the past, and continued being ill for one week, after which I recovered. <S> Verb tenses <A> To say: I have been ill for a week means that you are talking about the past seven days, whether or not you are still ill or you have just recovered. <S> To say: I was ill for a week <S> suggests that you are talking about some period in your past, as in last month , last year or over Christmas . <S> Obviously, there's a grey area between the two. <S> Several days after feeling better you might decide to use <S> was ill <S> but generally you would go on to indicate when you were ill or why you were ill, as in <S> : I was ill for a week while on holiday. <S> I was ill for a week after eating seafood. <A> You are correct <S> I have been ill for a week. <S> would be understood to mean you still may be ill. <S> I was ill for a week. <S> I had been ill for a week. <S> Would be understood that you are better now, the past tense implies a change of state.
| Thus "I have been ill (or suffering from an illness) for a week" means I started being ill a week ago, I am still ill, and may continue to be ill.
|
What part is called the crust? I'm actually a bit confused, and it seems like nobody here is able to tell me what is what. Is it just the "outer part" which is the crust, or all of the pizza on the picture? And if only the outer part is called crust, what's the whole thing called then? <Q> In foods like pastries, the "crust" is generally the part made of bread or something similar. <S> In a pizza, the crust is the bottom layer, usually made of bread or something similar, on which you put any cheese, sauce, and "toppings". <S> In the above picture, the crust is underneath and on the sides of this pepperoni pizza. <S> You may also notice it's a "cheese-filled" crust, meaning the outer edge has a hollow center filled with melted cheese. <S> In a pie, the crust is the outer "shell", that goes up the sides and sometimes completely covers the top: <S> In the above picture, the crust is what encloses the "filling" of the pie. <S> Here it's a full crust that completely covers the top, but in others it can be a "lattice" crust that forms a pattern over the top, or no top crust at all. <S> In bread, "crust" refers to the (usually harder) outermost layer. <S> In the above picture, the crust is the brownish part around the softer yellow part. <S> For example, some people like to cut the crusts off of their sandwiches before eating, preferring only the soft part of the bread. <S> Lastly, there are other foods that have a crust that is not made of bread but simply harder than the rest. <S> For example, a crème brûlée is a dish of custard where the top part has been caramelized (melted with a hot flame) into a hard shell. <S> In this dish the crust or shell is the thin top layer which you crack to get to the custard underneath. <S> "Crust" is not only used for food. <S> It can be any hard or solid substance that forms on the edge or top of some other substance, usually a liquid. <S> For example the outermost layer of the Earth is often referred to as the "crust", as it is outer to the semi-liquid "mantle". <S> Side note: <S> Now I'm hungry. <A> I can see your confusion. <S> The photo you show could be called a pizza crust . <S> However the bits of pizza slices that don't have topping on them are called "crusts". <S> If someone asks you "do you eat the crust? <S> " they are almost surely referring to the outer parts without topping (I suppose you could scrape the topping off the pizza and eat that, but that would be odd). <A> I can't tell by looking at the picture what it is. <S> If it's only baked pie dough, then it's all (and only) crust . <S> Crust : <S> [Merriam-Webster] <S> 2 <S> a : the pastry shell of a pie : <S> Pizza : <S> [Merriam-Webster] a dish made typically of flattened bread dough spread with a savory mixture usually including tomatoes and cheese and often other toppings and baked — called also pizza pie
| piecrust b : the bready layer that forms the foundation of a pizza
|
How to say that you are available Recently I received an email in which I am asked whether I have time for a short call. I want to say that I am available every day, but I am not available from 3 till 5 PM. Can I say "I am available every day except from 3 till 5 PM" or "I can be reached at everyday except from 3 till 5 PM"? Are there any better ways to say it? <Q> Setting everything else aside, I think that "from 3 till 5" should be " from 3 to 5 " or " between 3 and 5 " (my preference). <S> And "every day" does not say anything at all about the hours when you are available, it only says the days on which you are available. <S> Best would be Every day, any time except between 3 and 5 . <A> Can I say "I am available every day except from 3 till 5 PM" or "I can be reached at everyday except from 3 till 5 PM"? <S> A possible solution could be " <S> You can add unavailability for evening hours if you so desire: <S> "I am available every day from 8 am to 10 pm (with the exception of 3 pm to 5 pm)" <A> Why not use availability in your post? <S> My availability is really flexible and almost anytime with the only know exception being from 3:00 pm thru 5:00 pm daily. <S> Other than that I will be on standby at the time of call.
| I am available 24/7 (except 3 to 5 PM)"
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.