source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
"be out in front of" What does it mean? The movie Michael Clayton has a line: Michael Clayton: OK. Look, it's very simple. Arthur has a chemical imbalance. He's fallen behind on his medication. He's back on the mend. He's gonna be fine. Now, I wanna make this crystal clear. What happened here stays in this room. This is not information that you wanna be out in front of . Anybody has a problem with that, I need to know right now. How can one be out in front of a piece of information? The phrase appears to mean "to leak," but I haven't found anything online that shows it is idiomatic. Is this idiomatic language? <Q> It appears to be a modern colloquialism which means to be representing, in the sense of defending the legitimacy of whatever you are in front of . <S> In context, if this information about the persons behavior is released to the public, then you will be required to defend the legitimacy of their behavior because you are in front of it , meaning fronting it or being a representative of this person and their behavior. <A> In the context of public relations, to be out in front of something nasty or unsavory is to deal with it in the media proactively rather than reactively . <S> By not waiting to respond but taking the initiative, the goal is to define the "narrative" to one's own advantage in order to limit the damage. <S> Here's a "narrative": <S> Arthur has a chemical imbalance. <S> He's fallen behind on his medication. <S> He's back on the mend. <S> He's gonna be fine. <S> Here's an example: <S> The congressman has had sexual relations with a chimpanzee. <S> We have to get out in front of the story. <S> The lab was dark. <S> The chimp knew sign language. <S> The hearing impaired don't want to be treated like they're different. <A> If you are "behind on" something, you are trying to "catch up," or "get up to speed," or otherwise negate an implied deficiency. <S> To be "out in front of" implies the opposite. <S> The Michael Clayton quote is a bit of an anomaly in terms of common usage, as usually being "out in front of" is considered desirable. <S> " You're not trying to catch up, you're already in the lead, which gives you a chance to defend that lead.
| Think of it as such: when you're "in front" of a problem, you're also "ahead" of it, as in the idiom "ahead of the game.
|
Words to describe boredom without sounding negative I work as a developer and currently in my department, we do not have any projects going on. Therefore my supervisor asked me to do some training on X. I personally like learning X. However I have been learning X for about few weeks and I started to feel bored and sick of X. I want to tell my supervisor about it and then change my training subject to Y, or Z, etc. Basically, what I want to say is: I am bored learning X for so long. Can I learn something else like Y or Z? Of course, 'bored' looks really negative in a work environment, but I could not find better words for it. I found these words but it looks negative as well: fed up, tired, weary, exhausted, have had enough What words can I use to describe 'bored' without sounding so negative? <Q> Boredom is inherently seen as negative. <S> It sounds like what you are asking is not how to express your boredom but how to request doing something different without expressing that boredom. <S> In that case, you might consider: <S> I need a break from this subject. <S> or... <S> I think I've reached my limit on this subject for a while. <S> ... <S> or both. <A> To put a positive spin on this, to use euphemism and a touch of irony if you like, you could divert attention from boredom to saying that you have <S> satisfied or satiated your curiosity learning X. <S> satiate verb <S> [ T often passive ] FORMAL to completely satisfy yourself or a need, especially with food or pleasure, so that you could not have any more: ' <S> In locations that have inherent dangers and would not normally be accessible to the public, viewing areas provide a way to satiate the public curiosity without exposing inordinate risk.' <S> satiate in Cambridge English Dictionary. <S> 'he folded up his newspaper, <S> his curiosity satiated ' 'Her curiosity satiated , she walked away without a backwards glance.' <S> 'Her curiosity was soon satiated when the door opened to reveal a handsome young man of about twenty with bright red hair and the palest blue eyes she had ever seen.' <S> satiate in Oxford Living Dictionaries. <S> To satisfy (in combination with the same curiosity ) is a more pedestrian synonym. <S> ' <S> Come on, satisfy <S> my curiosity (= tell me what I want to know) <S> - what happened last night?' <S> satisfy in Cambridge English Dictionary. <A> You can describe yourself as being burned out (also "burnt out"), or suffering from burnout : the condition of someone who has become very physically and emotionally tired after doing a difficult job for a long time from m-w.com <S> Can I do some Y/Z for a change of pace?" <A> In the theory of learning there's the concept of "varied practice". <S> Wikipedia describes this as: the use of a training schedule that includes frequent changes of task so that the performer is constantly confronting novel instantiations of the to-be-learned information . <S> As mentioned in the Wikipedia article under 'Theory' , you could say that you'd benefit from contextual interference : <S> Contextual interference refers to a learning benefit observed when the items to be learned are randomly intermixed across training blocks rather than repeated in blocks
| To express your feeling and desire for something new to do, you might say something like "I'm feeling a little burnt out working exclusively on X.
|
A verb to describe ruining a chart with extra information I want to mention that the scale bar of a plot is deliberately eliminated, since it is not the main point, it does not give much information and it ruin the figure because it takes lots of space and distract the attention from the main plot. I need a single verb to describe the situation. I mean I want to say Scale bars of figure 1 are deliberately eliminated, since they "suggested verb" the plot. suggested verb should mean ruin with extra information, symbols, pictures, etc, which take the focus off the main subject <Q> By "plot" do you mean "chart" or "graph"? <S> Plot by itself is probably the wrong word to use in this context, mostly because it has multiple meanings and can be confusing -- <S> at first I thought you were talking about something like the plot of a movie. <S> There are a number of words that mean to add information that makes something (a sentence, an explanation, a chart, a diagram, whatever) more difficult to understand, but the one that jumps to mind is obfuscate : obfuscate (v): <S> Make obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. <S> Example: <S> Alternately, if the bar only makes the chart more complicated, you could say it <S> distracts or detracts from the main plot of the chart, or it clutters (up) the chart, or that it simply makes the chart harder to read . <S> The scale bar on the side is a visual distraction <S> that clutters the chart without adding any significant information. <S> The scale bar makes the chart harder to read . <S> I understand why you thought it was necessary, but you really should remove it. <S> Note: "Obfuscate" is one of those "big" words that may be appropriate to the context but can sound pretentious. <S> Only a relatively small percentage of English speakers will know what it means. <S> Sometimes it's better to keep it simple <S> -- "confuse" is a good, if rough, synonym. <A> Personally I'd say: Scale bars of figure 1 are deliberately eliminated, since they obscure the plot. <A> An informal word is busy . <S> I removed the legend because it made the chart look too busy. <S> You might say that to a co-worker to explain your decision, but it wouldn't be a good way to explain the intentional omission to a corporate customer, say, who will be reading the chart. <S> You'd want something more formal. <S> But you probably wouldn't want to put the explanation on the chart itself :) <S> The legend was removed because it detracted from the visual impact of the chart.
| The scale bar on the side is unnecessary because it only obfuscates the significance of the chart.
|
Is “I go cycling a bike. “ correct? I go cycling a bike in a park. Is the above sentence correct? <Q> No, unfortunately that is not common usage. <S> Here are some suggested alternatives: "I am riding a bike in a park. <S> " The most common verb for cycling is "to ride". <S> This would be the most common usage in US English. <S> "I am cycling in a park." <S> Generally, you wouldn't say "cycling a bike" as that is redundant - cycling only happens on a bicycle. <S> In US English, this would be slightly more formal than 'riding a bike'. <A> That doesn't sound right. <S> I would say I go cycling in a park. <S> If you do want to use bike in your sentence you can say riding a bike, not cycling a bike! <A> "I go cycling a bike". <S> It would be like saying: I hammer a hammer. <S> You don't; but you may say that you hammer a nail . <S> In British English we would say: I go cycling. <S> or I ride a bike. <S> or I go bike-riding <S> It's possible someone might say: I go cycling on my bike. <S> Now, that last option will sound a little tautological to many and so won't be often used. <S> But you can cycle on a tricycle! <S> So it isn't technically incorrect. <S> Just as one might say "I go driving my car".
| Cycling describes the action of riding a bike. No it isn't correct to say:
|
How to solve the double meaning of "Must be"? The papers must be blue This sentence means: I have not seen the papers but I'm sure they are blue. If it's an instruction, it means: You must use blue papers. Any other color will not work. Am I right about the double meaning? If yes, how to solve the confusion? <Q> Context. <S> There is really no other way. <S> Both your examples work, for a given context. <A> "The papers must be blue" <S> I have not seen the papers <S> but I'm sure they are blue. <S> You must use blue papers. <S> A previous answer correctly advises that context is the only way to tell them apart. <S> That is true if the words are written or spoken, but there may be other ways to tell and to express the difference if you were the one saying or writing it. <S> It is of course quite hard to explain the nuances of spoken expressions, but if spoken I would expect there to be different emphasis on the word "must". <S> I would interpret it as an order if this word was spoken: with "certainty", with a strong, determined emphasis, with no emphasis, or "matter-of-fact". <S> On the other hand I would interpret it as a statement of expectation or hopefulness if the word "must" was spoken: with "uncertainty", with an exaggerated expression of hopefulness perhaps with an uncertain facial expression. <S> In written form some writers may add italics to emphasise words, so you may see: <S> The papers must be blue. <S> But this doesn't really differentiate between the two different types of verbal emphasis I detailed above. <S> An exclamation mark may also be used to denote emphasis, but again this could be ambiguous. <S> The sentence is not really a question with either intended meaning because it does not solicit an answer, so either way it could be an exclamation. <S> A good novel writer would add some description to the way a character was speaking so the reader could understand the intended meaning, and it is possible that in creative writing a question mark would be added, even though not technically a question, because this denotes the verbal emphasis in a creative way. <S> A sure way of expressing the sentence to denote the uncertainty would be: <S> Surely the papers must be blue? <A> The papers must be blue. <S> It shows confidence, yet, consciousness of a degree of uncertainty, in parallel. <S> The verb: to be softens the modality of auxiliary verbs. <S> Their meanings become synonymous. <S> can be,could be,may be, might be,should be,must be. <S> Instructions are not usually given using the passive voice. <S> You should use an active or imperative sentence, for more efficiency: <S> You must use blue papers. <S> Use blue paper! <S> These sentences are just given as examples, and could be (may be, should be, must be) out-of-context.
| Yes, you are correct that this sentence could mean either:
|
Is there a word for a special kind of literature? In my own language we have a word which subscribes all literature that you you read to enjoy yourself, like a novel, historical, autobiography, sience fiction, tales etc. And it word down't include educational literature and other.I found only words like 'fiction' or 'nonfiction' but i am a little confused which to use, because many novels are fiction and some not. <Q> I should note that some people do read educational material for pleasure. <S> (And others can dislike fiction.) <S> The article "Why Recreational Reading is a Ticket to Success" actually puts the emphasis on activity in this way: Reading for pleasure can make a significant difference to your academic success. <S> If you haven’t read a novel for a while, or you can’t even remember when you last picked up a book of any kind, here are some compelling reasons to get started . . . <A> There is a term belles lettres : <S> literature that is an end in itself and not merely informative; specifically : light, entertaining, and often sophisticated literature <S> Also Oxford Reference describes it as <S> The French term for ‘fine writing’, originally used (as in ‘fine art’) to distinguish artistic literature from scientific or philosophical writing. <S> Since the 19th century, though, the term has more often been used dismissively to denote a category of elegant essay-writing and lightweight literary chatter, of which much was published in Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Max Beerbohm's essays and Andrew Lang's Letters to Dead Authors (1896) are examples. <S> An author of such elegant trifles is a belletrist. <S> Adjective: belletristic. <S> Although I have rather heard fiction as you state. <S> OED : 1 mass noun Literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people. <S> Merriam-Webster : <S> b : fictitious literature (such as novels or short stories) <S> * was renowned as a writer of fiction <S> And in my own language (Czech) we use beletrie in exactly the same meaning as you requested. <A> I do not know a word in English that has as its only meaning a categorization of different genres of writing by whether people read them in hope of pleasure. <S> As a different answer pointed out, people have different tastes <S> so any such categorization would be somewhat arbitrary or normative rather than universally descriptive. <S> English does have phrases that describe the activity of reading for pleasure. <S> However, the word "literature" itself has as one of its several meanings "writing intended to be read primarily for its own sake rather than for a primarily utilitarian purpose. <S> " <S> A manual on cabinetry is not "literature" in that sense. <S> We do not say that someone who writes a manual on cabinetry writes literature. <S> We call that technical writing. <S> Moreover the word "non-fiction" is frequently used to distinguish writings, e.g. biographies, histories, or essays, that are not fiction but that are not purely technical writing.
| So, unless you're making a distinction about the specific content , a phrase for this type of activity is recreational reading .
|
Why is there no definite article in "The first rule of fight club" before the last noun? I've just read Chuck Palahniuk's "Fight Club" , and I wonder why there are no definite article in his first rule of fight club definition? "The first rule of _ fight club is you don't talk about _ fight club." Are they just skipped by the author or may be there is any rule I don't know? <Q> "Why there's no definite article in “The first rule of fight club” before the last noun?" <S> You mean, why does it not say "The first rule of the fight club...."? <S> The answer is simple - "Fight Club" is a noun. <S> It is the name of the club. <S> Let's say for example that there was a swimming club called "Swim Club". <S> You may refer to this either as: Swim Club, or the swimming club <S> I don't really know if there is such a thing as a fight club, but lets say for example that you took away the word "fight". <S> He could have said: The first rule of the club is.... <S> But he didn't, because he referred to the club by its name. <A> You may find this article useful, Dropping the Definite Article . <S> However, please be aware that, as @FumbleFingers has pointed out, there really isn't a set of rules that you can apply in all situations that will tell you when you can drop the definite article. <S> English grammar is peppered with various rules for all sorts of things, and usually they are followed by a list of exceptions to those rules. <S> To quote Captain Barbossa from 'Pirates of the Caribbean": <S> [Rules are] more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. <S> We native speakers usually 'know' the rules from regular usage. <S> When we are speaking, we don't have time to apply lists of rules, so we say what sounds right to us based on what we have heard, said, learnt and internalised over many years. <S> Which explains why we sometimes speak ungrammatically. <S> If you look at section 2 of the link above, you will see that the definite article is usually left out after proper nouns (except when it isn't). <S> Proper Nouns are the names of persons, places, organisations, etc., and the first letter in each word of that name is spelled with a capital letter. <S> All quotes that I could find on-line show the following: <S> Please note that Fight Club starts with capitals. <S> I have not read the book, so I cannot confirm if that is how the author spelled this name. <S> It would appear that the author followed the convention that the definite article is not required before proper nouns. <A> My take here is a different to the "proper name" one: while the use of a proper name (which would be uppercased) would indeed warrant not using an article, I think that here it's more the use as a domain qualifier which makes this sound better without an article. <S> That would be comparable to "in heaven" or "in love and war". <S> You also have sayings like "what happens in $x <S> , stays in $x". <S> This construct makes clear that neither a particular instance of $x nor an unqualified instance of $x are intended, but rather some general domain encompassing all instances of $x. <S> While this domain-specific drop of an article is most prevalent with "in" (cf "in transit", "in orbit", "in school"), it can be used with other constructs.
| "The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club."
|
meaning of the verb "fix" in context It is from Crash Course World History . It is at around 11 minute and 58 second. Here is the context: Pierre Clastres argues that this so-called primitive Amerindian societies of South America were not in fact ancient societies who had failed to invent settled agriculture or state forms, but previously sedentary cultivators who abandoned agriculture and fixed villages in response to the effects of conquest. It seems to me that the host means that the cultivators adapt villages in response to the effects, but I may be wrong because I have checked the word in a few dictionaries, and they don't give this definition. That is why it is unclear to me what the host really means by that. <Q> fixed 1. <S> Firmly in position; stationary: a fixed dwelling. <S> (TFD) <S> These villages were stationary. <S> These people did not move, unlike other groups that packed their belongings and relocated regularly. <S> Clastres argues that these were previously sedentary cultivators who abandoned agriculture and stationary villages in response to <S> (= because of, due to) the effects of conquest. <A> You're mistaking what "fixed" is parallel with. <S> You've interpreted the parallelism as "societies" that have both abandoned agriculture and fixed villages. <S> with "fixed" as a verb parallel to "abandoned. <S> " <S> This is not what the speaker meant. <S> What the speaker meant was that "societies [...] abandoned" both agriculture and fixed villages. <S> Here, "villages" is a noun that together with "agriculture" serves as a compound object of "abandoned" and "fixed" is just an adjective describing "villages." <A> Fix can mean to repair, but it can also mean to retain, hold, secure. <S> A fixed village could be a repaired village, but it can also be a village that does not move. <S> In this instance, I believe the intention is to describe the transition from settled people to those who are nomadic. <S> The "effects of conquest" imply war. <A> Pierre Clastres argues that these so-called primitive Amerindian societies of South America were not in fact ancient societies who had failed to invent settled agriculture or state forms, but previously sedentary cultivators who abandoned agriculture and fixed villages in response to the effects of conquest. <S> I fixed a typo, but break it down into ideas... <S> Pierre Clastres argues that - easy enough, someone has a new theory <S> these so-called primitive Amerindian societies of South America - these people failed to invent settled agriculture or state forms - didn't learn to settle, remained nomadic but previously sedentary cultivators - <S> they had invented villages & farming who abandoned agriculture and fixed villages - they gave up farming & no longer lived in the same place <S> [fixed locations, ie villages] in response to the effects of conquest. <S> - they did this because the conquistadores were making this life difficult <S> So... There is an idea that instead of these people never inventing farming & village life, instead they gave up that life to stay one step ahead of their conquerors.
| To fix is to repair, but fixed can mean either 'repaired' or in this case 'not moving', ie permanent homes, rather than a nomadic lifestyle.
|
The usage of will and would I came across several usage of would and will in a news article, but it is of pretty much confusing use. I picked a few sentences in the article with would or will in. According to No 10, the new plan would allow the UK the freedom to set its own tariffs on goods arriving into the country. Downing Street says it is confident the arrangement would be partly in place by the end of the proposed transition period in December 2020 - with the system being fully operational by the next general election. However, the arrangement has not been explained in full - and it is not clear whether the cabinet will back the plan, or whether the EU would agree. Technology would be used to determine where the goods will ultimately end up - and therefore whether UK or EU tariffs should be paid. Can I exchange will for would or the other way around? And especially the last two. would was used just next to a will, but I think they express the same thing, why writer used like this way. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44719576 <Q> "Would" expresses a conditional, while "will" is more certain. <S> In your example, each use of "would" implies "if the cabinet backs the plan", while the "will" is about that condition itself. <S> Thus, you can't switch them and retain the same meaning. <A> This is much like the relationship between can and could . <S> Would is the past tense of will , to express future-in-past, but it is also used to express hypotheticals - things that might happen under some circumstances. <S> Some say this is an example of the "English subjunctive". <S> Something that would happen is being spoken of as a hypothetical, and is often attached to a condition - but may leave that condition implicit. <S> For instance, you can understand the normal polite way to offer something as a hypothetical with an implicit condition. <S> Consider: <S> Would you like a cup of tea? <S> Now, would you like and <S> I would like <S> are now set phrases, but you can think of it as "if you were to be given a cup of tea, would you like it?" <S> All of the would instances in your examples are of hypotheticals , while the will instances are just the use of the future tense. <A> The word "ould" is generally used for a conditional that might or might not come to pass. <S> Thsi is smetiems called an "unreal past". <S> The word "will" is most often used for a future tense, although it cna also be used for an imperative, an order. <S> According to No 10, the new plan would allow the UK the freedom to set its own tariffs on goods arriving into the country. <S> This implies "If the plan is approved and goes into effect." <S> Downing Street says it is confident the arrangement would be partly in place by the end of the proposed transition period in December 2020 - with the system being fully operational by the next general election. <S> Again this is conditioned on the plan being approved. <S> However, the arrangement has not been explained in full - and it is not clear whether the cabinet will back the plan, or whether the EU would agree. <S> The cabinet's action is in the future, and it is unclear if the cabinet will or will not approve. <S> The EU's possible action is conditioned on the cabinet's action. <S> If the cabinet doe not approve the plan, then the EU will not not do decide if it agrees or not, so "would" is used. <S> If the public had voted for "Remain" none of the debate on an exit plan would have occurred. <S> The vote is in the past, and did not go "REMAIN" <S> so what would have followed on such a vote <S> is unreal, dependent on a conditional tha <S> proved false.
| The form "would have" is generally used for a conditional that did not come to pass, but might have happend.
|
a morning greeting: is it "morning", "g'morning" or neither? Not a native English speaker and poor at distinguishing shortened expressions, I am not sure if native English speakers indeed say " Morning ", or " G'morning ", in addition to the formal expression " GOOD (accented) morning " or "(plain vanilla) good morning ".` <Q> Simple answer: <S> (provided the current time of day is morning, then it would become " good afternoon ") <S> Any other variation is casual, or colloquial speech. <S> There are also differences between the way the greeting may be said in different regional accents, and between British, American, Australian, and other native English speaking countries. <S> In British English it is common to simply say "morning!" <S> as a shortened version of this greeting, and likely is in other countries too. <S> I don't recall ever seeing the greeting written this way, but I may be wrong. " <S> G'day " is a well known Australian greeting, so widely known that it is commonly written as shown here. <S> I would say this is a case of the "D" in "good" blending into the "D" in "day" and over time becoming an accepted contraction . <S> However the words "good" and "morning" do not naturally blend so easily, and while it may sound like someone is saying "g'morning" I don't believe it is a recognised contraction. <S> And of course, nobody ever says " gafternoon ". <A> All of these are accepted spoken greetings of various levels of formality. " <S> GOOD morning" (with the stress on "good") is a little unusual though, most likely to be spoken by a passive-aggressive prescriptivist responding to someone who just greeted them with "morning". <A> Obviously, there is no comparison to "Good Morning", but the definition of formal has to change. <S> Who would have imagined corporate offices filled with developers in tees and Cargos (Some people in suits still dislike it : <S> D).Coming back to our topic, unless you know whom you are greeting, it's safe to stick to good old "Good morning". <S> If it's a person you meet everyday and you guys are casual a morning also suffice.
| The correct , formal greeting is " Good morning ". What you may be hearing as " G'morning " is likely just someone saying the word "good" so quickly that they are not enunciating clearly.
|
a person who works in a copy shop So far I've found xeroxer but I'm not sure if it's a common term and also if the term is specifically used to describe people who make copies in offices rather than running a business independently and having a shop of their own. I need to check it with an English native speaker. Is it a common word? If not, what do you usually call them? <Q> In British usage, this is one of those situations where there is not one word. <S> A person who works in a copy shop is just that. <S> A person who runs their own shop might say "I run a copy shop". <S> Most copy shops here do other things as well, e.g. print posters, business cards, print or copy photos etc, so they might be called 'copy and print shops'. <S> Also, very few jobs in offices involve only operating a photocopier. <S> There are "general administration" jobs which involve data entry, photocopying, mail distribution, franking and dispatch, scanning, etc. <S> Also, the term "Xerox" to mean "any photocopier" is mainly American; where I work the copier is made by Kyocera and is just called 'the copier'. <A> The verb to xerox was common when photocopiers first became popular, probably because Xerox invented the photocopy machine. <S> But I would say the verb has become less popular in the last few decades, as many companies now produce and sell photocopy machines. <S> Instead of xeroxer , you can call a copy shop employee a clerk or an associate . <A> New occupational (and avocational) nouns can be formed by analogy as the need arises: photographer , programmer , coder , <S> blogger , gamer , snowboarder . <S> The natural choice here, photocopier , was already used for the device itself. <S> I'm a xeroxer at a print-shop would certainly be understood by most native speakers of American English who are adults (little kids and even some teens might not recognize "xerox") but most people would probably say a desk-clerk at a print-shop or something like that. <A> The term 'xeroxer' mentioned in one of the other answers actually does follow the standard rules in English for describing a job. <S> However, it has three issues: ' <S> Xerox' as a generic verb was really an American English thing, but even here in the US it's not widely used anymore. <S> 'Xeroxer' is essentially unused. <S> So on top of the base word not being widely used, you're likely to have to explain the word to people. <S> Even if you get past the first two issuses, the term is more likely to be interpreted by most people as 'a person who makes copies', not 'a person who works in a copy shop', because the term 'xerox' refers to the copying machine (not the shop) or the action of using it. <S> As stupid as this may sound, I would actually advocate just saying a person who works in a copy shop' . <S> While it's not short and concise, it's completely unambiguous (unless you have to explain what a copy shop is, which you might in some places), and the 'X works in/at a Y' construct is bordering on a fixed phrase in English, as it's quite often the only way to clearly express what a person's job is. <A> You could go old-school and use the word printer . <S> Of course, language has evolved to where we now think of printers as the machines that print for us, but there was a time where the printer was the person who operated the printing press. <S> NOAD defines printer this way: printer ( n. ) a person whose job or business is commercial printing. <S> a machine for printing text or pictures onto paper, especially one linked to a computer. <S> Incidentally, I found a job listing for what sounds like the kind of person you are talking about. <S> It was not for a person in a commercial printing shop, but for a person who would spend their day making copies for a consulting firm. <S> Qualifications include: Operate digital and color equipment in Print Shop Point of contact to receive, review and electronically log customer jobs <S> Operate office/production equipment (printer, copier, fax, scan) <S> Operate standard finishing equipment (e.g. paper cutters, inserters, laminating, and hole punchers) <S> The job title? <S> Print Production Level 3 . <S> That doesn't really work as a name of the person, but I suppose you could say that such a person is a member of the print production staff . <A> 150 years ago,it would have been printer's devil . <S> If I had that job, I would love that term. <S> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer%27s_devil
| I've never heard the term xeroxer , and I think it would be confusing to most native English speakers if you used it to describe someone who works in a copy shop. They might say "I work in a copy shop" or possibly describe themselves as a "copy shop assistant".
|
What's the phone used by police officers called? On the internet, I found the terms "two-way radio" and just "radio", but the first sounds a bit too technical, and the second might be mistaken for the radio used to listen to music, mightn't it? So, to make a couple of examples: The police officer took out his ... and called for backup. The police officer reported the scene on ... <Q> You're right that "two-way radio" sounds too technical and specific. <S> That over-specificity is superfluous in your two examples for a single reason: <S> We know what type of radio the officer is using because of how they interact with it. <S> In Examples 1 and 2, the officer is doing something to the radio that is only possible if the radio is a two-way radio . <S> Because they used it to 'call for backup' (Example 1) or 'report the scene' <S> (Example 2), the radio cannot be a music radio. <S> People don't call for backup on a music radio. <S> On another note, your concern would be more appropriate if the only thing we knew was that the officer was listening to "the radio." <S> "The officer heard someone's voice over the radio." <S> That's ambiguous. <S> The "someone's voice" here could be that of a fellow officer (on a two-way radio), or it could be that of a disc jockey (on a music radio). <S> In this new example, using "two-way radio" would be appropriate because it would address the ambiguity. <A> You could just say walkie-talkie . <S> A walkie-talkie (more formally known as a handheld transceiver, or HT) is a hand-held, portable, two-way radio transceiver. <S> Its development during the Second World War has been variously credited to Donald L. Hings, radio engineer Alfred J. Gross, and engineering teams at Motorola. <S> Your first example: <S> The police officer pulled out his walkie-talkie and called for backup. <A> The police officer took out his radio and called for backup. <S> It's clear from the context that this is a radio for transmitting as well as receiving, and we will assume that you mean the officer's service-issue radio (unless you've previously given us any information that indicates otherwise). <S> I'm a rescue volunteer and occasional mariner, and in those roles, would always assume "radio" to mean a 2-way VHF set - even though at home, or in the car, "radio" would always mean a broadcast receiver.
| In both your examples, you can simply say "radio": Walkie-talkie is really just a more daily-English term for the type of device that you're talking about: The police officer reported the scene by radio.
|
Can we use "for example" when we want to give two or three examples? As title. I've read a previous post Why is 'for examples' wrong? in this site. It seems to me that when you want to give more than one example, you should not use the phrase for example . But I saw a sentence from my dictionary: Many countries, for example Mexico and Japan, have a lot of earthquakes. So, can we really use "for example" when we want to give two or three examples? Or "for examples" is somehow possible? Thanks! <Q> You can use "for example" for more than one examples. <S> I use it quite often even. <S> For example, I have pens in many colors. <S> For example, red, green, and blue. <A> English has more than a couple prepositional (and other) phrases that are self-contained "units" where the words within don't change with the surrounding words. <S> Basically it's best to think of the entire phrase "for example" as a single-word preposition. <S> Examples . <S> This page has examples with 'for' <A> But "for example" is an idiom that's always used when you are giving an example of a thing or examples of more than one thing just as we use "for instance or e.g." <A> As you are probably aware, e.g. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase exempli gratia , and means “for the sake of an example”. <S> Technically, it should be followed by an example, i.e., by a single example. <S> In reality, no-one has ever worried about this technicality, and it is not uncommon to find a list of examples following 'e.g.'. <S> There are many Latin words and phrases used in English, as well as words and phrases from many other foreign languages. <S> When these word and phrases are used in English, it is not uncommon for native speakers to ignore the correct singular and plural distinctions that apply in the original language. <S> E.g. <S> 1/ <S> English uses 'agenda' (singular) and 'agendas' (plural) instead of the Latin 'agendum' (singular) and 'agenda' (plural) <S> 2/ English tends to just use 'graffiti' for singular and plural instead of the Italian 'graffito' (singular) and 'graffiti' (plural). <S> A small percentage of English speakers will use these, and other foreign phrases, correctly (i.e., according to their language of origin), but most do not. <S> The longer a foreign term has been adopted into English use, the more likely will its native grammar rules be ignored or forgotten. <S> As you can see above, I have used 'e.g.' with two examples, which I have numbered to make it obvious that I have done so. <S> I have also seen people label a list of examples using e.g.1, e.g. 2, etc. <S> But I would not recommend this unless it was mandated as the house style of a particular journal.
| Well, it's not absolutely wrong to say "for examples" as common sense tells us.
|
Verb for "just opening a bit" a window or door Is there a single verb that conveys the idea of "just opening X a bit", "slightly opening" or "opening a gap"? Examples He ____ the window just so that a light breeze could come in. The door was not totally closed. Someone had ____ it. Remark The option that I like the most so far is "tilt", but I see two drawbacks: It conveys a vertical movement (it wouldn't apply to a door). It could, especially to the eyes of non-fluent speakers, not be clear if the window/door is being opened or just its inclination is being changed. <Q> Crack to open a small amount crack a window <S> He cracked the window just so that a light breeze could come in. <S> The door was not totally closed. <S> Someone had cracked it open. <S> Per comments below, if you are in North America, saying "he cracked the window" is perfectly acceptable. <S> But in other places, saying he opened the window a crack or <S> would be clearer. <A> Though not exactly a verb, the adjective/adverb ajar was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw your post: <S> If a door, window or other opening is ajar, it is slightly open. <S> For example: We left the door ajar so that we could hear what they were saying. <S> You can easily turn it into a verb expression if you use it along with an appropriate verb: set something ajar or leave something ajar . <S> Thanks TRiG in the comments section for this suggestion. <A> Nudge <S> He nudged the door open. <S> Would you nudge that window open? <A> Pull it to/Close it to is a perhaps rare, maybe regional way of saying "Close the door so that it's resting to the frame, but not shut all the way". <S> As in "Pull it to [the frame]". <S> Leaving it on the latch is this, also. <S> I heard this expression in Yorkshire as a kid in the noughties, but it has apparently been heard elsewhere . <S> This is mainly for doors, for windows I'd use the American sounding "crack" as above. <A> to prop (open) Merriam Webster: Definition 2 <S> I agree that crack is better, but this was my first thought. <S> He propped the window open so that a light breeze could come in. <S> The door was not totally closed. <S> Someone had propped it open . <S> In my opinion, really couldn't be used without 'open.' <S> or at least another <S> adjective, like (possibly) 'ajar.' <S> (I can't think of an example that sentence that sounds good and uses only 'ajar.')
| he cracked the window open Implies the use of a helper object like a doorstop.
|
Is there a verb meaning "suffice" and "require" simultaneously? Out of curiosity, is there a verb, which need not be popular, such that it says "suffice" and "require" simultaneously? I am after a verb that is equivalent to "if and only if". The major context that originated this problem is a mathematics one. For example, a minimal workable one, the equivalence "The equation x+3=5 holds if and only if x = 2" can be said in another way as "for the equation x + 3 = 5 to hold requires that x = 2 and, for the equation x+3=5 to hold, it suffices that x = 2" (as one can easily check). The most preferred verb of such a kind is a one that can be used to directly replace "if and only if" everywhere. I mean, if V is such a verb, then "x+3=5 if and only if x = 2" should be equivalent to "x+3=5 V x=2". <Q> Is there a verb meaning “suffice” and “require” simultaneously? <S> If V is such a verb, then "x+3=5 if and only if x = 2" should be equivalent to "x+3=5 V x=2". <S> The answer to this question is <S> No . <A> Such a verb inherently doesn't exist that would work in the context you are presenting. <S> Grammatically, the mathematical expressions you are attempting to link are clauses , specifically independent clauses of the form "[subject] <S> [verb]s [object]". <S> Purdue's guidelines on clauses indicate that independent clauses can only be linked by either a conjunction or a special marking word. <S> Using a verb to connect the independent clauses "x+3=5" and "x=2" would not be grammatical. <S> The correct way to link those would be a conjunction. <S> " <S> If and only if" works as a conjunction here, but if you want one that's less formal other conjunctions that are close include "only when", "exclusively when", and "whenever". <S> If you want a word that works in a different context, a different example might be useful. <A> I'm going to quote Wikipedia , even though it's not something I would normally do: <S> In logic and related fields such as mathematics and philosophy, if and only if (shortened iff ) is a biconditional logical connective between statements. <S> In that it is biconditional <S> (a statement of material equivalence ), the connective can be likened to the standard material conditional ("only if", equal to "if ... then") combined with its reverse ("if"); hence the name. <S> The result is that the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other (i.e. either both statements are true, or both are false). <S> It is controversial whether the connective thus defined is properly rendered by the English "if and only if", with its pre-existing meaning. <S> There is nothing to stop one from stipulating that we may read this connective as "only if and if", although this may lead to confusion. <S> In writing, phrases commonly used, with debatable propriety, as alternatives to P "if and only if" Q include Q is necessary and sufficient for P , P is equivalent (or materially equivalent) to Q (compare material implication), P precisely if Q , P precisely (or exactly) when Q , P exactly in case Q , and P just in case Q. <S> Some authors regard "iff" as unsuitable in formal writing; others use it freely. . . . <S> The corresponding logical symbols are "↔", "⇔", and "≡", and sometimes "iff". <S> These are usually treated as equivalent. <S> However, some texts of mathematical logic (particularly those on first-order logic, rather than propositional logic) make a distinction between these, in which the first, ↔, is used as a symbol in logic formulas, while ⇔ is used in reasoning about those logic formulas (e.g., in metalogic). <S> In Łukasiewicz's notation, it is the prefix symbol 'E'. <S> But after all of that, I agree with the other answer that, with respect to normal English, the simple answer is "No. <S> There is no single verb."
| There is no such verb that means "is true only when".
|
$2,000 worth of items: "two thousand dollar" or "dollars"? How do say this in words? A $2,000 worth of items. If I put it into words: A two-thousand dollar/dollars worth of items. Which is the correct way here? <Q> This sentence as it stands is incorrect. <S> You say either of these: <S> A $2,000 item. <S> (A two-thousand-dollar item.) <S> $2,000 worth of items. <S> (Two-thousand dollars worth of items.) <S> In the first case, you're talking about a single item that is worth $2,000, so you use "a" and you don't say "worth of". <S> In this case, "dollar" is a descriptive adjective the way "year" in "twelve-year-old boy" is. <S> In the second case, you're talking about several items that together have a value of $2,000, so you do not use "a" because it's not singular and you use the plural forms of "dollars" and "items". <S> "Dollars" here is a unit, so it's plural to match the quantity being plural. <A> @Catija's answer is very close and covers the major points, but slightly wrong. <S> Which is the correct way here? <S> A two-thousand dollar/dollars worth of items. <S> Neither . <S> You're treating 'worth' as the subject of your sentence and acting like it's countable, but it's not. ' <S> Worth' is treated in English as a single abstract quality, like 'information' or 'knowledge'. <S> You generally don't speak of 'worths' unless (and this is unusual) <S> you're discussing a group of separate uncountable worths. <S> It's pretty common for native speakers to forget the numeral should be possessive and to omit the apostrophe. <S> It always has been common . <S> It's still technically wrong. <S> As this treatment at the English Stack mentions , These cases aren't tricky if you ask yourself the following question: how would you write "one dollar's worth"? <S> There's still an s because it's a possessive, not a plural. <S> If you want to keep the countable aspect , it should be A $2000 item Like Catija said, that should be read as "a two-thousand-dollar item" because nouns being used as attributive adjectives almost always get used in their singular form. <S> You've changed the meaning, though: you're talking about a single item with a value of $2000 rather than several items collectively valued at $2000. <A> This follows colloquial English and should be the definitive answer, taking (worth of) as a prepositional phrase. <S> Two thousand dollars <S> worth of items <S> We can say: $2000 is a NOUN and here Worth of acts like a preposition, (it's a little colloquial) <S> Worth of items is a prep. <S> phrase (prep. <S> + noun) <S> Of course if we were to write $2000 item a Two thousand dollar item <S> Two thousand is an ADJECTIVE, and therefore, no -s. <S> a is an ARTICLE used for the countable noun item <A> When you have a number with units as an adjective before the noun, you use a hyphen between the number and the unit and the singular version of the unit. <S> I wouldn't touch this question with a 10-foot pole. <S> When the unit is the noun, then there's no hyphen and whether the unit is singular or plural depends on the value. <S> That pole is 10 feet. <S> With dollars, it can be confusing because we write the dollar sign before the numeral <S> but we say the unit ("dollars") after the number. <S> A $10 watch. <S> A ten-dollar watch. <S> The watch costs $10. <S> The watch costs ten dollars. <S> The hyphen rule can also get complicated when the number contains more than one word, because sometimes the number will have an internal hyphen and sometimes it won't, depending on the value and which style guide you follow. <S> The burglar took my two hundred-year-old rocking chair. <S> This can get so complicated, the it's often helpful just to revert to digits when the number has more than one word. <S> Fortunately, many style guides will encourage you to use numerals in this case anyway. <S> The burglar took my 200-year-old rocking chair. <S> Another point of confusion, as pointed out by lly, is when the value is actually possessive. <S> Note the apostrophe here: <S> The burglar took five thousand dollars' worth of stuff. <S> It's very common, even in professional writing, to forget the apostrophe in phrases like the one above. <S> Note that if you use a currency sign and numerals, you're more likely to get away with it: <S> The burglar took $5000 worth of stuff. <S> Technically, the "$5000" should be written as "$5000's." <S> Confusing, right? <S> Here are some more examples that illustrate all these ideas. <S> For Nate, college was a 6-year odyssey. <S> For Nate, college was a twelve-semester odyssey. <S> It took Nate six years to earn his degree. <S> He ended up three hundred thousand dollars in debt. <S> He ended up $300,000 in debt. <S> He ended up with three hundred thousand dollars of debt. <S> He ended up with three hundred thousand dollars' worth of debt. <S> He ended up with a three hundred thousand-dollar debt.
| If you want to keep 'worth' as the subject , it should be $2000 worth of items read as "two thousand dollars' worth of items" , as they are items with a worth of two thousand dollars.
|
How to express you partially read the paper? How can I express that this morning I read parts of a newspaper and not the entire paper? If I say "I read the paper this morning" it means the entire paper, so that would be wrong. But "I read parts of the paper" doesn't sound right at all. What would be the right expression? I read some articles this morning? <Q> does not exactly suggest you read the entire thing. <S> People generally don't read the entire paper. <S> We understand that you typically read the parts that interest you. <S> You might want to specify "I read the entire paper. <S> " Someone might congratulate you. <S> I read parts of the paper is fine. <S> It does mean that you partially read the paper. <S> 1 is implicit about not reading the whole thing, whereas it is explicitly expressed in 2. <S> I read some articles this morning <S> is also correct. <S> 3 is simply more specific about what you read (articles). <S> However, "articles" does not necessarily refer to ones found in the newspaper. <S> You can find articles in other media, so be careful. <S> I think you might be interested in skim, glance through, and <S> thumb through : skim : to read, study, or examine superficially and rapidly; <S> especially : to glance through (something, such as a book) for the chief ideas or the plot <S> (M-W) <S> glance through something to look quickly at the contents of something. <S> I glanced through the manuscript, and I don't think it is ready yet. <S> Would you glance through this report when you have a moment? <S> (TFD) <S> thumb through something to turn the pages of a book, magazine, or a document quickly and only read small parts of it <S> : "Have you read the report?" <S> "Well, I thumbed through it quickly while I was eating breakfast." <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> How can I express that this morning I read parts of a newspaper and not the entire paper? <S> You could say I read <S> only some of the paper this morning. <A> Colloquially, I feel like the expression: <S> I looked through the paper <S> is closest to what you mean. <S> The phrasal verb look through is defined as: <S> If you look through something that has been written or printed, you read it also: to examine, esp, cursorily : <S> he looked through his notes before the lecture Source: <S> Collins <S> Also, Macmillan says: to read something quickly, especially to find the information you need
| Actually, I read the paper
|
A way to state that a person has a distinguishing feature of personal nature incomparable in its amount to the one of most other people's What I mean is describing someone being kind, righteous, honest, high-hearted, etc. almost to the uttermost level. For example, if I wished to point out the great kindness in someone's nature, could I call them "a kindness itself"? Or should it be "an epitome/image of kindness"? Or what should it be? Would the expression I'm asking for, become different if I had in mind negative traits such as meanness, toadyism, mendacity, and so on? <Q> defined kindness <S> embodied kindness <S> incarnate (means the same as 'embodied', <S> suggested by userr2684291 ) <S> the spitting image of kindness the epitome of kindness <S> kind to a fault <S> (this indicates excess) <S> The last one is exclusively for positive attributes present in such strength they become negatives, getting in the way of that person's own goals etc. <S> "Honest," "kind," "compassionate," and similar terms are the ones I hear most commonly with that form. <S> The others can be used for positive or negative traits. <A> Using "epitome" works well for this meaning, but is rather elevated in its register. <S> A simple way to say this is just to use superlatives rhetorically <S> : John is the kindest guy <S> Mary is the meanest woman you'll ever meet. <S> Paul is the most self-righteous, arrogant and pretentious person I know. <A> One of the words that comes to mind is quintessence . <S> If you don't like that word for some reason, you'll find many synonyms given here . <S> However, a more common way to say this, which really nails it down is incarnate . <S> E.g., evil incarnate , kindness incarnate , devil incarnate , wisdom incarnate , love incarnate . <S> A more proficient speaker will tell you whether it sounds idiomatic with just any noun (which would then mean you could just say righteousness incarnate , honesty incarnate etc., which you probably can). <S> (transcribed from comment)
| You could say a person is kindness
|
Is "milk is more preferable to tea" grammatically correct? Is it grammatically correct? Milk is more preferable to tea. I think preferable in itself is an absolute adjective so more preferable does not make any sensebut if it is correct please give me more details <Q> According to Collins Dictionary , in British English the more should be omitted. <S> It doesn't specify for American English. <S> preferable USAGE <S> Since preferable already means more desirable, one should not say something is more preferable or most preferable <S> I think you'll probably find that more preferable is used quite often, despite being technically incorrect. <S> I'd even go as far as to say <S> more preferable is even more common than just preferable on its own. <S> A situation where you might legitimately use more preferable is a sentence like: Milk and tea are both preferable to water, but milk is more preferable. <A> more adds comparison no matter what. <S> So, when you compare two things, more just says which one is better. <S> In this case, milk is more preferable. <S> It adds up a degree. <S> To understand this, we can take another example. <S> Suppose the conversation is going on like... <S> What should I prefer having? <S> Coffee or tea? <S> ~ <S> Well, coffee is preferable. <S> Okay, and what about milk? <S> ~ <S> Ah, milk is more preferable than coffee. <S> So, in some contexts, it emphasizes that something is better than the other thing. <A> "Milk is more preferable to tea." <S> Milk is the subject of the sentence. <S> Tea is the object. <S> The sentence (incorrectly I assume) places tea as having a preference about milk. <S> "more preferable to" demands that the next available noun function as the object of the sentence. <S> A related sentence: Cold water is more preferable to Mrs Strauch. <S> This is grammatically correct if you are seeking to convey Mrs Strauch's preference for cold water. <S> However,"Cold water is preferable to Mrs Strauch" has two separate and distinct meanings.1. <S> Mrs Strauch has a preference for cold water.2. <S> The speaker/writer prefers cold water to Mrs Strauch. <S> "is preferable to" allows for both possibilities. <S> This dual meaning is made use of in both humour and invective. <A> "Preference" is a binary decision in the sense that the object of preference is more desirable than the alternative(s). <S> So, it makes no sense to say "more preferable" because if it is preferred then it is already more desirable as already pointed out above. <S> As J.R. points out, it is an absolute adjective. <S> However, "more preferred" may make more sense in casual conversation. <S> For example, if someone is talking about the preferences of a group of people then they might say that vanilla is more preferred than strawberry, meaning that vanilla is preferred more often or by more people than strawberry. <S> This, of course, is ridiculous as everyone knows that strawberry is universally preferred to vanilla.
| This is grammatically incorrect if you are seeking to convey a preference for milk over tea by a person.
|
Husband is dead: He and his wife {are/were} great scientists I would like to make a statement about two people. One of them is dead: He and his wife {are/were} great scientists. Are probably indicates that both of them are still alive. Were indicates both are dead or at least are not great scientists anymore. If that is correct, will rewording be better? For example, He was a great scientist as his wife still is. <Q> If you can, start with the living: <S> Carol Smith is a great scientist as <S> was her late husband, Bob Smith <S> If not, try something like this instead: Bob Smith, until his untimely death (2012), was an astounding scientist as <S> is his surviving spouse , Carol Smith. <A> If one of the couple is still alive but the other is not, then it's awkward to just use are or were . <S> Either way would be misleading, and you'd have to follow with some kind of retraction. <S> Both the Professor and his wife are great scientists, although he died last year. <S> Both the Professor and his wife were great scientists, although she is still alive. <S> You see? <S> Awkward. <S> One way to do this is to talk about their reputation rather than their existence . <S> It's fine to say what their reputation currently is , even though one or both might be dead. <S> Both the Professor (who passed away last year) and his wife are considered to be great scientists. <S> Another way is to avoid the verb entirely and focus instead on their accomplishments: <S> The Professor and his wife, both great scientists , published their latest groundbreaking research last year, a few short weeks before he died of complications from a long illness. <S> Unless otherwise stated, we can assume the Professor's wife is still alive. <S> (Edit) <S> As DonQuiKon's comment points out, you can use the perfect tense considered to have been for past events, but this is more complicated than you might think. <S> The perfect tense implies a relationship between two events in time, and you would not use it unless you wanted to suggest something changed. <S> For example, suppose you write: <S> The Professor and his wife are considered to have been great scientists. <S> This tells us very little. <S> What has changed? <S> Maybe they died? <S> Maybe they are no longer considered great scientists? <S> Without further information, we don't know. <S> Meanwhile the infinitive works fine for both the living and the dead: <S> Shakespeare is considered to be the most significant writer of English literature. <S> The man may have died 400 years ago, but his reputation lives on. <A> Very good question, this comes up a lot. <S> I'll get to your example in a moment, but it is also worth considering this one: <S> Example: <S> If a man named John died leaving a son behind, <S> The son would say: "I am the son of John", because the son is still alive, so he speaks of himself in the present tense. <S> But he might also say: "John was my father", because the subject of the sentence is his father, and he is dead so he is spoken of in the past tense. <S> So when you speak of people this way as individuals, it is straightforward - the living in the present, the dead in the past. <S> Now to your example. <S> It should be: He and his wife were great scientists. <S> This is because you have spoken of them both as a couple, and obviously you would correctly say: He and his wife were a great couple . <S> .. <S> because they are no longer a couple. <S> Anything they did together as a couple they will no longer do together, so it becomes past tense. <S> However, while it is correct it does leave some ambiguity - is the living person still a scientist? <S> If they are, you might need to qualify your statement, if it was pertinent. <S> Perhaps say: He and his wife were great scientists. <S> She still is. <S> or He was a great scientist. <S> His wife (widow?) still is. <A> Both usages of are and were would be wrong without immediate clarification. <S> And even then, it would be awkward to have some but or although added to reinterpret your phrasing. <S> So instead you may go with two verbs, <S> was + is : <S> He was a great scientist and so is his wife. <S> Or rephrase this statement without a verb: <S> He and his wife, great scientists, ... <A> This depends on what you are trying to say. <S> If you want to recognize the accomplishments of the dead scientist (say, you are speaking at his funeral), then something like this would be appropriate: <S> Feng Zhou was an accomplished scientist. <S> He was survived by his wife Qiu Zhou, an equally distinguished scientist. <S> hopefully in more detail. <S> If the focus is on their work, follow Mari-Lou A's advice and put the emphasis on the living: <S> Lilah Abbas is a great paleoastronomer and her late husband Muhammad Abbas <S> was just as well known in botany. <S> You have more options if they worked together: Carol and the late John Smith were a unique partnership in topological oceanography. <A> I like all of the other answers and wanted to submit another option. <S> He, like his wife a great scientist, did blah blah blah <S> This option lets you quickly describe what he did to become a great scientist while also acknowledging his wife's greatness, both while not implying the wife is dead.
| Instead you ought to rephrase the sentence.
|
Would you mind if I "opened/open" the window Which one of the followings is correct? Would you mind if I opened the window? or Would you mind if I open the window? Ps:like 2 if condition If I were you / If I was you (both is okay but usually used to "were") so it is the same condition or not? <Q> Would you mind if I opened the window? <S> This is the most grammatically correct usage. <S> You should use this. <S> Would you mind if I open the window? <S> This, while technically incorrect, is still used a lot by native speakers. <S> Your other two sentences are in a similar situation: <S> If I were you <S> This is correct. <S> While normally we use was in the singular case, for hypotheticals we use were . <S> If I was you <S> This, while technically wrong, is still used all the time by native speakers who don't understand the nuance of the subjunctive mood . <A> This is the 2nd would condition. <S> Both conditions are unreal. <S> For example: Would you accept that job, if they offered it to you ? <S> 1. <S> He has not accepted the job.2. <S> He has not been offered the job. <S> This is the same as 1. <S> He does not feel annoyed at that moment.2. <S> The window has not been opened. <S> Would you mind if I opened the window <S> The above sentence is correct. <A> Would you mind opening the window? <S> - it's a request <S> Would you mind if I open the window? <S> - it's asking for permission <S> Would you mind not smoking? <S> - it's asking sb to stop smoking, or not to start doing it when we see sb is going to do it. <S> Would you mind if I smoke? <S> - it's asking for permission to smoke <S> Are these both acceptable and the same in meaning? <S> "Would you mind if I opened the window?" <S> "Would you mind if I open the window?" <S> Both are quite acceptable. <S> Some people believe the use of "opened" makes the request a little more polite
| The meaning is identical.
|
Which tense to use after "I didn't know" I have been married for 10 years and someone tells me that I married the wrong man. Because I resent that remark I want to answer saying something like this: I didn't know that I have been married to the wrong man for 10 years. I didn't know that I had been married to the wrong man for 10 years. Can I use the present perfect tense or do I have to use the past perfect?Which tense is appropriate? I can't use the past simple because I am still married. <Q> Because this is a somewhat sarcastic remark (you don't truly believe you have been married to the wrong man all this time), you can use either one. <S> I didn't know that I had been married to the wrong man for 10 years. <S> Because you are talking about the past 10 years, using the past perfect works. <S> I didn't know that I have been married to the wrong man for 10 years. <A> In the subordinate clause, we tend to use the perfect aspect, as you did correctly. <S> The present perfect indicates an ongoing action, meaning that at the time of the sentence, you still are married to the wrong man. <S> The past sentence "I had been" seems to indicate that you are no longer married, and you are describing a marriage that is firmly in the past and no longer there at the time of speech. <S> You would want to use the first, I have, since the marriage is still ongoing. <S> See this for more!! <A> As stated by Confused Soul , "The present perfect indicates an ongoing action." <S> However, this is not a continuing state: the author is surprised by something that occurred in the past and just realized it. <S> This presumes something will change, so I would prefer <S> I didn't know that I had been married to the wrong man for 10 years. <S> As opposed to: I have been married for 10 years. <S> There is no implication in this statement that I have reason for a divorce.
| Because you don't intend on breaking off your marriage, the present perfect is acceptable, too.
|
Find error in the below question A cup of coffee (1) / is an excellent complement (2) / to smoked salmon (3) / no error (4) According to me error should be in 3 as it should be" a smoked salmon "but the answer provided is no error. Is the answer provided wrong? <Q> There are several ways to use complement . <S> A is a complement to <S> B. A is a complement of B. <S> A complements <S> B. <S> Unfortunately you have to memorize these and recognize them when they appear. <S> Your answer would be correct if the subject were plural, and if the sentence didn't include the "to be" verb before "excellent complement". <S> For example: Many glasses of wine nicely complement a heartfelt conversation. <S> As written the "to be" verb turns "complement" into a noun: Many glasses of wine are a nice complement to a heartfelt conversation. <S> Additionally, "smoked salmon" is both a countable and an uncountable noun. <S> You can have both a single smoked salmon (the whole fish) or some quantity of smoked salmon. <S> Which is meant depends on context, but in general you'll see the uncountable far more often, since you'll rarely want to serve an entire smoked salmon (unless you really like the stuff). <S> In your example question, I would assume they mean an undefined and uncountable quantity of smoked salmon, and not use any article. <S> Related example: I will never turn down smoked salmon (uncountable) and cream cheese (uncountable) on a bagel (countable). <S> Personally I don't see coffee going with smoked salmon, but that's just my opinion. <S> I should try it and find out. <S> (Edit) <S> However, it may be that coffee is a nice way to cleanse the palate between bites of salmon. <A> What is the problem? <S> A cup of coffee <S> - I think no problem with this. <S> salmon is a countable noun <S> but as a dish, it is uncountable or a mass noun <S> something can be a complement to something (def: 3) No error! :) <A> The words are fine (disregarding the whole business of whether coffee complements salmon), but there should be a full stop (period) or exclamation mark etc at the end of the sentence. <S> Incidentally, no article is required before salmon . <S> This holds for the coffee as well - you could drop "A cup of" and still end up with a valid sentence, provided you punctuate the end of the sentence.
| Assuming the quote is supposed to be a complete English sentence, the error lies in region (3). In my opinion, coffee and smoked salmon are not complementary flavors.
|
Can I say "This your pen is beautiful"? I knew sentences like "Is this your pen?", "This pen is yours", "Your pen is beautiful", but I don't see sentences like "This your pen is beautiful". Can I say that? <Q> It's not correct English as you intend it. <S> "This" and "Your" are determiners, and specifically referring determiners. <S> And you only use one referring determiner at a time. <S> This pen <S> My pen the pen <S> But not <S> This my pen <S> My the pen <S> The this pen <S> This can also be a pronoun, meaning "this thing". <S> It could be used as : <S> This, your pen, is beautiful. <S> to mean <S> "This thing is beautiful (this thing is your pen)" <S> Instead, maybe you could say: "This pen of yours is beautiful". <A> To elaborate on the good answer already, in English there is no need to give a determiner or pronoun ("This") as well as a noun or noun phrase itself ("your pen"). <S> It isn't usual, and doesn't normally add anything; it sounds like what it usually is - an attempt to use grammar from a different language, and foreign to English. <S> Instead you would either say <S> "This/ <S> That is beautiful" if it's clear what you refer to, or "Your pen is beautiful" if it is not clear, or you want to be sure they understand the specific object you mean. <S> The one time you might use both is exactly the example given in a previous answer. <S> This is not often used, but would be used when you wished to really emphasise something, much more than usual. <S> For example, if you visited a friend's town or family for the first time and you were completely overwhelmed by the beautiful countryside, or the wonderful family, or maybe if you were writing: This - your countryside - is beautiful! . <S> If the sentence avoids using both a determiner (or pronoun) and a noun (or noun phrase) for the same object, the awkward wording is not a problem. <S> So alternatives like these are closer to ordinary use as well: <S> "That pen, the one you showed me, is beautiful", or "That - the pen you sold - is beautiful". <S> In these examples, the second part clarifies which exact object or pen "That (pen)" is referring to. <S> "This, your signature, shows you agreed to the contract" - here it's also clarifying the object referred to by "This". <S> It also slightly emphasises the object as the focus of your sentence: " <S> This , meaning your signature , ....." <A> "This, your pen, is beutiful. <S> " is perfectly normal, and "This your pen is beautiful. <S> " is not. <S> I'm surprised to see that so subtle a change can make such a big difference, but there it is.
| The use of "this" or "yours" as pronouns, not determiners allows: "Is this your pen" (understood as "is this thing your pen") and "This pen is yours" (understood as "This pen is your thing")
|
What do you call the things inside a fruit? I am having trouble finding the right word. What do you call the hard, uneatable parts inside a fruit? For example, an avocado has one big dark one. Grapes have small ones. Watermelons have a lot of black ones. I looked it up in the dictionary and it gives "seeds", but I wonder if that is in common use in everyday language. <Q> There are several terms used, depending on the size, number and where you live. <S> If there are lots of small ones <S> (grapes, apples, oranges) <S> : if you are American, you would call them seeds <S> and, if you are British, you would call small ones seeds and slightly bigger ones (especially citrus fruit) pips . <S> If there is just one large one (olives, cherries, peaches etc): if you are American, you would call it a pit <S> and, if you are British, you would call it a stone . <S> You can use this NGRAM graph to experiment with British/American terms for different fruits. <S> As the NGram graph shows, these are not hard and fast rules. <S> One notable exception is processed fruits like dates and olives. <S> Olives are mainly grown, prepared and packed in non-English speaking countries. <S> They supply to both US (141,000 tonnes per year) and UK (1,600 tonnes per year). <S> It's easy to see from these figures why the suppliers choose to use the American term "Pitted Olives" on their packaging, even on products supplied to the UK. <S> The import figures were obtained from here and here . <A> Example: a pineapple core <S> The process of removing the core is called coring : remove the tough central part and seeds from (a fruit) <S> Example: Peel and core the pears before cooking them. <S> Here's a picture of a person using an apple coring device called fruit corer to core an apple: <A> The large hard thing in an avocado is called a pit . <S> The small ones in grapes and watermelons are called seeds . <S> pit a large, hard seed that grows inside some types of fruit and vegetables: a peach/plum/cherry pit seed a small, usually hard part of a plant from which a new plant can grow <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> I found this site ( differencebetween.net ) that talks about the difference. <S> Here is an excerpt: <S> Seeds vs Pits <S> A seed is an ovule that contains an embryo inside, enclosed in a seed coat and usually contains some food. <S> A seed results after fertilization when the ovule ripens. <S> When the seed forms in seed plants, it marks the completion of the reproduction process. <S> Reproduction begins with flower development and pollination, with the embryo developing from the zygote and the seed coat from the ovule’s skin. <S> The pit is the part of the fruit that protects the seed until such time when it can start to grow. <S> It is the inner layer of a fruit’s (some fruits) pericarp that’s usually hard. <S> However, only certain fruits have a pit. <S> While there can only be one pit in a fruit, many seeds can be contained in a single fruit and this is a key differentiating factor of a seed and a pit, for instance a cherry contains a pit while a grape has got seeds. <S> Other fruits with pits include olive, dates and plums. <A> It is hard to make definitive categories, but broadly in UK, inside a fruit: Seeds are usually small and edible. <S> Examples are kiwi fruit, fig and strawberry but grape seeds are inedible. <S> Pumpkin and melon seeds are larger, and edible. <S> Pips are usually larger and inedible. <S> Examples are orange, grapefruit and apple but tomato and pomegranate pips are edible. <S> Stones are larger and inedible. <S> Examples are peach, apricot, date and cherry. <S> Pits are stones that are labelled on imported produce, such as dates and olives. <S> There are some borderline examples such as the soft fruits <S> blackberry and raspberry whose pips can be eaten raw but stick in the teeth. <S> They can be softened by cooking in a pie.
| As another suggestion, most generally, you can refer to the central "inedible" part of a fruit as the core : the hard central part of some fruits, such as apples, that contains the seeds
|
How to emphasize that something has not changed (greater or smaller)? How to emphasize that something has not changed (greater or smaller) in a way like: Something is still the same not greater nor smaller . (OR nor greater neither smaller OR ???) Something has not changed not greater nor smaller . <Q> Which words you use depend greatly on what you are talking about. <S> Quantities can become greater or smaller, but you can also say that they increase or decrease . <S> The trade deficit between the two countries neither increased nor decreased during the first fiscal quarter. <S> Meanwhile, if talking about physical dimensions of something, then it may be more idiomatic to say it got larger or smaller . <S> I am happy to note that after the cruise my belly did not get any larger . <S> Of course, it didn't get any smaller , either. <S> (my belly got neither larger nor smaller ) <S> Alternately you can express the change in size by using grow and shrink . <S> My belly <S> neither grew nor shrank after going on the cruise. <S> Other verbs are possible, and may be more idiomatic, but you have to give us specifics. <A> It depends on what “something” refers to, but I’d suggest: not larger or smaller <A> The full phrase I would use (given that you absolutely want additional emphasis on the lack of size change) would be: <S> Something is unchanged, neither larger nor smaller. <S> Specific notes: <S> Using "larger" instead of "greater" is the more intuitive antonym for "smaller". <S> " <S> Neither X nor Y" is appropriate here, especially since you want the emphasis. <S> "the same" feels awkward without being "the same as something else". <S> It's understandable with implied " <S> the same as before", <S> but it feels redundant when combined with "still". <S> "still unchanged" could be used if you want to indicate a significant history of reports that are all "unchanged". <S> There could be some additional appropriate changes depending on what exactly the "something" is and what context surrounds the sentence. <S> All of this is dependent on an assumption though: the sentence you were trying to make was constructed to indicate some physical object did not change its size. <S> In the event that your meaning was instead "some quantity did not go up or down" then the construction differs. <S> For example: The boiler pressure hasn't increased or decreased. <S> The phrase "hasn't increased or decreased" would be a reasonable phrase for any quantifiable trait, including size, as long as it's stated.
| For another example: Something 's size hasn't increased or decreased Is a reasonable way to communicate the same meaning as the original sentence.
|
A situation where your friend or your neighbor offend you, that you wish to have no more interaction with them I need an expression or a phrase—even if it is an idiom (to make it stylish)—commonly used by English native speakers to express a situation where your friend or your neighbor offend you so much that you are declaring to them in (a threatening way) you wish to have no more interactions with them. Or that they should know you are severing/cutting off any further relations or interactions with them. To make it more clear, in my native language we say: "Ba ni ba kai!" Whose English literal equivalence is: "No me no you!" Which I wonder if say I so (the "No me no you!") could communicate such expression easily to English native speakers, could it? <Q> I think I might say this using this phrase: <S> I'm done with you. <S> NOAD lists this meaning: be done with give up concern for : <S> Steve was not done with her . <S> while TFD says: done with (someone or something) <S> That group has been a really negative influence in my life, so I've decided that I'm done with them altogether. <S> This can also be said as: <S> I'm through with you. <S> Like the expression in your native language, these are succinct and abrupt expressions that can be used to tell someone that future interactions are over. <S> But your literal translation ( No me, no you ) would not work well in English. <A> "Dead to me" is an English idiom in some regions of the USA <S> (New England states, Italian-American <S> maybe?) <S> , but it is easily understood even if the idiom is unfamiliar. <S> It's generally used as a single sentence: <S> "He is dead to me ." <S> Once they are declared "dead" there is nothing more to say or do. " <S> Death" is permanent. <S> It's not so much a declaration to the person's face (it's possible in a heated argument to say "You are dead to me!"), but usually it tells a mutual acquaintance that you are no longer interested in even discussing that person. <S> There's an implied declaration that any news to the contrary (that they are alive and doing ok) will be ignored. <S> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dead%20to%20me <A> I think the simplest way to say this might be <S> We're through! <S> be through (with somebody/something) <S> informal to no longer be having a relationship with someone <S> That’s it! <S> Simon and I are through. <S> I’m through with you! <S> from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online <A> You can end a relationship with someone by cutting ties with them . <S> The reason you cut ties with someone can be anything: <S> To end or discontinue a relationship—romantic or otherwise—with someone or some group. <S> Example: <S> After hearing his very offensive remarks about my father, I decided to finally cut all ties with him . <S> I hope I'll never see him again in my life. <A> “I wash my hands of you!” <S> This is an English idiom that means you plan to have no further interaction with, or responsibility for, another person or situation. <S> You can accompany it with a dismissive hand-washing gesture for added impact. <A> To "Part brass rags" is an old Royal Navy idiom for severing a partnership. <S> (Messmates would keep their cleaning materials in a shared locker, but if a rift occurred they would move their stuff to another location.) <S> Might be a bit too archaic for younger listeners.) <A> The last straw <S> This expression is often used for when a series of problems becomes too much and change is required. <S> Car has many small problems: I sold that piece of junk. <S> The last straw was that the door wouldn't lock. <S> This is useful in your situation in that the next time your neighbor is offensive you can say: <S> That's the last straw! <S> I don't want to see you anymore! <A> Shun <S> For example: Her once-friendly neighbors now shun her entire family <S> Chicago Tribune 19 May 2008
| Finished with someone or something; no longer involved with someone or something.
|
I know there is difference between "grow" and "grow up", but it is hard for me to tell when it comes to an example It is said in some dictionaries that "grow" means to increase in amount, size, number, or strength, while "grow up" means one changes from being a child into being an adult or to stop behaving in a silly or childish way. I want to write a sentence that means if one does something he has never done before, he will become mature. But I don't know which is correct after I compare "grow" and "grow up" in the following sentences. To do things you have never done before is called growing. To do things you have never done before is called growing up. <Q> Both terms are perfectly acceptable in the cited context. <S> Native speakers will understand this specific use of growing as a metaphorical reference to developing, improving (intellectually and/or emotionally, not literally as in increased physical stature). <S> Even a 70-year-old could say something like... <S> I still like to learn new things - when you stop learning, you stop growing. <S> In the above context it would be extremely unusual (bordering on "nonsensical") to use growing up , with all its connotations of the specific difference between childish and adult behaviour / attitudes. <S> Note that to grow up in this context is similar to to end up, to finish up, to break up - that added preposition imparts a note of "completeness, finality". <S> The implication being that there are only two possible states for a human being - childish (but "developing") and grown-up (a static end state). <S> TL;DR: If you want to talk about how people (young and old alike) can develop / improve their emotional and cognitive skills by continually exposing themselves to new experiences and information, use growing . <S> If you just want to focus on (one of) <S> the defining characteristics of adolescence (the transition from child to adult), use growing up . <A> Literally, to grow is to become bigger, and to grow up is to grow towards maturity or to attain maturity. <S> A river may grow after a heavy rain, but a river cannot grow up . <S> Only that which can reach maturity can grow up . <S> That which can reach maturity can grow and it can also grow up . <S> Figuratively, to grow means to develop mentally and emotionally. <S> So, when we use grow of people, it can mean "to become physically larger" (literal) or "to become emotionally and mentally more developed" (figurative). <A> If you want the sentence to mean, that the person matures, then the second choice is better. <S> You already gave the reason for it in your question by saying, that "growing up" means to mature.
| Figuratively, to grow up means to become an adult, or to reach adulthood, emotionally, in our mental outlook. Broadly speaking they mean about the same thing - it's just that they have significantly different connotations.
|
"She's got you high and you don't even know yet"- What does this sentence mean? Help needed! I was watching a film named "500 days of Summer" and at the end there was a song starting like "She's got you high & you don't even know yet". Since I'm not a native speaker, I don't understand what does it mean? I need some help. <Q> She has put you in a euphoric or inebriated mental state, a state where your judgment may be impaired, and so far you are unaware that this has happened. <S> I don't know that song, so it's impossible for me to say whether the singer or lyricist thinks this fact is good news or bad news, happy or sad, funny or tragic, a lighthearted jibe or a serious warning. <A> "High" can be used to a refer to a mental state , usually a euphoric one. <S> "She's got you high <S> and you don't even know yet" <S> It is impossible for anyone but the songwriter to say authoritatively what the song lyrics mean, but it seems to me that the song is about someone in relationship with a girl who is making them very happy. <S> The girl may love the person, or they may even be in love but either the person doesn't realise it or is in denial. <S> Other lyrics from the song that support this interpretation: <S> You can't deny you're looking for the sunset <S> Perhaps this means metaphorically that the person is looking for something beautiful? <S> Again there is a suggestion of being in denial. <S> It's the search for the time before it leaves without you Suggesting that if the person doesn't realise this girl is a good thing and respond, she will move on. <S> What's this about? <S> I figured love would shine through <S> The writer is saying that love should be obvious, but the person hasn't realised it. <S> Open your mind, believe it's going to come to <S> Telling the person in the song that they may be in denial that love will ever come their way, but that this is "closed minded" thinking. <A> The question is what is it that "You don't even know yet?" <S> It's that Summer does not love you, will never love you. <S> As a character in a movie once said, "I didn't know that only one person could fall in love <S> - I thought it was always two people." <S> (I can't remember the movie, just that line.) <S> And at the end, when he tries to start up a relationship with "Autumn," he drops out of character to seemingly ask, "Am I going through this again?"
| "She's got you high" means that the unnamed girl has made the person euphorically happy, maybe that they are even in love; and " You don't even know yet " implies that the person has not yet realised they may be in love, or perhaps just what a good thing this relationship is. This can be used to refer to an induced state of euphoria from drugs, but it is also used to describe other natural states of happiness (eg " I'm on a high ").
|
What is the meaning of "to slur about"? In Isaac Asimov's The Last Question , I came across the following sentence: He stirred his drink slowly with a glass rod, watching the cubes of ice slur clumsily about . I do understand the meaning of " about " here (meaning roughly "here and there"), but I can't find a meaning of " to slur " that fits in this context. Does it mean to move? To melt? The meaning that I think fits the most is " To soil; to sully; to contaminate; to disgrace. " (because the drink is an alcoholic drink, so ice melting could be diluting the drink) but I'm not convinced. <Q> I think most native speakers would say it's a "creative" usage 1 (perhaps also somewhat "metaphorical"). <S> Of course, since it's a rather "literary" context, Asimov very likely also intended his readers to (perhaps below the level of conscious awareness) pick up on the secondary allusion to slurred words . <S> Since slurred speech is the archetypal feature of inebriation, we might well suppose that the subject is morosely playing with his drink while out on a bender - so there's a parallel between him getting sloshed = drunk and the ice-cubes in his drink <S> sloshing about = <S> swirling haphazardly (of a liquid). <S> 1 <S> In "normal" contexts, most native speakers would probably never use the "phrasal verb" collocation to slur about . <S> The full OED does include the definition for slur (verb, 2.3) as To slide, slide about , but it was never common, and OED says it's now dialectal . <S> But that wouldn't bother a consummate wordsmith like Asimov. <A> To add on to FumbleFingers' excellent answer. <S> The full context of the phrase is: <S> His broad face had lines of weariness in it, and he stirred his drink slowly with a glass rod, watching the cubes of ice slur clumsily about. <S> The three bold phrases reinforce the idea the character is tired , and possibly not thinking clearly , or perhaps that he is the less intelligent of the two characters in the dialogue. <S> These little details (like Lupov's thinning hair) are not vital to the overall story, but they do help humanize <S> the characters <S> so the reader can immediately connect with them. <S> More than that -- the weariness, the slow stirring, the ice cubes slowly moving, the thinning hair, the occasional drinking, the eyes closing, etc. -- all are subtle examples of entropy , which is the main point of the story. <S> In this context the use of slur makes sense. <S> You <S> slur <S> your words as you get tired (or, as FumbleFingers pointed out, drunk). <S> In a similar way the objects in the universe will start to move more slowly as the overall level of energy runs down. <S> Naturally, Asimov was well aware of this when he wrote these metaphors into the story. <S> On a related note: Even though slur is more commonly used with words and not physical objects, as you read English literature you should recognize that, as in any language, words can have both literal and figurative meaning. <S> For example, suppose I write: As he drank, his words listed from side to side like a schooner in a wild gale. <S> The dictionary offers several definitions for list as a verb. <S> Given the context, the most relevant is: (of a ship) lean over to one side . <S> Obviously words aren't ships and can't literally lean in any direction -- but as a figurative image, it should make a kind of sense. <A> According to Merriam Webster, slur means slip or slide in BrE, dialectal . <S> – <S> Here, the ice cubes are sliding about. <S> Basically,a verb with movement can have about appended to it and become phrasal: move about, slide about, skulk about, hang about etc. <S> This is sometimes BrE. <S> In AmE, we tend to use around for the same thing: move around, slide around, skulk around hand around. <S> Although Isaac Asimov was American, he may have favored unusual terms.
| The allusion is to slurry = a semi-liquid mixture - which may or may not be etymologically related to slush (semi-frozen water+ice), but it's certainly related semantically (and phonetically, along with words like sludge, sloppy, slippery ).
|
What's the meaning of "Can it, will you?" I was watching a TV show, and one scene in a movie theatre goes like this: Film viewer: We know, sit down. Jason: Maggie. Maggie: How are theatre owners gonna know how we feel about this garbage if we just sit through it? Film viewers: Or stand through it in your case. Maggie: Oh, can it, will you? So Maggie was not satisfied with the movie and she stood up in the theatre, which made others uncomfortable and Maggie said "Can it, will you?" I don't understand this sentence. Is the meaning that Maggie was mad or just provoked others？ Was she asking others "will you (stand up too?)" or "will you (be angry with me)"? Does "Can it" mean "can I do that"? <Q> It is very probably a remote reference to canning food to preserve it, the link being that to can something is to close it up tight, to put a lid on it - hence to stop talking, close your mouth. <A> This is a verb based on use of a can , specifically a trash can . <S> can, v.³ <S> 2. <S> trans. <S> a. <S> U.S. slang. ... <S> b. <S> can it: used in the imperative to command someone to stop talking, esp. <S> on a particular subject; ‘shut up’, ‘give it a rest’. <S> 1915 <S> G. Bronson-Howard <S> God's Man vii. <S> i. 398 <S> Archie brooded over his wrongs; his shrill voice rising oftener than pleased Pink's partner. <S> ‘Can it, can it,’ the latter urged. <S> It's not actually used in its original literal sense—'to put into a trash can'—very much, but this figurative use has continued to be popular. <S> Note that this use isn't confusing to native speakers at all because the more common verb can ("be able to") needs to be followed by another verb to explain the action one is discussing or at least reference such a verb. <S> This use will be spoken very curtly and forcefully, as a command, and isn't easily confused with the other. <A> I am 70 years old. <S> Many years ago, 'Can it' the same as 'put a lid on <S> it' meant 'shut it up'. <S> The term came from canning food and got used on people also. <S> Another term from that same 'canning chore' was 'shelf it' and 'put it on the back burner'. <S> When canning, it took a large container and quite a while on the stove. <S> So in order to use the front burners you 'put it on the back burner', because the 'activity' took place on the front burners. <A> Etymology Online gives this origin : can (v.2) "to put up in cans," 1860, from can (n.1), especially "to put up in a sealed container for preservation. <S> " Sense of "to fire an employee" is from 1905. <S> Related: <S> Canned; canning. <A> Literally "can it" means to put it in a can. <S> The idea is that they don't want to hear what you are saying or see what you are doing. <A> How are theatre owners gonna know how we feel about this garbage <S> points to a trash can (see lly's answer). <S> But there might be another meaning: A film can is the light-tight container used to enclose film stock. <S> They are typically a circular box pressed from thin sheet metal, but plastic examples are also used. <S> Film cans are used to hold unexposed film, exposed film ready for developing and also for the distribution of completed film prints . <S> The last of these does not require the can to be light-tight, but environmental protection and exclusion of dust makes a similar container just as useful. <S> A 35mm cinema release print in six 2,000 foot reels, as it would typically be distributed in Europe. <S> (Source: Wikipedia , photo by LDGE .) <S> So Maggie was not satisfied with the movie <S> and she stood up in the theatre, which made others uncomfortable and <S> Maggie said "Can it, will you?" <S> So she might have said: Put the film back into it's film cans. <S> How are theatre owners gonna know ... <S> if we just sit through it? <S> Somebody (i.e. Maggie) has to stand up and tell them. <A> " Can it " is an expression telling someone to shut up or stop what they are doing. <S> 1 <S> Stop talking; be quiet. <S> ‘“Can it!” <S> I growled’ 2 <S> Stop doing something. <S> ‘I told him to can it, ’cause he was getting to be annoying’ From https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/can_it <S> In this instance, the speaker (Maggie) refers to the unrelated comment made by the film viewers. <S> She talked about "sitting through" the movie, meaning to watch it despite not liking it, to which someone (either jokingly or sarcastically) replies " Or stand through it in your case. " <S> When she herself replies " Oh, can it, will you? ", she signals the person to stop joking or talking altogether. <S> " <S> Will you? " simply reinforces this request. <S> If you rearrange the sentence, the result could be " Oh, will you [shut up]? "
| "Can it" in this instance means "Shut up", stop talking - it has nothing to do with ability. As others have already explained it's meaning is based on putting something in a (trash) can.
|
Difference between gossamer and web Is any difference between words gossamer and web in their meaninig? Which word better describes this image? <Q> Yes there is a difference. <S> make a web. <S> A <S> Web is the finished product. <S> So, "web" best describes the picture, although it may also be referred to as a "cobweb" or a "spider's web". <S> Note that "gossamer" can also mean other kinds of fine silk. <S> Also, the material used to make a web can be referred to as webbing . <A> The image shows a spider web. <S> When baby spiders leave the egg, they make a very thin silk thread. <S> The wind blows this and carries the baby spider to a new place. <S> In the early morning of late summer the grass can be covered with these very fine threads, this is gossamer. <S> The webs that spiders make for catching flies should not be called gossamer. <S> However gossamer is a rather rare thing to see, and many people call spider-webs covered in dew "gossamer" when they want to use a rarer or more impressive word. <S> Many of the images of "gossamer" in a web search actually show "spider webs covered in dew". <S> You should not call that thing "gossamer" but many people do. <A> gossamer to the average speaker (of American English at least), the so-called "man on the street", is a textile. <S> The word is perceived as a rather "poetic" term when describing a spider's web or a butterfly's wings. <A> gossamer = light and delicate. <S> web = structure. <S> You can have a "gossamer web", but a web made of heavy ropes — that would not be considered gossamer , but still a web .
| Gossamer is the fine silk material used by the spider to
|
Can "do somebody" mean "imitate somebody" in spoken English? I heard this exchange from Friends (an American TV show): ... ... A: They do you. B: Do me? ... ... (Unfortunately, I don't know the episode number.) The context is that A is B's assistant and she is trying to give B (a boss) some feedback about how B's team members think of him. I figure " They do you " here means they imitate him, such as his behavior, the words he said, the way he speaks, and etc. Am I getting it right? Is it a common usage? <Q> Yes, to "do someone" can mean to impersonate them ( wiktionary sense 16 ). <S> That would be a reasonable interpretation given the context. <S> If this is from Friends (as indicated in a comment), the actual exchange goes: <S> Phoebe ... <S> Yeah, <S> yeah, they even do you! <S> Chandler <S> They <S> do me!? <S> Phoebe Y'know like, ok, um... { <S> imitating Chandler's voice} Could that report <S> be any later(?) <S> Chandler <S> I don't sound like that. <S> Ross&Joey <S> Yeah you do. <S> It's clear that "They do you" means "imitate" in this exchange. <S> But also note how Chandler asks for confirmation of what Phoebe means. <S> Phoebe is an "oddball character" who sometimes speaks in a slightly strange way. <A> In this particular context your interpretation seems to be correct. <S> However, the vast majority of time this is a euphemism for sex, specifically having sex with that person (the person you're "doing"). <S> I haven't seen the episode in question, but this double meaning could be adding to humor in that scene. <S> In general, I would recommend avoiding using this phrase if you're not referring to sex and you're not 1000% sure of it's context, as you're very likely to be misinterpreted in a very bad way. <A> It's used in that way, but generally only in a context where the subject of imitation is already part of the context of the conversation. <S> If someone is doing imitations, and you say "do Donald Trump," it would be clear, but outside that context it could mean numerous things. <S> In general, "do" can be used as a generic verb if the verb is already the subject of the conversation (for example, if someone is drawing pictures, "do a tree" would be easily interpreted as a request for a tree drawing). <A> That particular context seems strange to me, but as others have said, to "do someone" is pretty context-sensitive. <S> To "do someone in" is to kill them <S> "Do me next!" <S> is a request that the recipient perform whatever action they're performing on the speaker after they finish. <S> "I'd do her" is to comment that you'd have sex with a person. <S> It doesn't have to be sex, but that's the usual context. <S> The general thread is that it's a one-way interaction. <S> An action performed upon a person, with or without their response or permission. <S> In your context, it's shorthand for saying "they do (impressions of) you", it's not exactly a normal way of expressing that though. <A> The question has already been answered, but just to give more examples: the word "do" is used in that sense repeatedly in this video of Rob Brydon doing impressions on the British comedy show "Would I Lie To You?" <S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vUs_btP4g <A> I don't know the context but <S> last time I heard it in a TV show, they used it to say something on the lines of 'get rid of', 'kill' or 'expose'. <S> It could also mean both 'imitate' and 'have sex with', according to Google.
| Saying that you can "do someone" could mean that you can imitate them.
|
The word for people stacking up on top of each other I remember back in boarding school, for a while whenever we would turn on our belly, in a fraction of a second we would have a human pile stacked one on top of another on our back. It was meant as a joke though, not harassment or anything like that. The one who caught you off guard suddenly jumped on you, lying flat on top and pinning you down, and called out for others to join in. Yeah those were the days. Anyway, is there a word for this? I'm guessing if there is, it must be an informal one like wedgie . <Q> At least in AmE, it's called a dogpile . <S> Someone can start a dogpile by shouting "dogpile!" <S> just as you described. <S> dogpile noun <S> North American informal <S> 1 <S> A disorderly heap of people formed around one person on whom the others jump. <S> ‘he was mobbed by his teammates in a dogpile near mid-court’ (Oxford Dicionaries) <A> Such language is probably very local, perhaps specific to particular schools. <S> Wiktionary has this definition for the verb , and there are a couple of videos on youtube titled "gay bundle" for its use as a noun. <A> In Australia, long ago, we would call this ‘ stacks on the mill ’ ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). <S> stacks on <S> As a cry in a schoolyard game, where children pile up on top of a victim, the chant is sometimes expanded to stacks on the mill, more on still . <S> The children's game is possibly a survival of a game formerly played in Cheshire, which 'consisted in getting a man down on the ground and then others falling on the top of him till there was a complete pile or stack of men' ( English Dialect Dictionary ...). <S> That's from the Australian National Dictionary Centre , who misdate the EDD and confuse the name of the Cheshire lad's game ( " stack-upo’-the-kill " ) with a fairly identical Oxfordshire children's game ( " more sacks to the mill " ). <S> Those two will probably be the earliest attested versions of this game, although I couldn't claim anyone in the UK still calls it that: they were dated terms c. 1905. <A> At least for American football, the term is pileup . <S> pileup : a rough or disorderly falling of people upon one another, as in a football game. <S> As in Nothing off limits in scrum at the bottom of NFL pileup .
| At my school in England, we would have called this a bundle . The phrase is also used in descriptions of ball games, especially Aussie Rules, when a number of players pile up in attempting to get at the ball. Recently, we have seen the phrase abbreviated simply to stacks on!
|
How to address a person, whose gender is unknown, in the email body? I usually start with 'Dear Sir/Madam' in emails when I don't know the gender of the recipient. However, when I have to reply, it seems awkward to use 'sir/madam'. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with recipients' names, and I might not make a correct guess about the gender. An example: Sender: Dear Ms Doe, This will not be a problem anymore ... Me: Thank you sir/madam. <Q> If you had a response, then you know the name. <S> Dear Weather Vane, Thank you for your reply . <S> . . <S> Sometimes I am less formal and only reply: <S> Weather Vane, Thank you for your reply . <S> . . <S> I suggest you pitch your tone from the reply you received, which was Sender: This will not be a problem anymore.... <S> In which case the reply is a simple Me <S> : Thank you. <A> You can just start with <S> Hello, <S> There won't be a lot people that will pay you back with a quite formal "dear X" greeting in e-mail conversation nowadays anyway. <S> Most people start with "Hello" or even "Hi" - at least in my industry (IT consulting), although, of course, it may not be true for the people that you are communicating with. <A> Using "Sir/Madam" is nearly always wrong. <S> It is probably acceptable in the salutation (if you really don't know the name of the person) but not otherwise. <S> It is always far better to find out the name of the person and use it. <S> In the case of a reply to an email, you will know the person's name, since the bottom of their email will be a signoff that includes their name. <S> Best regards, Mary Wright. <S> You can start your next email <S> "Dear Mary Wright" (It is generally incorrect to use Mr or Ms with a first name.) <S> In the body, you almost never have to refer to the person by name. <S> Instead, you use the pronoun "you". <S> Note in this answer <S> I use "you" freely. <S> I don't need to know your name. <S> Using "you" is not impolite. <S> So <S> , in the situation that you describe: Sender: <S> Dear Ms Doe, This will not be a problem anymore <S> Me <S> : Thank you. <S> The expression "thank you" does not require a name. <S> It should not have "sir/madam" following it. <S> This is the correct and formal way to say thank you. <S> Remember "sir" is not formal, it is honorific. <S> It is not used except by schoolchildren. <S> The style you should be aiming for is "business-like". <S> Use simple, plain direct English. <S> Don't use honorifics. <S> This is the expectation in formal writing.
| You can then reply to the name that was given to you. You should avoid using sir or madam in formal communication.
|
Is there any difference between those two sentences start/begin? Between the two following sentences, what is the difference? "I began to feel a lump in my stomach." versus "I started to feel a lump in my stomach." I found out that most likely begin means it already started while start means it will start in a future moment. <Q> Is there any difference between those two sentences start/begin? <A> There's no difference in meaning , but there is a significant (though subtle) difference in usage and emerging trends. <S> With verbs relating to actions , both to start to [act] and to begin to [act] have long been about equally common... <S> But for verbs concerned with internal mental states, desires, etc. <S> we nearly always use <S> began to ... <S> If you check this NGram for began to / started to feel , you'll see that the latter version has at least started to gain some traction. <S> But that doesn't invalidate the broad principle. <S> Besides which, at least some of the instances contributing to that chart would be for literal / tactile feeling, not an emotional state. <A> The idea that "start means it will start in a future moment" is good, but since the word 'start' has an -ed ending in your example, that suggests that this future moment has already passed. <S> In other words, the lump has already began to be felt by you. <S> Thus, there is no difference.
| No, the sentences mean the same thing.
|
Replace the word "dent" If you touch a balloon there is a dent created at your finger tip. Now this word dent seems so rough. Like one has to use a lot of pressure to create a dent. Is there any proper word to replace it so the sentence seems like one doesnt have to use that much pressure at all. <Q> The first Merriam-Webster definition of "dent" is Verb. 1: to make a dent in, dent a car. <S> This sounds pretty rough for a balloon, and is a verb, but further down they say Noun. <S> 1: <S> a depression or hollow made by a blow or by pressure. <S> So there is nothing wrong with using a dent to describe the depression in a balloon. <S> If you don't like the word dent <S> you might accept <S> hollow which seems more gentle (although it depends on how tightly the balloon was inflated). <A> A part of a surface that is lower than the rest can be said to be depressed or indented , and the area thus created can be called a depression or an indentation . <S> depression noun (PRESS DOWN) <S> [ C ] a part in a surface that is slightly lower than the rest: <S> There was a depression in the sand where he'd been lying. <S> Depression indentation noun (HOLE) <S> [ C ] a hole or mark on the surface of something: <S> The heels of her shoes had left indentations in the mud. <S> Indentation <S> Slatter's Fundamentals of Veterinary Ophthalmology 5th Edition (2013, David Maggs, Paul Miller, Ron Ofri), page 99, gives a description, in ordinary educated language, of a technique used in animal and human medicine to measure the IOP (intra-ocular pressure) of an eyeball: <S> Indentation Tonometry <S> The Schiotz tonometer relies on indentation tonometry. <S> In this method, a standard force is applied with a metal rod to a topically anesthetized cornea. <S> The distance the rod indents <S> the cornea is measured and is inversely related to the LOP (i.e., the greater the tonometer scale reading, the lower the patient's IOP). <S> This concept is easily understood if the eye is regarded as analogous to a water-filled balloon. <S> If the blunt end of a pencil is applied to the balloon with a given force (e.g., the weight of the pencil placed vertically), the pencil indents the surface of the balloon by a certain distance. <S> If the pressure in the balloon is decreased (some of the water is let out), the tension in the rubber wall decreases, and the same pencil resting on the balloon indents it farther. <S> Conversely, if the pressure in the balloon is increased, the same pencil indents it less. <S> The Schiotz tonometer (Figure 5-40) consists of three parts: the plunger (analogous to the pencil), the footplate assembly (a device to measure indentation), and the handle. <S> A further refinement is added: The weight applied to the eye through the rod may be varied by adding or subtracting weights (5.5 g, 7.5 g, 10 g, or 15 g). <S> The greater the weight applied to the eye at a given IOP, the greater the penetration of the rod. <S> Slatter's Fundamentals <A> Soft surfaces : depression, a lower spot that is made on a surface by a force, which may or may not remain when the force is removed. <S> A finger would create a depression on the surface of the balloon. <S> pillow: indentation <S> [it remains after you lift your head off of it]. <S> Indentations remain when the pressure is removed. <S> indentation on the surface of a freshly painted wall. <S> balloon: <S> depression, a depression is created by your finger and then fills out again when you remove your finger. <S> Rock or wood: A hollow is left after the action of a force such as wind or rain since material is removed when there is a hollow. <S> A hollow log: has no wood at its center. <S> It has been eroded by water or bugs or time or a knife or I-don't-know what. <S> wood table, metal objects <S> etc: Cars bumpers are easily dented. <S> A dent is made on a hard surface, not a soft one. <S> Some plastics can be dented too. <S> the ground: a depression: there is a depression in the grass. <S> Different terms are used for hard and soft surfaces, and they are not 100% interchangeable. <S> I have given above the most usual which came to (my) mind. <A> There's numerous examples on this website but a few that stick out are: Dent: "A shallow deformation in the surface of an object, produced by an impact." <S> Also Bump: "A protuberance on a level surface." <S> If you read further on the website I think it can be seen that either word would be used appropriately quite easily. <A> If you touch a balloon lightly enough, it may not create a dent at all —but it could still leave a mark on it, such as a fingerprint, dirt, or other visible sign. <S> (Also, any dent created will be quite temporary and disappear as soon as you remove your finger.) <S> A word that captures both an ephemeral dent and any other sign of having touched it once your finger is removed is impression : <S> [Merriam-Webster] <S> 2 : the effect produced by impressing: such as a : a stamp, form, or figure resulting from physical contact <S> 3 : the act of impressing: such as <S> a : an affecting by stamping or pressing [impressing] 1 <S> a : to apply with pressure so as to imprint b : to produce (something, such as a mark) by pressure <S> c : <S> to mark by or as if by pressure or stamping
| Another suggestion is indentation which also does not sound so "rough" as dent .
|
How to describe a sample of one person? Statistically, how to describe a theory making from one's own experience and haven't been tested by others? A sample of one? A one-person sample? Googling both phrases doesn't yield any meaningful result. Example: Regardless of how much it helps me to be more stable, confident and sensitive than before, it's just _____________. <Q> We use the expression " anecdotal evidence ". <S> This doesn't have to mean a sample size of one (but it could) <S> it does mean that the sampling was informal, and the data was based on personal testimony. <S> Mary said that using baking soda had cleared up her acne, but that's just anecdotal evidence. <S> We organised a clinical trial to test the effectiveness. <S> Regardless of how much it helps me to be more stable, confident and sensitive than before, it's just anecdotal evidence. <S> This carries the general sense that you want to convey, but not the particular point about a sample of exactly one. <S> That fact could be implied by the context. <A> It's a common feature of, for example, medical , psychology , and business research literature. <S> A definition from Merriam-Webster: an intensive analysis of an individual unit (such as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to environment <S> The "individual unit" is your "sample of one". <S> Note that case studies can be either qualitative or quantitative , depending on the method of inquiry into the particular case, though they may be especially popular among qualitative researchers (and may be denigrated by some more quantitative-focused researchers). <A> In this case ' A sample size of one ' sounds better to me. <A> In statistics, sample size is represented by n . <S> In medicine some studies are so narrow the sample size can only be one. <S> For example, some genetic abnormalities are so rare a patient may be the only test subject. <S> This is referred to as an n of 1 study . <S> More can be found on wikipedia .
| In stats, the expression that I've often heard being used is 'A sample size of...'. If you want a non-pejorative term that is used in academia/science for this kind of evidence, you could use case study .
|
What English common word or phrase used to describe Passing of humorous complimentary remarks while eating a good food that one is unaccustomed to? What English common word or phrase used to describe Passing of humorous complimentary remarks on food one is eating (the remarks are considered silly or funny and as showing that the speaker is unaccustomed to good or well-cooked meals)? I am looking for English equivalent expression for a Hausa word santi or fanya . For example, Mr A hosted Mr B for a dinner in his house. Mr B was served a good food (specially prepared for him) eating together with Mr A and some members of A's family. During the dinner Mr B suddenly made a remark not necessarily considered complimentary but considered silly and funny by his listeners. Assuming I am among the listeners who were laughing already, how could I in English common expression show that the speaker was carried away by the taste of the good food to make fun of him alluding to the fact that he was unaccustomed to that type of food which he never ate before? <Q> I think I understand this question better now having seen an English translation of the word in your Hausa language "santi": <S> Santi: to rave and gush over food; savoring delicious food by exhibiting socially subconscious behavior at a meal such as making compliments about how tasty a food is. <S> I do <S> n't there is an exact equivalent word in English to describe this experience with food; however we do use the expression " carried away " to describe almost any situation in which someone's excitement takes control over what they say or do. <S> If somebody made a statement that showed they were enjoying their food in a way that was clear their hunger/enjoyment/excitement was coming before any more rational or thought-out responses, one might say to them: <S> Are you getting a little carried away there? <S> There are also some informal, slang expressions that might fit the situation, such as feeding frenzy , although these more imply that the guest is being gluttonous , which is quite insulting to say. <S> Laughing because someone is getting "carried away" with their food is quite light and humourous, and it doesn't imply that they are not enjoying the food. <A> When a word does not easily translate it is common for English speakers to "borrow" the word from another language. <S> In some cultures (such as the Hausa culture of West Africa) <S> the act of eating is done with much more respect than in English speaking cultures <S> Some topics are not discussed when eating: Clothing, livestock or complimenting the food are all considered bad manners. <S> (according to my source) In English speaking cultures it is common to compliment the food, and discuss all manner of topics. <S> Some families even watch television while eating or talk about trivial things. <S> As complimenting the food is considered good manners in English speaking cultures, there is no word for describing it as bad manners. <S> You can use the local word, with an explanation: <S> My grandfather was shocked when my cousin starting saying "these plantains taste better than bananas", which was considered santi , a violation of the rules of proper behaviour. <S> We are expected to remain dignified during supper. <S> You could describe the behaviour as "undignified", "impolite" or just "rude", however you will not find a perfect translation. <A> I can't comment on Hausa social customs, but in American (or at least Californian) culture, if someone does say something inappropriate, we can pass off the faux pas by saying something like: <S> He was overcome (with emotion) <S> He was overwhelmed (by the moment) <S> You can also suggest the person is figuratively intoxicated : <S> He was drunk (with excitement) <S> He was giddy (with joy) <S> Variations on any of these can be used in the situation you describe: <S> It sounds like Mr. B is overwhelmed by the [name of dish]. <S> It sounds like Mr. B is getting drunk off of the [name of dish]. <S> In more informal situations, it can be appropriate to substitute the slang term <S> high for drunk , to suggest intoxication from some (usually illicit) drug: <S> It sounds like Mr. B is getting high from the [name of dish].
| No such expression exists because the behaviour is not considered rude.
|
ambiguity?: to infinitive phrase as a purpose clause or an infinitival relative clause I think the grammar of To-infinitive is the most difficult part of learning English because it is hard for me like ESL students to know which is which. I mean, I'm, well, just wanting to classify the grammar of to-infinitive... I learned that to infinitive phrase can be used to show the purpose or intention of subject, purpose clause. I used a knife to cut the bread. I submitted the recipe to win the prize money. And I learned that to infinitive phrase can also be used as a relative clause. There were a lot of people here to see the movie. He is the man to wash the dishes. And I'm lost. If it is used with two ways, I don't know what reading is preferential in some sentences. Here are some sentences which I'm confused about. a.We asked for a man to talk to the children b.You need a key to unlock the door. c.Now you can use a key to get into Google account Are the objects in the sentences antecedents to infinitival relatives? Or rather, are the to-infinitival clauses just purpose clauses? As for my interpretations, Here they are. a1. We asked for a man who was to talk to the children. [relative reading] a2. We asked for a man (for him) to talk to the children. [purpose reading] b1. You need a key which is to unlock the door. b2. You need a key in order to unlock the door. c1. Now You can use a key which is to get into Google account. c2. Now You can use a key for Google account. Which interpretations are closest in meaning to the original sentences? I'm hoping my words get across to you. <Q> I would say: a. <S> We asked for a man to communicate with the children b. <S> You need a key in order to open the door. <S> c. <S> Now you can use a key to log into your Google account <S> I would say that is sufficient. <A> Your interpretations a1, b2, and c2 are closest. <S> I used a knife to cut the bread. <S> I used a knife in order to cut the bread : purpose clause <S> I submitted the recipe to win the prize money. <S> I submitted the recipe in order to win the prize money. : purpose clause <S> He is the man to wash the dishes. <S> He is the man that should wash the dishes. : relative infinitive clause <A> a. <S> We asked for a man to talk to the children <S> A man can talk. <S> This sentence is an example of a purpose clause. <S> b. <S> You need a key to unlock the door. <S> A key can unlocks. <S> This is a used as a purpose clause. <S> c. <S> Now you can use a key to get into Google account. <S> Though this is somewhat harder to determine, the point is that the key refers to a password or a code to access the account. <S> This is a purpose clause. <S> There were a lot of people here to see the movie. <S> In this sentence, 'here' can not see a movie. <S> The people can see the movie. <S> This is a relative clause. <S> These sentences can be interpreted differently depending on the emphasis in spoken English. <S> We asked for a man to talk to the children. <S> We specified that we want a man and not a woman to talk to the children. <S> We asked for a man to talk to the children. <S> We asked for a man to talk to and not to yell at the children. <S> The verbal emphasis can apply to any part of the sentence. <S> In writing, we usually assume that the infinitive is used in a purpose clause unless it makes more sense for it to be a relative clause. <A> https://www.grammaring.com/the-to-infinitive-to-replace-a-relative-clause <S> After this article the "to infinitive" may replace the relative clause under certain conditions! <S> if this is correct all examples above were purpose clauses ... <S> the to-infinitive clause can replace a defining relative clause after ordinal numbers (the first, the second etc.), after superlatives (the best, the most beautiful etc.) <S> and after next, last and only: Ethan is usually the last person to understand the joke. <S> (Ethan is usually the last person who understands the joke.) <S> His office was the next room to clean. <S> (His office was the next room that they had to clean.) <S> Passive infinitives are also possible: <S> His was the last composition to be marked. <S> (His was the last composition which was marked.) <S> “ <S> But I think your examples are all ambiguous. <S> The problem is that we are conditioned by teachers that there is always one solution to fit (that fits, or which? <S> is fitting?) <S> these examples have to demonstrate the ambiguity of sentences which can‘t be classified when they stand alone - even if the antecedent subject or the following verb is BOLD written or they are spoken with different pronunciation and varied emphasis. <S> Only the context can make it clear. <S> So your task is to clarify the situation by reasoning and giving an example with a relative pronoun or explaining the purpose clause. <S> And you are arguing well. <A> The solution to your question is simple: the terms who , what or which can be replaced by a verb . <S> In any sentence, what you are describing as a to-infinitive is what in English is simply called the verb . <S> Every sentence must have a verb. <S> The infinitive form of any verb is 'to ... <S> (action)', e.g. 'to give', 'to take', 'to put', 'to read'. <S> You are confusing yourself by over complicating this subject, unnecessarily. <S> Call it 'a verb', not 'a to-infinitive', for instance. <S> English is a very simple language. <S> All a sentence needs is 3 elements: a verb, a subject, and an object. <S> So, 'the cat sat on the mat' has a verb (to sit ), has someone who sits (the cat ) who is the subject, and has something that is sat upon (the mat ) which is the object. <S> As long as you have the three basic elements, the sentence is valid. <S> What is the verb? <S> It is the word which is derived from your 'to' infinitive, i.e. 'sat' is the past tense of 'to sit'. <S> Who is doing the sitting? <S> He is the subject. <S> What is he sitting on? <S> That is the object. <S> 'I used a knife to cut the bread.' <S> The verb is 'used', the past tense of 'to use'. <S> But there is also a second verb, in the infinitive form, 'to cut'. <S> This second verb is easy, because it is always 'to cut'. <S> It stays in the infinitive form, whatever else you change. <S> 'Used' might become present tense, i.e. 'use', or perhaps even 'I am using'. <S> In the future tense it would be 'I will use'. <S> None of these changes to verb/subject/object modifies 'to cut', because the rules of grammar are an interplay of verb/subject, so usually don't modify other parts of the sentence. <S> Accordingly, 'to cut' never changes. <S> You might be told you have to call it a 'purpose clause'. <S> What I say is: if you can identify the verb, the subject, and the object, then whatever remains in the sentence is the purpose. <S> What is the verb ? <S> To use. <S> (Verb) <S> Who is doing the using? <S> I. (Subject) <S> What is he using? <S> The knife. <S> (Object) <S> Why is he using it? <S> (What is his purpose?) <S> To cut the bread. = <S> Purpose clause .
| The simplest answer is that it is a purpose clause if the object that the infinitive follows does that action.
|
Meaning of "put (one's) finger on something" What's the meaning of "put (one's) finger on something" in this sentence? What's the best summary of this text? What do you say if you want to sum it up in one or two sentences? A lot of readers, wanting to put their finger on why the affluent world they live in makes them so uneasy, will want to cheer. Source: The sentence comes from the opening paragraph of a book review in The Guardian . <Q> The answer by Tᴚoɯɐuo explains the concept pretty well, but here's a supporting reference: <S> put your finger on sth: <S> to discover the exact reason why a situation is the way it is, especially when something is wrong: <S> There's something odd about him, but I can't quite put my finger on it. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> I feel the other answers have missed a lot of the subtlety of the phrase. <S> It's not merely to point something out. <S> It's a recognition or demonstration of Insightfulness depending on the usage. <S> To put your finger on something is to reach the most vital point of the argument and do it with precision, typically pushing past any complexity to reach the crux of the problem. <S> In the context of being "unable to put my finger on it", it's a comment that insight into the problem isn't being forthcoming. <S> It stems from a family of metaphors around the idea of pinning or nailing things in place so that they are easier to work with. <A> I think the car needs new spark plugs. <S> --You've put your finger on it. <S> It isn't the distributor at all. <S> Or The reason so many blue collar voters voted for a president whose aim was to destroy labor unions is that he could seem anti-elitist. <S> -- <S> I'm not so sure, but you may have put your finger on it. <S> So, your text can be paraphrased: A lot of readers, who would like to know why the affluent world they live in makes them feel very uneasy, will want to shout their support (for the author). <A> To put your finger on something is to point it out in a way that educates the listener, to the point where the listener is surprised is not only surprised at the accuracy of the answer, but questions whether they would have understood it that well without your help. <S> It's used to define presumably accurate answers to questions others <S> have found difficult to even define. <S> Think of the act of pointing out something on a map or other document...if you "put your finger on" the thing you're looking for, you've clearly identified it rather than just knowing the general area to look.
| It means "to point out something", especially as the explanation for something else.
|
What's the countable word for "the act of having sex"? I can only think of the vulgar version. I wonder if there is a formal/non-vulgar one. Example: They had sex at night, in the wee hours, and then they had one last __ in the morning. <Q> What's the countable word for “the act of having sex”? <S> Any single words will be vulgar, medical/technical sounding, a bit silly, or have other implications. <S> Fling might have implications that could appropriate, it means "a short period of enjoyment or wild behavior" (Google). <S> Another example is tryst <S> but this implies secrecy (Google's definition: "a private, romantic rendezvous between lovers"). <S> You take on a dispassionate, non-silly tone by using the term "had sex" in the first part of your sentence. <S> Only have <S> sex really matches that tone. <S> They had sex at night, in the wee hours, and then had sex again last in the morning. <S> Since you are repeating the term, you can take advantage of elision and not even worry about the issue: They had sex at night, in the wee hours, and then again in the morning. <A> As in (I presume) any language, there are literally hundreds of words to describe the act of sexual intercourse. <S> While you are probably thinking of the vulgar, "fuck", there are any number of options of varying degrees of vulgarity: shag, screw, bonk, boink, bone, ball, bounce, bang, romp, roll (in the hay), (bit of) nookie, lay, hump, boff, roger, schtupp, score and many others. <S> There are also phrases such as get laid, get it on, get lucky, bump fuzzies, make whoopie, get your freak on, hit it, go at it <S> and, again, innumerable others. <S> Or, of course, you could use a perfectly ordinary, mildly suggestive word: They had sex at night, in the wee hours, and then they had a last jiggle in the morning before they both went to work. <S> The nuance will change depending on which word you choose. <S> Jiggle is cute and playful, and in the same way you could use wiggle or giggle . <S> Other words would imply different things. <S> (Edit) <S> most of these are both nouns and verbs, for example you can have a shag or you can just shag . <S> Since they are all slang they may be tricky to use correctly , and you should probably just use whatever term you hear other people around you use. <S> Naturally none of these is correct in polite company ... <S> but then many people you might think "polite" are actually far less so than you would expect. <A> There are a number of formal terms, but none are usually countable: <S> Copulation, coition, coitus, sexual intercourse. <S> These started out a euphemism for terms that are now considered "vulgar". <S> These formal terms are not the normal way of talking about sex. <S> In your example you could say "... and they had sex for the last time ... <S> " <S> You could also use a verb. " <S> Copulate" is formal, "... and they copulated for the last time... <S> " An interesting verb is "know", this is used in the bible as "Adam knew Eve". <S> Note that using such formal language in a non-scientific context is not common, and sounds like a joke (a type of bathos).
| If you need a countable term you can say "an act of coitus" (for example).
|
Simple Past or Past Continuous? - Action taking place in the middle of another action I am a newbie and I have a problem with this sentence, should I use past continuous or past simple? When I realized that no one was paying any attention to me I decided to go home. But just as I was leaving the party a beautiful blond girl....(walk) through the door and....(smile) at me. Some of my friends tell me the answer is: walked and smiled => Because it's an "action taking place in the middle of another action". Some of the other said: was walking and smiling. I'm so confused. <Q> Both versions are acceptable, although the version with the -ing verb form needs a minor tweak: <S> When I realized that no one was paying any attention to me, I decided to go home. <S> But just as I was leaving the party, a beautiful blond girl walked through the door and smiled at me . <S> When I realized that no one was paying any attention to me, I decided to go home. <S> But just as I was leaving the party, a beautiful blond girl [was] walking through the door and smiling at me . <S> The idea that one action interrupts another is by no means a given. <S> What would that mean? <S> She was walking but then had to stop in order to smile? <S> People can do many things at the same time—including walking and smiling. <S> Assuming that two actions aren't happening at the same time, one action doesn't have to interrupt another one; it's at least as common, if not more so, for one action to simply follow another one. <S> The question here is, does the woman walk through the door and then smile at you—or do you see her walking through the door as she is smiling at you? <S> Both versions are grammatical. <S> It's what actually happened that determines which phrasing is the most accurate. <S> Also, it's a mistake to think that the verb form itself determines if two actions happen sequentially or in parallel: <S> When I realized that no one was paying any attention to me, I decided to go home. <S> But just as I was leaving the party, a beautiful blond girl walked through the door [as she] smiled at me . <S> When I realized that no one was paying any attention to me, I decided to go home. <S> But just as I was leaving the party, [I saw] a beautiful blond girl walking through the door [before stopping] and smiling at me . <A> Walked and smiled sounds much more natural to this US English speaker. <S> That works fine for leaving , because you were in the process of leaving when something else happened. <S> If you want to describe that another event happened and was completed, the simple past works best. <S> Since the girl presumably finished the actions of walking in and smiling, walked and smiled sound more natural. <S> It's not grammatically incorrect to say was walking and smiling , but it changes the emphasis of the sentence, because now it says while you were leaving, another ongoing process was happening. <S> This is completely possible (for example, " <S> While I was leaving, my friend Jake was telling jokes in the kitchen") <S> but it doesn't work well with the Just as I was in your sentence, which suggests an instantaneous interruption, not an ongoing process. <A> Your friends are right (walked and smiled) -- they are actions interrupting another (often 'longer' background) action. <S> I'm editing this for clarification, since 'interrupting' seems to have been misunderstood in the above comment. <S> She wasn't "walking and then had to stop in order to smile". <S> It's not her actions that interrupt one another. <S> The background action is the protagonist's process of leaving the party (perhaps getting coat, bag, saying goodbyes whatever). <S> In the middle of this, this beautiful woman comes in; that's the meaning of one action interrupting another. <S> It's a standard way in TEFL to explain how the past continuous works with the simple past. <S> The standard sentence (of course you can tweak it and change the grammar so that you can fit in two participles, but I don't really feel that helps explain the grammar) <S> is: As I was leaving the party, a beautiful girl walked through the door and smiled at me. <S> The other version is not officially wrong, but it is an unusual way to use the language and sounds dreamlike, almost poetical. <S> It makes the girl's entrance sound longer, extended, not something that interrupted his actions. <S> So if that's the context, then it's ok. <S> The 'standard' sentence, on the other hand, makes it sound as if she really grabbed his attention, so that he might even change his mind about leaving the party.
| Present participles like leaving , walking , and smiling are usually used to describe an ongoing process or action.
|
What does it mean? " I don't know if that's good on either side" Well the woman says: " want to hold him? He ( the child ) won't break ( woman says humorously ) , I don't want to raise him by myself (their child, she means) , and he's as much of you as he is me" Then the man says: " I don't know if that's good on either side"And folks, I think I have to tell you another thing, that babyis an illegitimate child. Source : The dialogue comes from a conversation between two characters of a TV series called Grimm. Season5 Epidose 3 , first minute , and its link, watch it online if you want :( https://www.tvfanatic.com/shows/grimm/full-episodes/season-5/lost-boys/ ) <Q> This is from Grimm, Season 5, Episode 1 "The Grimm Identity". <S> It is available on Amazon Prime , if you have a subscription, and possibly elsewhere. <S> After doing some more research , the context seems to be that the father is a "Grimm", a race of magical people sworn to protect humanity against certain other magical people (the "Wesen"). <S> The mother is, of course, one of those magical people he's sworn to fight. <S> Since they appear to have fought each other in the past, and are presumably still some kind of enemies, co-parenting their child would not really be safe for either of them , or for the baby. <S> Nevertheless, Nick says he's willing to give it a try. <A> It appears to be a fatalistic or nihilistic reply - it could mean "neither of us are good enough parents". <S> Such statements can often imply " ... <S> and so we must try to be better", so they are not usually purely negative. <A> Even without knowing the specific context, we can still make a general assumption behind the meaning of the phrase within a show about supernatural creatures. <S> I don't know if that's good on either side. <S> There are two sides to the situation. <S> It's not clear if a side refers to two people (the man and the woman), two groups, or two races (humans and supernaturals). <S> That refers to the woman not raising their masculine child by herself. <S> So, to paraphrase, and depending on a particular interpretation, the man is actually saying one of the following: <S> Co-parenting him may not be good for either of us. <S> Co-parenting him may not be good for either group. <S> Co-parenting him may not be good for either of our people. <S> The details and reasons behind this conclusion are mere speculation without further information. <S> However, the woman is saying that she doesn't want to be a single parent and the man is saying he doesn't know if it's a good idea for their child to be co-parented. <S> Alternatively, the man could be responding not to the issue of parenting but to the issue of parentage . <S> However, given only the dialogue we have to work with, it's more logical to assume a continuation of the original topic of debate than a jump in the conversation to something else. <S> Note that one of the comments in response to a synopsis of this episode posted on TV Fanatic says: And <S> Kelly? <S> What kind of name is that for a potentially badassed kid? <S> How can he live that name down huh? <S> Poor kid! <S> Anyways can't wait to see Nick and Adalind co-parent! <S> While not definitive (we really need some dialogue after what was given in the question), this supports the idea <S> that the man (Nick, I guess) is debating co-parenting. <S> Either wanting her to raise the baby on her own, or wanting "full custody" himself.
| It may also be a valid interpretation to simply say: Co-parenting him may not be good for anyone.
|
"What is the weather today?" or "How is the weather today?" If I want to ask about the weather today whether is cold or hot, worm or cloudy or foggy, rainy or snowy etc. What should I choose of these two (or may be there's another way)? " What 's the weather today?" or " How 's the weather today?" What's the appropriate choice for the mentioned need? <Q> Both can be fine. <S> While the first focuses more on the objective description of the weather, and the second focuses more on someone's subjective opinion of the weather, the answer can go either way, depending on how the listener chooses to interpret the question. <S> Examples: <S> James: What's the weather out there? <S> Phil: <S> It's miserable. <S> James: <S> No, <S> I mean <S> what's it like ? <S> Warm, sunny, rainy ...? <S> Phil: <S> It's hot, humid, and totally miserable. <S> James: <S> How's the weather out there? <S> Phil: <S> Sunny, some clouds, relatively cool. <S> James: <S> So it's nice? <S> Phil: <S> Yes, it's nice. <S> For this reason, I wouldn't worry too much about it. <S> You can always clarify your question if you want to know something specific. <A> Arguably some people might think <S> the what version is more appropriate when the speaker is specifically interested in knowing what the weather actually is (or perhaps will be , later in the day). <S> Conversely, the how version might be more likely if what the speaker wants to know is how the addressee feels about the weather . <S> Expanding on the above, I suspect the "frequency of occurrence" of the how version (relative to the what version) would be higher in the context of telephone calls . <S> If you're talking to someone who's far enough away that "their" weather is likely to be different to whatever you're currently experiencing, you'd have more reason to ask what they think of their weather. <S> But if you're talking to someone who's actually with you, you probably wouldn't be asking what the current state of the weather is (you can see as well as them whether it's raining or not). <S> And if you're asking What is the weather [ forecast for ] today?, that would rarely be phrased using how . <A> I agree with both the other answers about the relative usage of the two forms you've mentioned. <S> I will add one more possibility: <S> Often when I'm deciding what to wear for the day <S> I'll ask my spouse to look at his phone and tell me what his weather app says. <S> In that case, I'll usually use some variation on <S> What is the weather supposed to be today? <S> What is the weather going to be (like) today? <S> or just What's the (weather) forecast for today? <S> In this case, I'm not talking about the weather <S> right now <S> but rather the (expected) conditions throughout the day. <A> To me "What is the weather today?" is a very unnatural sentence. <S> At least in my recent memory, I've never heard a native English speaker say that. <S> As others have mentioned, the what version conveys a more scientific tone, while the how version conveys a subjective tone. <S> As a result, I think you would be more likely to use what to discuss forecasts and how to discuss the current weather. <S> However, you will also hear "What's the weather like today?" <S> and I would say this like/what pairing is semantically equivalent to <S> how . <S> I'm an American English speaker (from California), so I would be curious to see if other people who use the phrasing "What's the weather today? <S> " come from a different area, because it sounds so unnatural to me <S> (though of course it's grammatically correct). <A> As an English man I have just come across this phrase in a foreign school teaching children English. <S> I have to admit I have never heard anyone say or use the phrase, "What is the weather today ?". <S> In England we would say, "What is the weather like today?" <S> or " What is the weather forecast for today?". I hope that helps.
| They're both perfectly natural.
|
Verb "pigeon hole" in a context Provided such a context given by a TOEFL listening text, From the perspective of world history, modern history refers to the time around when capitalism began. It is not at all easy, however, to pigeon-hole modern Korean history within the world historical context. This is attributed to the historical fact that Korea was colonized by Japan. I looked up the Merrain Unabridged and Cambridge online, Merriam Unabridged, Cambridge online Since to me most suitable definition would be 3 of Merriam, I would like you to confirm if my understanding is correct. <Q> Yes, Merriam definition 3, but with a large side-order of Cambridge definition 1. <S> The older definition of actual physical boxes to put letters/papers etc in was because they looked like where pigeons would be kept. <S> We kept the idea of compartmentalising ideas, we kept the name, but we got rid of the physical boxes. <S> Pigeon-holing [idk whether it really ought to be one word or hyphenated, Brits tend to hyphenate more than anyone else] has distinct connotations of mentally filing things into groups - not necessarily for the benefit of the things/people being filed. <S> The trouble with that is that the pigeon holes get smaller & smaller until there's only room for one pigeon in each hole ;) <A> Ultimately it is a spatial metaphor for something that is not spatial but temporal. <S> The verb phrase "properly place" could be substituted for it. <A> In my opinion, the nuance of pigeonhole is generally negative (as in the first Cambridge definition). <S> It most often means to take something complicated and force it to fit some kind of simple role or explanation. <S> Example: <S> Early in her career, the actress was lauded for taking on complex roles that required subtle characterization; however as she grew older, because of her maternal appearance, she was quickly pigeonholed into those of the doting mother/wife, left wringing her hands at home while her husband or her children went off to fulfill the plot. <S> The context of your original quote is somewhat less negative, but still a kind of admonition against over-simplifying Korean history. <S> Still it's not exactly clear how being "colonized by Japan" complicates things.
| I'd say it means "to put something where it belongs (as in a particular compartment or 'pigeonhole' of an old-fashioned desk)" and in this particular context the "where" would be somewhere in a historical schema or analytical framework .
|
She was sitting with the Princess, all smiles and admiration There is a sentence from GoT: She was sitting with the Princess Myrcella, all smiles and admiration. Could you explain the meaning of the second part of the sentence all smiles and admiration What are the parts of speech words "smiles" and "admiration"? <Q> Expressions starting with "all" and then one or more nouns are often used to describe notably strong aspects or characteristics of something. <S> She was all smiles and admiration - she was smiling a lot and behaving very admiringly. <S> The angry dog was all growls and teeth. <S> The house caught fire <S> and then it was all flames and smoke. <S> Sometimes sarcasm or derision is intended - when my brother came in the room, my best friend was all blushes and fluttering eyelashes. <S> A reasonable dictionary explanation is no. 8 for "all" in Collins Dictionary: seeming to be nothing but <S> he was all arms and legs <S> All (Collins) <A> Up to now <S> I'm sure you would have expected to see something more straightforward, such as the compound sentence: <S> She was sitting with the Princess, and smiling and admiring her . <S> In creative writing (like fiction or poetry) writers are free to organize their words in all kinds of ways that may seem ungrammatical, but which are intended to have a particular effect. <S> In this case, the "A is all X and Y" structure means "A is full of X and Y" or "A is doing nothing but X and Y". <S> Other examples: <S> While the popular image of the Roman Empire is all gladiators and orgies , the truth is that the empire was a massive bureaucracy, which, like any other in history, produced a massive number of documents, some of which have survived. <S> Outwardly that Christmas she was all good tidings and cheer <S> but inwardly she was full of worry about her missing friend. <A> "smiles" and "admiration" are nouns (the first is a plural noun) <S> The phrase "all smiles and admiration" describes how she was sitting. <S> It means that she was smiling and adoring the princess as she was sitting by her.
| This is a kind of poetic language, in which "smiles and admiration" are characteristics of the subject "she".
|
need a proverb for “not to stoop to a lower level” I am looking for a proverb describing not to stoop oneself to another person's "level". A similar proverb is "If you lie down with a dog, you'll get up with fleas" but this is not exactly what I have in mind as according to wikipedia, this proverb appears to focus more on choosing "your company" well (to be associated with), which hinges on the connotation that dogs are human's best friends. According to wikipedia The quote has a large almost universally agreed meaning of "You should be cautious of the company you keep. Associating with those of low reputation may not only lower your own but also lead you astray by the faulty assumptions, premises and data of the unscrupulous ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:If_you_lie_down_with_dogs,_you_get_up_with_fleas ) " The proverb(s) I am looking for would portray the others (with a presumptive lower level of standard) more as enemies, not as friends <Q> An alternative idiom that means the same thing as "not stoop to their level" is "to take the high road." <S> You misunderstand the connotation of "dog" in the saying <S> "Lie down with dogs; get up with fleas. <S> " It is not at all refering to dogs as man's best friend, but to the notion that you will acquire the undesirable attributes of your close companions. <S> Sleep in a kennel, and you will get bitten by fleas. <A> Here are some possibilities: "Never wrestle with a pig. <S> You both get dirty, and the pig loves it!" <S> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/08/pig/ <S> "Don't wrestle with a chimney sweep or you will get covered with grime. <S> " <S> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/06/chimney/ <S> "Never try to teach a pig to sing. <S> It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." <S> --Robert <S> Heinlein https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/10/sing-pig/ "Never play chess with a pigeon. <S> It knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. <S> " <S> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess "Never argue with an idiot. <S> They might be doing the same. <S> " <S> https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/1f1kkg/never_argue_with_an_idiot_they_will_bring_you/ "Never argue with an idiot. <S> Onlookers won't be able to tell the difference. <S> " <S> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/66460/origin-of-do-not-argue-with-idiots <S> "Never argue with an idiot. <S> They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." <S> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/310811/is-there-an-english-idiom-that-is-equivalent-to-throwing-stones-at-sewage-will?noredirect=1&lq=1 <S> “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. <S> If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." <S> -- <S> Matthew 7:6 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/7.htm <S> -- Proverbs 26:4 http://biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/26.htm "Don't doubt yourself. <S> That's what haters are for." <S> --Turcois <S> Ominek http://www.wiseoldsayings.com/haters-quotes/ <A> The proverb(s) <S> I am looking for would portray the others more as enemies. <S> Focusing on the "enemies" aspect, from Nietsche, Beyond Good and Evil: <S> He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. <S> Variant Translation: Battle not with monsters <S> , lest ye become a monster <S> BTW, it goes on to say " <S> And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.", which is also a great quote. <A> and he calls you foolish. <S> This could be taken to mean that it's not worth your time dealing with people who won't understand you—or who are "beneath" you. <S> All is accomplishes is to waste your time. <S> (Or, as in your own proverb, gives you fleas.) <A> Let's make a few up: <S> Only a savior should seek out sinners. <S> And here's one in honor of Shark Week: <S> Swim with sharks <S> and you'll get bit. <S> And here's one for those in high office: <S> Enemies make lousy friends.
| In Bacchae (The Quotations Page), Euripides said: Talk sense to a fool "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him."
|
What's the white thing which corrects text called in English? What's the thing which correct text by white fluid applying called in English? The dictionary in my native language says it's called: correcting fluid , or white-out , but in fact my classmates call it 'corrector' (as it's called in the eastern Europe countries: Russian, Ukraine, Belarus, Polish, and many other languages such as: Spanish, Bulgarian etc.). Is it wrong? <Q> It's correction fluid or tape. <S> Wite <S> Out , Liquid Paper & Tipp-Ex are all brand names, though they tend to be used as generic descriptions too, like Hoover is used for vacuum cleaners. <A> What things are called is highly dependent on locale. <S> Even within the U.S. there is considerable variation in terminology for everyday items, <S> In North America, the image you provide depicts bottles of correction fluid as well as correction tape and a correction pen . <S> I have never heard correcting fluid or corrector , but they could be in use in other parts of the world. <S> correction fluid mass noun <S> An opaque liquid painted over a typed or written error so as to allow for the insertion of the correct character. <S> [Oxford Living Dictionaries] <S> White-out is also common in North America, likely a genericization of Wite-Out, which is a BIC brand of correction fluid. <S> By the same token, Tipp-Ex may be used in Europe, though no one on this side of the Atlantic has ever heard of it. <A> It is also often called by one of the brand names "Tippex" and "liquid paper" are possible. <S> I (a Brit) would use "tippex" for the white liquid and "correction tape" for the white tape. <S> Remove any correction tape or correction fluid (e.g. tippex) from your pencil case as you cannot take these into an exam. <S> (Birmingham University exam regulations)
| Yes, its called all those things: "correction fluid" and "white-out" are probably the most common but "corrector" is also reasonable, in context.
|
Word for "not crowded"? In my mother tongue there is a very common word to use when you're in a place that is "Not crowded" . ( Not crowded means few people, cars etc., but not deserted) In English, I am having a hard time finding the equivalent. I often just say not crowded. Do we have a better word for that? I thought of "Sparse" , but I think that's neither right nor a common word for everyday English. Example 1 How was the event? Was it crowded? No. There were not many people. It was not crowded. Example 2 How was the grocery store? Was it crowded? No. It was mid-day. There were not many people. It was not crowded. <Q> Your example asks <S> How was the event? <S> Was it crowd? <S> This would be better as <S> How was the event? <S> Was it crowded? <S> Some ways to answer "not crowd" could be <S> There was a poor turnout. <S> It was poorly attended. <S> Most seats were empty. <S> It was almost deserted. <S> It was a flop. <S> and so on. <A> The best word may be uncrowded . <S> You could also use a modifier with empty , like "almost empty". <A> It was not crowded, there was lots of room . <S> It was too crowded, there was no room to breath. <S> After having kids, we moved to the country where there is more room .
| A word you might use is room
|
Word for someone trying doggedly to befriend someone How is called this word when someone is trying doggedly to be a friend of someone especially when their efforts is annoying? Tell me please what verb, adjective or adverb I can use to mean someone is constantly trying to become a friend of someone and that someone doesn't really want to see that person in their circle. <Q> To bother someone repeatedly about something is to badger them. <S> Badgering doesn't specifically involve attempts to join a group, however, though it can apply to such a situation. <S> A person who doesn't take a hint that they're not wanted can be called an intruder . <S> A person who breaks into your house to commit harm or theft can also be called an intruder. <A> If you are looking for adverbs and adjectives that describe something like "to make repeated unsuccessful attempts" and is also annoying at the same time, you could go work with any of these: Hound (verb): harass, persecute, or pursue relentlessly. <S> To hound someone is to relentlessly pursue or pester them. <S> However, a person who wants to be your friend is unlikely to hound you. <S> This is on the extreme side. <S> Incessant (adj): (of something regarded as unpleasant) continuing without pause or interruption. <S> Pester (verb): trouble or annoy (someone) with frequent or persistent requests or interruptions. <S> This is perhaps what you are looking for. <S> I like badgering too as mentioned above. <S> Again, without a sentence it is hard to suggest an appropriate word. <A> People who do not get a message that you do not want to be their friend or let them into your group can be: persistent, attempt persistently to be friends, to make persistent attempts repeated, that person makes repeated attempts to be friends, to attempt repeatedly to be friends <S> annoying, to become annoying by making repeating attempts at friendship, annoyingly attempts or tries to become friends, pester, a person pesters you to try and become friends with you to make intrusive attempts to become your friend (intrusive here means not recognizing boundaries), to behave intrusively in trying to become friends <S> Those are some ways you can say it. <S> Of course, there are many others, some of which are in the first answer. <S> There is also a ton of slang, none of which I am providing here since it seems you want non-slang. <A> If you're looking for something to describe the person, there are: importunate mentioned by Tᴚoɯɐuo (annoyingly persistent in solicitation) seems to capture the description bothersome <S> (causing annoyance) can't take a hint (slang) <S> clueless <S> (slang; the person doesn't have a clue that they are unwanted) <S> wannabe member (slang, derived from "want to be"; a person who wants or aspires to be someone or something else) <S> Regarding their action: to persistently do something to someone else that is undesired is to harass (various forms for different parts of speech)
| A person who is persistently annoying or intrusive in their ways can be called importunate or pushy .
|
What does "well-swilled" mean? The ODO has an example sentence: I lost track trying to count the sheer bald-faced, brazen, well-swilled out-and-out lies being palmed off as fact or being suggested for our consumption as reasonable readings of the text. It appears well-swilled should be synonymous with other adjectives in the lineup, but I can't find this word in dictionaries. Another example I found: Our sixteenth-century forebears used adjectives such as "shameless, fat, well-swilled , stinking, papistical … ," as historian Timothy George wrote on our May 16 editorial page. Swill means to drink, wash, rinse . But what does "well-swilled" mean here? Urban Dictionary has an entry that suggests it means "intoxicated". This definition does not appear to sufficiently fit the above sentences. <Q> In this case, I would say that well-swilled means "well-drunk." <S> It's being used metaphorically, and pairs with the later use of consumption . <S> In other words, the lies, like drink or food, have been accepted and taken as part of some people's intellectual "diets." <S> There is an idiom that says, don't drink the Kool-Aid. <S> It's become popular as a way of saying that you shouldn't "blindly follow" someone or something. <S> It does have a serious origin, however, as described in the Mental Floss article "The 35th Anniversary of the Jonestown Massacre" : . . . <S> Jim Jones ordered Temple members to create a fruity mix containing a cocktail of chemicals including cyanide, diazepam (aka Valium—an anti-anxiety medication), promethazine (aka Phenergan—a sedative), chloral hydrate (a sedative/hypnotic sometimes called "knockout drops"), and most interestingly . . . <S> Flavor Aid —a grape-flavored beverage similar to Kool-Aid. <S> While it might be common to associate <S> well-swilled with beer, there could also be this Kool-Aid association, and the author is making reference to a well-drunk Kool-Aid of lies. <A> I would suggest that "well-swilled" implies "well prepared", "well practiced" or "well used", as in the lies have been used before and roll off the tongue easily. <A> If someone swills their drink, they're sloshing it around (often in their own mouth). <S> As gargling is to the throat, swilling is to the mouth.
| If a lie is "well-swilled", it's been rolled around in the liar's mouth thoroughly before being spat out on you.
|
What is a person who gets pranked called? Someone who pranks someone else is called a prankster. What is a person who gets pranked called? Is the term "prank victim"? <Q> You have prankee : <S> 2003, Tara Calishain, Rael Dornfest, Google hacks (page 271): There are three ways to deliver the prank to the prankee. <S> The first way is in person. <S> (Wiktionary) <S> But “prank victim” is more commonly used. <A> Depends on the point of view: from the prankster the word "target" could be relevant <S> But, from a bystander the word "victim" would also work. <A> The person who gets pranked can be called the laughingstock or the butt of the joke . <S> In addition, there are many words for victims who are tricked by minor frauds, which can also be applied to prank victims: sucker, dupe, mark, chump, sap, patsy .
| The victim of a prank.
|
The form of 'subject' in indirect speech Look at these examples below: "Let me come in", He said . If we change it in the indirect speech which of the options is correct and why? a) He requested that he might be allowed to come in. b) He requested that I might be allowed to come in. My doubt is what to choose as the subject (he/ I) for this type sentence? Additionally, correct me if I am wrong in case of imperative sentence , when we receive word based on 'objective case' in direct speech we change that with that form only in indirect sentence, like He said, " Let us go there " He suggested that we should go there. And if this rule is correct then it should be 'I' in the mentioned question. Isn't it? <Q> In the first part of the question, the only correct answer is "he." ' <S> He said, "Let me in."' means that he requested to be let in. <S> In direct speech, you are quoting the exact words used. <S> In indirect speech, you are conveying the meaning of the words. <S> MAJOR EDIT BASED ON OP's COMMENT BELOW <S> To use "us" in indirect speech is even more ambiguous because the reporter is now clearly being included in the collective without indicating whether or not the speaker is included. <S> Pronouns are useful ony when it is clear what nouns they represent. <A> Pronouns are always used from the speaker's perspective, except when quoting directly. <S> The direct quote in quotation marks uses the same pronouns that were actually spoken. <S> Bob requested that he (Bob) might be allowed to come in. = <S> He requested that he might be allowed to come in. = <S> He said, "Let me come in." <S> Bob suggested that he (Bob) and his friend (Charlie) go there. = <S> He suggested that they go there. = <S> He said, "Let us go there." <S> Bob suggested that he (Bob) and I (the speaker) go there. = <S> He suggested that we go there. = <S> He said, "Let us go there." <A> Please, allow me to give you good reason for some of your doubts. <S> " Let me come in," he said to me. <S> He requested that I allow him to come in. <S> The subject of this imperative let is the implicit second person. <S> In this example, the active voice of the direct speech is retained in the indirect reference. <S> The change from implicit second-person to explicit first-person reflects nothing more than the change in which person speaks. <S> His words are spoken from his perspective, and mine from mine. <S> " Let <S> Ritwik come in," he said to them. <S> He requested that you be allowed to come in. <S> In this example, we see a change in voice between the original and the representation. <S> The direct object "Ritwik" in the active voice becomes the subject in the passive voice. <S> His original subject doesn't even appear in my report of his request. <S> He said, " Let us go there." <S> He suggested that we go there. <S> The voice of his statement and my report are both active. <S> In this example, the thing that changes is which verb is primary. <S> The verb to let isn't represented at all -- not even by a synonym like to allow -- in the subordinate clause of this report. <S> Instead, we have a finite form of to go taking as its subject the object of <S> let that is modified in his original by the bare infinitive phrase object complement. <S> You seem to be confusing and conflating these three separate effects: change of person speaking, change in grammatical voice, and change to primary verb. <S> You won't find one rule that covers all three cases. <S> Instead, you need to determine which and how many of these separate effects happen to apply to any given sentence. <S> One rule doesn't handle them all.
| "He said 'Let us in'" implies that whoevever he is, he is part of a collective, but, absent prior context, who is in that collective except for the speaker is unclear.
|
Is there a word for "negative/declining trend"? Is there a word for that? Example sentence: The sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December. This __ repeated the following year. Note: I checked the synonyms for trend . But none of them imply a negative/downward trend. <Q> A trend can be either negative (decreasing) or positive (increasing). <S> For that matter, a trend can be neutral (flat). <S> A trend is simply the continuation of what has gone before. <S> The Longman on-line dictionary defines it as follows: a general tendency in the way a situation is changing or developing <S> So your sentences could be: <S> Sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December. <S> This trend repeated the following year. <S> As you have already mentioned that sales declined in November and December, it is not necessary to state, 'This negative trend repeated the following year', although doing so would not be frowned on. <S> 1/ <S> If you are talking about 'sales' generally, there is no need to precede it with the definite article. <S> If you are talking about a specific 'sales of something', then you may precede that with a definite article, although it is not essential, e.g. (The) sales of automotive parts declined in August. <S> 2/ <S> Because you are talking about two different trends, the results of sales in November and December in two consecutive years, it is correct to say, 'The trend repeated...'. <S> If you had said, 'This trend repeated the following month', this would have been wrong, because the following month would have been a continuation of the trend in the two previous months. <S> In this case you would have had to say, 'This trend continued the following month'. <A> decline has many synonyms , but most are specific to particular circumstances. <S> fall would work in this context. <A> In a more technical vein, you could talk about a positive slope (increase) and a negative slope (decrease) but as you mention sales as your example this may not be as common - if the example was voltage change over time then it wold be fine. <A> Another word for declining trend is downturn . <A> The sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December. <S> This pattern repeated the following year. <S> It's a little more general that trend , because it can describe something other than a steady incline or decline, but it's still a way of describing the behaviour of something. <S> From Merriam-Webster : 7 : a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution • a behavior <S> pattern <S> • spending patterns • the prevailing pattern of speech <S> It does not mean negative on its own, but you can easily add that adjective and describe a negative pattern which will be understood in context. <S> Alternatively, if you really do want a single word that's specifically negative, try erosion : <S> The sales declined to 10 in November, and to 5 in December. <S> This erosion repeated the following year. <S> The word has the benefit of having a negative emotional connotation to it in addition to just a metric. <S> From Merriam-Webster, erosion is "the action or process of eroding," which redirects to <S> erode : 1 : <S> to diminish or destroy by degrees: <S> c : to cause to deteriorate or disappear as if by eating or wearing away • inflation eroding buying power
| You can use the word decline as a noun to mean a negative/downward trend. One thing that immediately came to my mind is pattern :
|
Is it correct to say "0 hours"? Spanish uses the singular to refer to one and the plural to refer more than one or zero of something. Is the same for material things and other abstract concepts, for example, time measures: hours, minutes, seconds... Examples: Tengo 1 hora libre. Faltan 2 horas para terminar. Finalizará en 0 horas 5 minutos y 2 segundos. Is it correct, in English, to say, for example? The process required 0 hours and 5 minutes. <Q> When you have zero of something you use the plural: 0 hours, no cows, zero degrees, etc. <S> The singular is used exclusively for when there is exactly one of something. <S> Stylistically, "0 hours and 5 minutes" is not usual, but can be appropriate when you have tasks of varying lengths in the minutes to hours range and want to express the times in the same style. <A> The process required five minutes. <S> I suppose there are some exceptions. <S> For example, I can see where an author might decide keep the zero for the sake of parallelism: <S> Process A required 2 hours and 12 minutes. <S> Process B required 1 hour and 47 minutes. <S> Process C required 0 hours and 14 minutes. <A> J.R.'s answer is the correct one, deserves the tick, and all the rest <S> but since no one else mentioned it— <S> No , it's highly unusual to bother mentioning “ zero hours ” of time <S> but, yes , it is common military jargon to say “ zero hundred hours . <S> ” <S> It’s not talking about a time period of 0 hours but about the time of day 00:00 (i.e., midnight). <S> It’s part of the military’s way of reading their 24-hour clock <S> but, of course, the hours don’t actually include 100 minutes, just the normal 60. <A> Not typically. <S> I can't think of any situation other than where text has been produced artificially. <S> The correct way of saying it would be: <S> The process required 5 minutes Because zero by its definition means nothing, it's not included. <A> As a former technical writer (and native speaker), I answer “yes and no.” <S> However, in writing, it is better to spell out short numbers instead of using digits. <S> Defining “short” in this context is tricky. <S> I think almost all would agree anything under ten. <S> For me <S> personally, it’s any single-word number. <S> For example, seven, seventeen, seventy, hundred, but digits for 77, 101, etc. <A> Not to be too contrarian, but there are some idioms that use 'zero' with 'hour' singular, not plural. <S> To quote Elton John/Bernie Taupin in "Rocket Man": <S> "She packed my bags last night, pre-flightZero hour: <S> 9:00 <S> a.mAnd <S> I'm gonna be high as a kite by then" "Zero hour" <S> is the start of something. <S> The universe's zero hour was the moment of the Big Bang.
| It's not "incorrect," but normally you'd omit the hours instead: Since it's not being said unambiguously: yes, it's correct; it works the same as Spanish . It is correct usage to use the plural for zero.
|
Himself or by himself I'm little confused about this. How to know should we use himself or by himself? ex. Hi will do it himself/by himself. I know this is a stupid example but this is first what I remembered. What are the differences between them? <Q> One is "instead of anyone else <S> " The other is "all alone" He did it himself - because he trusted no-one else to do it. <S> versus <S> He did it by himself - because he couldn't find anyone else to assist. <A> He did not trust his son to drive the car so he drove it himself. <S> We would use "by himself" or "by herself" to stress that something was being done alone. <S> She found no-one to help her to paint the fence so she did it by herself. <A> I think the other answers are only partially correct. <S> First, it's not true that himself always means "instead of anyone else." <S> Second, while there are cases where himself and by himself can be used interchangeably and only have a difference in meaning, sometimes they cannot be interchanged at all because one simply can't be used. <S> It's acceptable (although a bit nonstandard) to say: Other people said they liked to arm wrestle competitively, so he will do it himself too. <S> This does not mean that he wants to do it to the exclusion of other people. <S> Many other people do it, and he wants to partake in the same activity. <S> On the other hand, it's not okay to say: Other people said they liked to arm wrestle competitively, so he will do it by himself too. <S> Semantically, it's not possible to arm wrestle competitively without an opponent. <S> (Please don't bring up arm wrestling a machine set to a certain calibration . . .) <S> This shows there are additional use cases that should also be considered. <S> I will note that by adding too to the phrase I may have brought up something specifically different. <S> However, in conversation, it could be left out: <S> "What about competitive arm wrestling?" <S> "He will do it [himself / by himself]."
| "Himself" or "herself" stresses that a person would do something rather than anybody else.
|
Why is there no preposition in the phrase "told a news conference"? Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko told a news conference in the city of Redding at the edge of the blaze on Sunday that one more person had died in a residence consumed by fire, bringing the total to six, including two firefighters. I am wondering if there is a reason why there is no prep used within " told a news conference ". I expect it phrases like: told in a news conference, told during a news conference , and etc. Any thoughts? <Q> You are right to sense that the sentence is odd. <S> A news conference is an opportunity to tell something, not the recipient of what is told. <S> It is an event (at least in AmE for most of the 20th century). <S> The author is using news conference as a synonym for a group of reporters and broadcast media , but that is an idiosyncratic usage (again, in AmE), though it appears to have some traction in reporterese. <S> Usage decisions are enforced by editors in the news media and they are then often copied by other news outlets, so that media usages can appear to cohere more rapidly than usages "in the wild". <S> The usual preposition is at a news conference: <S> The Sheriff revealed at a news conference that the fire's death toll had risen. <S> but in would also be OK there. <A> The sheriff told the conference that something happened. <S> The verb to tell is ditranstive. <S> It licenses an indirect object as well as a direct object. <S> In this case, the indirect object is represented by a metonymy . <S> As an indirect object, the phrase in question doesn't warrant a preposition. <S> A preposition like "to" could have been used, representing the recipient with an adjunct rather than an object. <S> Monotranitive verbs like "announced" and "revealed" would require such a preposition to express this relationship. <A> As a consequence it cannot be followed by a preposition. <S> If you want to use a preposition change 'told' to 'said', e.g.: <S> Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said in a news conference <S> Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said during a news conference
| 'Told' is a transitive verb and must be followed by a direct object. The phrase "a news conference" should be read to mean "the attendants of a news conference" in this context.
|
"Take someone for something" I have always understood take someone for something to have a similar meaning to peg someone for something . But I heard in the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: Look what I did in the dining car! She gave me 100 francs. That's like, uh... 20 bucks! Do you have any idea what it feels like to take a woman for 20 bucks ? Here take a woman for 20 bucks apparently means take 20 bucks from a woman . This also appears in another scene: Freddy: But she has the money. Lawrence: Only by selling everything she owns. Freddy: Come on! She's keeping the mink. If we take her for everything , she still comes out of it with a very nice mink. Does take someone for something mean take something from someone ? I can't find this usage in dictionaries. <Q> It has feeling of coercion or deception to it. <S> It sounds like they swindled the first person, and are trying to swindle the second one. <S> From M-W take 19 : to obtain money from especially fraudulently • took me for all I had <A> To add to Em. <S> 's answer, the meaning can be a little broader, relating to another definition of take: to defeat someone in a fight or contest (although this context doesn't involve physical violence). <S> Your example probably does refer to taking money through deception of some form, as Em. <S> described. <S> But the expression is also used in a context like getting something from someone by beating them in something like a lawsuit or business deal. <S> "Take someone for X" means that you will get X from them as a result of the planned action. <A> It's a variation of for all (one) is worth <S> (The Free Dictionary): <S> To the greatest degree or extent of one's ability; to the utmost; as vigorously or intensely as possible. <S> When I saw the police approaching, I ran for all I was worth. <S> As much as one has available or to offer. <S> If you can't get her to sign a prenup now, that guy is liable to take her for all <S> she's worth if they get divorced. <S> In your example, it would be meant in the second sense—and rather than being taken for all she's worth (everything), she's only being taken for twenty dollars. <S> The implication is that you've taken something off of somebody else (scammed them for it, if you will), rather than simply accepting it. <S> But in the example, it's also meant in an sarcastic way—because who cares about only twenty dollars?
| So in general, "take someone for everything" means to take everything they own, or their entire stake in something, via some kind of scheme or planned action.
|
Use of to-infinitives/present participles that describe a noun My colleague at work keeps using to-infinitives and present participles that describe a noun in ways that I think are wrong. But I am not 100% sure if they are wrong and why. He says, "PFC converting AC into DC voltage" to mean "PFC that converts AC into DC voltage". He also says "A function to change user password" to mean "a user password change function". What I think is: if you say "PFC converting AC into DC voltage", it means "PFC which is converting AC in to DC voltage," and "A function to change user password" just doesn't make sense and it should be corrected to "a function of changing user password" or "a user password change function." How I understand the to-infinitive is, that the noun described should be the direct object of the verb. So, if you say 'a book to read', 'a book' is the direct object of the verb 'read'. But you say 'a song to listen to' because you listen to a song but not 'listen a song' and 'a song' is not a direct object of 'listen'. If you say 'a function to change' doesn't that mean that 'you change a function.'? Can someone help me please. <Q> Grammatically, these are both fine. <S> Stylistically, we can't tell without more context. <S> If they're part of a list, the most important element of style is to ensure as much consistency as practical among the elements of the list. <S> For example, either put a complete sentence for every element of the list, or for none of them. <S> "A function to change user password" is fine because the noun "function" can accept a to-infinitive complement explaining what the function allows. <S> "A user password change function" is okay but slightly awkward due to collocating too many nouns. " <S> A function of changing user password" means something different, because "function of" is generally used when function means "a relation where one thing is dependent on another for its existence, value, or significance." <S> If I understand the term "PFC" correctly, it doesn't refer to a device which converts power but rather to a quality of such devices or such conversion [1] , [2] . <S> Instead you would have to say something like "PFC conversion of AC into DC voltage". <A> Supplementing Paul's good answer... <S> OP comments <S> : the noun described should be the direct object of the verb and food to eat/book to read 2. <S> function to change password/plan to lose weight/first man to reach South Pole <S> Can you explain how 1 and 2 are different grammatically? <S> Consider the following: They had food to eat. <S> Here's a function to change background color. <S> Where's the door to enter the attic? <S> This food is to be eaten; it is not to be thrown around the cafeteria. <S> The food is for eating. <S> That is its purpose. <S> The function does something, it changes the color of the background. <S> That is its purpose. <S> The door permits or allows someone to do something, enter the attic. <S> That is its purpose. <S> But these things complemented by the infinitive phrase are not all "actors" or active agents in the fulfillment of their purpose. <S> Nor are they always the passive recipient of the action. <S> The food has something happen to it. <S> It gets eaten. <S> The function does something to something else; it changes something. <S> The door allows someone else to do something. <A> The PFC example isn't using present participles wrongly. <S> However, unless the context allows it, there should be something between the noun PFC and its definition/description. <S> For example: PFC: for converting AC into DC voltage <S> The function example looks fine as is. <S> Your objection is that in the construct a (noun) to (verb) such as "a book to read", the verb should always be interpreted as applying to the preceding noun. <S> However, that is not always the case. <S> Consider a restaurant setting, where you've ordered a steak. <S> You can say that you were provided: a steak to eat; and a knife to cut The "steak to eat" part conforms to your 'verb applies to noun' rule (you eat the steak). <S> However, the "knife to cut" part doesn't - you don't cut the knife (you use the knife to cut the steak ). <S> The second pattern applies to your colleague's function sentence. <S> The following definition clarifies the situation - the 'verb' part relates to the purpose or function of the noun, but it is not necessarily an action performed on the 'noun'. <S> to infinitive marker <S> 1.7 <S> After a noun, indicating its function or purpose. <S> - ODO
| The noun complemented by the infinitive does not have to be the direct object of the verb. As I understand it, then, it's not correct to say "PFC that converts AC into DC voltage" and probably not correct to say "PFC converting AC into DC voltage" either.
|
What's the difference between revise, amend and modify When you revise, amend and modify something, your intention is all to improve them. so does it mean I can use them interchangeably? <Q> Modify does not necessarily mean changing something for the better - just changing in general. <S> The other two words imply more strongly that whatever it is you're amending or revising has some problem which needs to be fixed. <S> As for the difference between the other two - they're similar in meaning, but amending something is generally a shorter process focused on singular issues, <S> while revising is more involved and typically means you've re-checked everything and made changes as necessary. <S> So in short: if you modified your thesis, you made some changes to it, without saying what the changes are and whether they improve things or not, <S> if you amended your thesis, you corrected a few mistakes, likely related to a single issue <S> if you revised your thesis, you probably re-read all of it and fixed all the issues you've found <A> I think it depends mostly on what the something is. <S> Are we changing a law, a computer program, a book, or a love letter? <S> Generally speaking, I'd say that laws are amended, programs are modified, and books and letters revised. <S> There are no hard-and-fast rules about this, and you'll be able to find plenty of exceptions, but some words are simply favored over other alternatives in certain contexts. <S> Therefore, I'd be careful about labeling synonyms as "interchangeable." <S> The meaning of your sentence may not change, and you won't violate any grammatical rules, but that doesn't mean one synonym won't sound more natural than another. <S> We can examine a few Ngrams to see what they say: for letters for legislation and bills for books , chapters , and articles for programs and software <A> Modify is the most generic. <S> It means to make a change to something, not necessarily improving it in the process. <S> Like change <S> it can be used for anything. <S> Example: <S> I modified my motorcycle to run on cooking oil instead of gasoline, but now everywhere I drive <S> I smell like french fries. <S> In this sentence it's clear something has changed , but it's unclear whether I think the modification is an improvement Revise means to change with the intent to <S> improve in some way, and normally relates to documents or media. <S> It can be used for things like personal opinions, but with the nuance that those are official points of view that may be on record . <S> The commissioner said that, based on public feedback, she has revised her earlier regulation, and would now allow unrestricted use of the facility. <S> It is also normally generally restricted to things like documents or official opinions. <S> However it also includes a nuance that you are adding something on, even if that is just additional perspective: <S> President Trump later amended his statement, saying he misspoke and he meant to say "wouldn't" not "would". <S> Trump has added some additional information to his statement by admitting he made an error, and also improved the statement by fixing the error.
| Amend is similar to revise , in that there is an intent to improve in some way.
|
Should I avoid double possessive adjectives in this kind of sentence? Let's imagine a situation in which there are two males in a room, and we read: John laid his hand on his shoulder. It's clear that John is not laying his hand on his own shoulder but on that of the other male he's dealing with. Still, I'd like to know whether this kind of sentence is frowned at by some, or if it's perfectly fine. I know that most of the time the second pronoun can be avoided, like: John laid his hand on Tim's shoulder. or John laid his hand on the orphan's shoulder. (assuming Tim is an orphan and we don't want to repeat the name we already wrote in the previous sentence) But in some cases, I just would like to write a plain "his". Does it sound so bad? <Q> Take it further... <S> "John laid his hand on his shoulder, then scratched his beard & put on his coat. <S> Then he left, taking his lunch with him" <S> That's several more levels of confusion & perception/speculation is going wild. <S> ;) <S> Does Tim have a beard? <S> Will Tim's coat fit John? <S> Is Tim going to go hungry now <S> it appears John has stolen his lunch?... <S> or was that John's beard, coat, lunch & shoulder?... <S> or was it <S> Tim's lunch, John's coat & beard, the orphan's shoulder...? <S> Best to refer to Tim, or the orphan, to save confusion. <A> Actually, it's not clear that John didn't lay his hand on his own shoulder. <S> You can assume that if that had been the intended meaning, the author would have used "his own" rather than just "his." <S> But that would still just be an assumption. <S> As a standalone sentence, without any other context, it's certainly ambiguous. <S> Most likely, if it were placed within a larger paragraph, the surrounding text would make it clear what actually happened. <S> But it would still cause momentary confusion before being cleared up. <S> If you want to be precise, you need to use precise wording. <S> I believe that most editors would clarify the sentence. <A> Although I think Jason and Tetsujin make a good point that there is potential for ambiguity in the pattern, with the verb lay and in the absence of the word own , most native speakers would gravitate towards the meaning that John placed his hand on the shoulder of another person. <S> John wasn't doing the macarena. <S> No need to go overboard with specificity. <S> But if you're an attorney cross-examining a witness, you might want to get the witness to be clearer. <S> Do you mean that John placed his hand on his own shoulder?
| So, if you're writing a story, the pattern is fine.
|
Difference between 'be breaking down', 'be broken down' and 'be broken' Is there any difference between 'My car is always breaking down', 'My car is always broken down' and 'My car is always broken'? <Q> always is an exaggeration here. <S> It actually means "very frequently, too frequently". <S> The speaker is complaining about the unreliable car and resorting to exaggeration to drive home the point that the car is especially unreliable. <S> My car is always breaking down. <S> My car very frequently has something or other stop working so that it needs to be repaired. <S> The -ing tense suggests recurrence, repetition, ongoing condition. <S> The car breaks down often . <S> My car is always broken down. <S> My car needs repair so frequently that I might as well say it is never working. <S> It is never roadworthy! <S> It is always at the repair shop. <S> My car is always broken. <S> Same as the exaggeration above. <S> It is "never" roadworthy. <S> The past participle suggests state . <A> First of all: <S> My car is always broken down. <S> is a slightly unusual formulation, though it is grammatically correct. <S> which is the standard way of conveying the same idea. <S> Now on to the difference between 'My car is always breaking down' and 'My car is always broken'. <S> The former, is in the Present Continuous Tense which is used (amongst other purposes) to indicate an action that is repeating. <S> The use of that tense in this phrase implies that the car repeatedly breaks down. <S> It also implies that there are times between the car breaking down where the car is not broken. <S> So if for instance, you kept paying to have your car fixed at a garage <S> and yet it kept breaking afterward <S> you could very well say "my car is always breaking down." <S> On the other hand, My car is always broken is written in the Simple Present Tense, in the passive voice, which is used here to indicate a general truth. <S> In this case the general truth that is being stated is that the car never works properly. <A> The first two have a semantic difference... <S> My car is always breaking down ... <S> and every time I fix it, it breaks down again, some time later. <S> My car is always broken down <S> It broke months ago & I never got round to fixing it properly, or it spends more time broken down than working, the time between fixing it & it breaking again is significantly short. <S> The third one is grammatically correct, but doesn't really convey the same meaning as the 2nd version. <S> "Broken down" is idiomatic. <S> It fully describes the situation where something has gone wrong with your car in such a way as to make it undriveable... without that being that you crashed it. <A> The phrasal verb in English for large machines and cars with motors: break down . <S> And it is used as a stative verb in the form: to be broken down. <S> A car is said to be running or to be broken down <S> I had a break down on the highway. <S> [noun] My car is always breaking down. <S> [continuous] <S> My car seems to break down every week. <S> [general statement, simple present] My car was broken down last week, but I had it fixed. <S> [simple past] <S> My car is not broken down today, it's running fine. <S> However, broken is not usually used for cars as it refers to an entire object being broken or to a small appliance: <S> - The glass is broken. <S> - My coffee maker is broken. <S> [not working properly] - My hair dryer is broken. <S> [not working properly] <S> - My son's plastic car is broken. <S> Broken is for small things that are in pieces or small objects that use electricity and that are not working properly or at all. <S> If a small appliance is broken, sometimes, it can be fixed and sometimes it cannot be fixed. <S> Personally , I never say "My car is broken. <S> " My car is broken down or is not running <S> or i s not working properly/ <S> right or is out of commission. <S> broken is also used figuratively as in the expressions: broken dreams and broken promises.
| Native speakers might more readily recognize, My car is always broken.
|
How should I pronounce "th" well? I had a hard time trying this. I have known that I should bite my tounge when I pronounce "th". This sometimes goes well with words like "thick". However, every time I try to say "those", Siri will recognise my "th" as "v", which is a bit frustrating. This is my voice: https://clyp.it/hfg0ujqo It is almost like "fick"! <Q> I don't think biting your bottom lip will help you pronounce "th". <S> Try this instead: <S> Close your mouth <S> most of the way <S> so that your teeth are touching the tip of your tongue, top and bottom. <S> Your tongue should be barely in front of your teeth or even just behind your teeth if that feels more natural. <S> Let your lips stay apart a little bit; just whatever is most comfortable Try to push air out between your top teeth and your tongue. <S> When I do this I notice that the sides of my tongue curl up just a little. <S> Continue on to whatever vowel sound you need to make next. <S> I'm not great at explaining this, but this video is probably more helpful than a written answer anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5LO0hHGfQg <A> I just tried this and i have my tongue resting on my top teeth only, teeth less than 1 finger width apart <S> this is a funny page that illustrates this much better https://elenafoulkes.com/2016/08/09/how-to-understand-the-sounds-english-speakers-make-the-mysterious-case-of-the-disappearing-r/ <S> Unfortunately the important part is a cartoon which i can't copy to here. <S> It is entitled lesson 72, how to pronounce the th sound . <S> It is at the top of the page. <A> I find that many non-native speakers manage to set up properly for the th-sounds, but don't maintain enough tension or aren't able to move to the next sound quickly enough for fluent speech. <S> The only difference between thin and this is the voice, i. e., the same as between d,t; g,k; f,v; <S> s,z; <S> etc. <S> Nothing else changes. <S> Think of a snake's quickly darting tongue. <S> In front of a mirror without adding air or voice, practice moving the tip of your tongue just between your teeth and the rapidly back again. <S> Then add the air each time you make the darting motion. <S> Make sure when you add voice that nothing else changes. <S> Finally, practice both th-sounds with all vowels and diphthongs as well as the thr-sound. <A> I just came across this page comparing the production of unvoiced-th with various other sounds. <S> This describes how to produce the th sound much more clearly than many: Podcast: 221: Compare 'unvoiced th' to /f/, /s/, <S> and /t/ <S> it is very likely that you were told to put your tongue between your front teeth and to push air out. <S> Okay… that will work, but nearly all of my students find that creating the 'th sounds' in that way is actually much harder than keeping your tongue inside your mouth. <S> ... <S> Say the 'unvoiced th’ by very lightly pressing the tip of your tongue into the back of your top front teeth. <S> Keep the touch very light because you need to push air between your tongue and teeth to create the sound: (unvoiced th). <S> (I know your question was about voiced th, but this may help get started! <S> Here is an article on voiced vs unvoiced consonants .)
| To create the sounds with your tongue inside your mouth, use the tip of your tongue and the back side of your top front teeth.
|
"looking back from now": is it looking back from the future to now or looking back to the past from this moment? original sentence (1999 China's post-grad entrance exam): People looking back 5 or 10 years from now may well wonder why so few companies took the online plunge. http://www.langlib.com/Reading/SentenceAnalysis/ReadingSentence/NjYxLTQtNA== And how should I rewrite the sentence that means the other way? <Q> English often changes verb tense and focus depending on the imagined point of view . <S> In this case it is of the future person, looking back at a particular point in time. <S> Another example: <S> Although you think your life is hard, twenty years from now you will look back and remember how happy you were. <S> Notice <S> the sentence uses the past tense <S> "how happy you were " even though the person is currently experiencing that happiness. <S> This is because the speaker imagines the perspective of the person, twenty years in the future, looking back at a past event. <S> If instead you want to say a future person looking back on events even further in the past than the current moment , the language is not much different. <S> However you usually have to provide some kind of context to explain the relationship of the different time frames: <S> Scholars 10 years from now may look back at the events that led up to this moment , and wonder how we ever let things get so bad. <A> What a great question! <S> Strictly as it's written, your example sentence is ambiguous and it could be interpreted in either way. <S> The verb tenses can be relative to either point in time. <S> However, it's commonly used to refer to people looking back on the present from the future. <S> In that sense, it's taken on a cultural meaning that doesn't allow for misinterpretation without conscious analysis. <S> To refer to the present looking back on the past, a possible rephrasing is: People looking back on the past 5 or 10 years <S> may well wonder why so few companies took the online plunge. <S> To more explicitly refer to the future, you could say: People 5 or 10 years from now may well look back and wonder why so few companies took the online plunge. <A> looking back five or ten years from now... <S> [looking upon the present from a point 5 or 10 years in the future] looking back from now five or ten years... <S> [looking from the present at what happened 5 or 10 years ago] Most native speakers would gravitate towards the meaning in brackets as the most likely one, unless there were some contextual reason not to do so.
| The original sentence is saying that, 5 to 10 years from now, people will look back at this moment and wonder why something was true.
|
what does "insofar as" mean in this sentence? what does "insofar as" mean in this sentence? Does it mean "because"? Does it refer to although? Can we use "but" before "this"? Although it is difficult to put ourselves behind the veil of ignorance, insofar as we are conditioned by the place we already occupy in society, this thought experiment will help lead us toward potential grounds for agreement. <Q> insofar as [condition exists] <S> just means "to the extent that" [condition exists] Cf. <S> inasmuch as <A> But here the intended sense does seem to be "because. <S> " There may, however, be a nuance here that it implies "only because" or "at least because." <S> Personally, this strikes me as poor writing because its meaning is subject to several different interpretaions. <A> Although it is difficult to put ourselves behind the veil of ignorance, insofar as we are conditioned by the place we already occupy in society, this thought experiment will help lead us toward potential grounds for agreement. <S> Although it is hard to pretend we are ignorant - as we are in some way conditioned by our place in society - so this thought experiment will help lead us to reasons that might help us find agreement. <S> That is a rewrite for explanation purposes, there is nothing wrong with the grammar in the original. <S> insofar as means to the extent that. <S> As others have pointed out here. <S> It can be paraphrased as: as we are in some way conditioned by.
| "Insofar" in American English usually means "to the extent that" or "except as limited by."
|
Math formulas whose applications I had no idea of. ...| is it right? My sentence is: ...memorize a list of math formulas whose applications I had no idea of. I mean I had to memorize some math formulas and I didn't know how they were applid in real life. Does my sentence make sense? Particularly the part that says: Math formulas whose applications I had no idea of . Is there any way to "smoothen" it? <Q> The clause that begins with whose is good idiomatic English and it doesn't need to be changed in any way in order to become grammatical. <S> But you could rewrite it, making applications <S> the subject of the clause instead of <S> I : ... <S> whose applications were a mystery to me. <S> ... whose applications were completely unknown to me. <A> I agree with what TheRealLester says in his comment to you question. <S> It would help if you provided the first part of the sentence as it may make a difference to the answers you are given. <S> For the sake of convenience I will assume that the missing part of your sentence is, 'I had to', i.e.: I had to memorize a list of math formulas whose applications I had no idea of. <S> For example, you originally said, 'formulas whose applications I had no idea of'. <S> This could be understood as meaning that you learnt a formula but did not know how to apply it, e.g. I know that A <S> = π <S> r2, <S> but I don't know what r represents, or that this is the formula for calculating the area within a circle. <S> You clarified this in your next sentence, which is not the sentence that you asked about, when you wrote, 'I didn't know how they were applied in real life'. <S> This is an important piece of information that should appear in your original sentence. <S> Now, you are making two statements: <S> I had to memorize a list of math formulas. <S> I don't know how to apply them in real life. <S> These are essentially contradictory statements, so your final sentence should join them in a manner that shows this, e.g. <S> Although I had to memorize a list of math formulas, I had no idea how I would apply them in real life. <S> or I had to memorize a list of math formulas, <S> but I don't know how I would apply them in real life. <A> memorize a list of math formulas <S> whose applications <S> I had no idea of. <S> can be simplified by removing the whose applications <S> so it becomes: memorize a list of math formulas that have applications I had no idea of.
| This sentence makes sense, but you could probably rephrase it so that it is easier to understand.
|
his being only eight Kristin : I just wanted to give you a call and ask how your Chattanooga trip was. Susan : Oh, it was great. It was great. It was more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Susan : You know, we took Ethan and be-, his being only eight , it was fun to watch him at different places and see him, y’know, enjoying the activities. Why does Susan use "his being only eight" to refer to his age? Shouldn't it be "He is only eight"? Source: A.J. Hoge, Effortless English, Real English Conversation ( Lookout Mountain Conversation ) <Q> It's a way to stress that he is young. <S> Presumably the listener already knows he is 8, so "He is only 8", besides being a complete sentence on its own, would not be said because it would not add anything meaningful to the conversation. <S> Whereas his being only eight sets up the context for the rest of the sentence: "It was fun to watch him...". <A> Native speakers would say ... <S> him being only eight ... <S> he being only eight probably 80%/20% in favor of him being only eight , possibly 90%/10%. <S> You will probably find some older textbooks insisting that he being only eight is the proper form and him being only eight <S> is non-standard or colloquial. <S> You will find <S> he <S> in more formal texts, and him in conversational texts and in literary works that realistically reflect vernacular speech. <S> P.S. <S> Since your example sentence includes y'know <S> it would be no surprise to learn that the textbook expects him there. <S> P.P.S. <S> What does not work there (with OP's sentence "as is") is his being only eight . <S> Compare: <S> It's still light out, but him being only eight, we put him to bed. <S> He was booked on a manslaughter charge, but he being only eight, perhaps the DA will offer him a plea deal. <S> Some hardliners want to know how his being only eight is relevant. <S> P.P.P.S. <S> Now that we know it is a transcript of a conversation: <S> his being only eight is IMO a "hypercorrection". <S> Absolute phrases, which are sentence modifying clauses, are formed with the nominative + being or the accusative + being but not with the genitive + being . <S> However, for many decades prescriptive grammar textbooks taught that accusative + <S> being was wrong in certain patterns, and so now some speakers in all circumstances <S> say his being instead of him being as a result, just as they always say "he and I" or "she and I" in situations calling for "him and me" and "her and me", because they've mislearned their grammar lessons; these are hypercorrections as well; they're not "natural". <A> Susan is describing a past event, taking Ethan when he was eight. <S> It isn't clear from the excerpt whether he is still eight. <S> That could be one reason for not saying that he is eight. <S> Beyond that, Jamie Clinton's answer explains why it would be set off in that way.
| "his being only eight" could be short for "his being only eight at the time".
|
"Do" in meaning of "learn" I came across the following sentence in the book "essential grammar in use" (Cambridge) "Jack did French at school but he didn't do German" As I understand the meaning of the word "do" can be as 'to learn' . Is that correct? I didn't see such meaning in the Cambridge dictionary . <Q> Actually, the link you provide does list the learning meaning: transitive [UK] to study a subject: <S> Diane did anthropology at university. <S> So do Macmillan , OALD , and Collins . <S> While marked [UK], this usage would also be found in the U.S., although I would be more likely to specify that he took , studied , majored in , or some such rather than did , and even more likely would phrase it as Jack did French at school, but not German. <S> Do is an extremely versatile verb, and can literally take the place of almost any other verb within a given context. <S> I did French <S> could mean a million things, however, so that context is essential: I put French dressing on my sald. <S> I went to the French pavilion at the World's Fair. <S> I installed a French drain in my backyard. <S> I read a book about architecture by someone named French—or, I had sexual intercourse with him/her. <A> From Oxford dictionary : <S> Do: <S> 1.8 Learn or study ; take as one's subject. <S> ‘I'm doing English, German, and History’ <S> Based on Longman dictionary this usege is typical for British English: <S> Do : <S> study <S> [transitive] British English : to study a particular subject in a school or university <S> I did French for five years. <S> Based on Collins <S> dictionary <S> it's in spoken English: <S> Do: <S> If you do a subject, author, or book, you study them at school or college. <S> [spoken] <S> I'd like to do maths at university. <S> [VERB noun] ' <S> So you did 'Macbeth' in the first year?'—'No <S> , in the first year we did 'Julius Caesar'.' <A> "Do" actually has at least a few dozen dictionary meanings, but you shouldn't feel that these are the only ones possible. <S> For example, Roger doesn't do lunch. <S> Even if you've never heard this expression before, or you can't find anything related in the dictionary, you can still understand from context that the speaker means that Roger ordinarily does not eat lunch. <S> Another possible variation is: Roger doesn't do lunch breaks. <S> This means that Roger either doesn't personally take a lunch break, or he doesn't believe the people he manages should take lunch breaks. <S> Again, in context, the meaning should be apparent. <S> For example, suppose you are talking to a professional chef, and you suggest you two get something to eat at McDonald's. <S> The chef replies haughtily: <S> I don't do fast food. <S> meaning she strongly dislikes eating a fast-food restaurants, and, presumably, prefers restaurants that take their time. <S> On the other hand, suppose she's cooking for you, and you suggest that you don't have a lot of time. <S> She might respond: <S> I'm sorry, <S> I don't do fast food <S> meaning that when she prepares food, she prefers to take her time, not rush. <S> Again, the point is that "do" has an extraordinary range of possible meanings, and you shouldn't limit it to only those you find in a dictionary. <S> Moreover you have to pay attention to context, <S> since the expected meaning might be changed to something else, for humorous effect. <S> For example, since "do" can also mean "have sex with", I can make your example a little more risque: <S> A <S> : Jack did French at school <S> but he didn't do German. <S> B <S> : So he can speak French? <S> A: <S> No, not a word. <S> I mean he had sex with a French schoolmate <S> but he never managed to get with that German he fancied.
| "Do" is one of those English verbs (like "get") that can be used to make up new phrases, the meaning of which you are expected to understand from the context. The word " do " can have the meaning of " learn " or " study ".
|
If (someone) were to become vs. if (someone) became... + COULD Let's say there is a married couple, Sandra and Jake. Sandra wanted to go to her ailing mother, whereas, Jake wanted to go on a holiday next week. If they didn't go to her mother: if Sandra's mother were to become seriously ill, Sandra could not forgive here husband. To if Sandra's mother became seriously ill, Sandra could not forgive here husband. This is a 2nd conditional modal verbs usage, and I know how to construct #2 sentence. But why is that were to become was used instead of the other? If an ESL would like to use both of them , are they grammatical to use? P.S.: There is a correct answer below, but, I have just edited this to clarify what I am really trying to ask. <Q> The if -- were form is called the subjunctive mood or just subjunctive . <S> It is used in a hypothetical situation, contrary to fact. <S> An example would be the lyrics for <S> If I Were a Rich Man , by Harnick and Bock. <S> If I were a wealthy man... <S> If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack... <S> Poor Tevye doesn't have two kopeks to rub together in his pocket, so being rich is contrary to fact. <A> Both sentences are grammatically correct. <S> The second sentence uses a backshift to indicate that we are talking about a hypothetical situation- <S> this is used for all verbs except be . <S> The first one uses a proper subjunctive <S> were (the only one!). <S> The first (with were ) is, in my opinion, stronger in suggesting a hypothetical situation. <S> In this situation- <S> Sandra's mother is probably no spring chicken and already 'ailing'- we are probably talking about something that could really happen, so the less strongly hypothetical version became is more appropriate. <S> The were <S> version is slightly more formal than the became version, but both are a lot more formal, and less widely used, than one using got <S> if you make the second part less formal too, you get: <S> If Sandra's mother [got] seriously ill, Sandra [would never] forgive here husband. <S> This NGram graph shows the trend toward the less formal ( got ) usage: remember that Google Ngrams is based mainly on written English, and for informal usage it lags a long way behind spoken English. <A> The two sentences are constructed differently, but they are both valid expressions of conditional II. <S> See the Wikipedia summary : <S> If the condition clause uses the past tense of another verb, it may be replaced by the auxiliary construction were to + infinitive (particularly if it has hypothetical future reference).
| There's no functional difference between the two, except that "were to" sounds more formal to most speakers; in casual conversation, you would be more likely to use sentence #2.
|
what is the meaning of " Axe me No question" I have seen it appeared in a game but not sure the meaning of it. I will appreciate it if someone coul <Q> From an article about the subject on npr.org: <S> The most common stereotype of black vernacular is the pronunciation of the word "ask" as "ax." <S> "Ax" has gotten a bad rap for years. <S> But, Jesse Sheidlower, the president of the American Dialect Society, says "ax" has been used for a thousand years. <S> "It is not a new thing; it is not a mistake," he says. <S> "It is a regular feature of English." <S> Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century. <S> The pronunciation derives from the Old English verb "acsian." <S> Chaucer used "ax. <S> " It's in the first complete English translation of the Bible (the Coverdale Bible): " 'Axe and it shall be given.' <S> University linguist John Rickford adds that while there's nothing technically wrong with saying "ax", <S> it's just no longer considered mainstream English. <A> It means "ask me no question", "do not ask me questions". <S> That resource is used to reflect some sort of specific accent. <S> I don't mean specifically Scottish accent in this case, I mean an special accent. <S> I can not identify all English speaking places that pronounces "/æks/" <S> instead of "/ɑːsk/". <S> Also it's a pun of words if the character got an actual axe <S> [a tool used for chopping wood, typically of iron with a steel edge and wooden handle] <A> This is a phenomenon known as metathesis , where the order of consonants is switched. <S> Already in the Old English period, centuries before the Norman Conquest, we find the verbs <S> ascian and acsian , "to ask". <S> In some modern dialects you hear /æks/ <S> and in standard modern English /æsk/ <S> (the vowel can move more to the front or more to the back).
| It's the word "ask" written how it's supposed to be pronounced by a non native English speaker or by someone from Scottland, Wales or some other place with an special accent.
|
"touch and go" vs. "hit and miss" I am trying to understand the difference between these two phrases touch and go hit and miss Both apparently mean something like "almost certain to succeed", or "nearly a given", but there's some difference in usage or meaning which means they're not exactly equivalent somehow. Some examples: It's hit-and-miss whether Ben will pass that exam. It's touch-and-go whether Ben will pass that exam. Can someone explain the difference? <Q> Actually, "hit-and-miss" is incorrect in this situation. <S> From this English Language Usage question (emphasis mine): <S> Hit and miss refers to multiple tries. <S> Hit or miss refers to a single try. <S> In this case, if the exam can only be taken once (which I am assuming to be so), then it would be "hit-or-miss". <S> The definition of hit-and/or-miss, from TheFreeDictionary is: Sometimes good or successful, sometimes not; having mixed or unpredictable results; random, aimless, careless, or haphazard. <S> (Hyphenated if used before a noun.) <S> while the definition of touch-and-go, also from TheFreeDictionary is: Extremely uncertain as to the outcome of something. <S> (Hyphenated if used before a noun.) <S> The main difference is that "touch-and-go" is for an event that will always be uncertain, so in context to the question, it means that it is unknown if Ben will pass this exam. <S> "Hit-or-miss" in the same context would mean that it is random and unknown whether Ben will pass or not. <S> Just remember the difference between "hit-and-miss" and "hit-or-miss". <A> Hit or miss (a good correction by TheRealLester) means very much " <S> Either this will happen or it won't. <S> " <S> If shooting a bullet at a target, you will either hit the target, or miss the target. <S> It is a singular action, and there is either full success or failure with immediate results and no in-between. <S> When I think of touch and go, though, it seems like more of a process. <S> Like failure could happen at any moment. <S> A touch-and-go landing of an airplane, for example, could prove disastrous at any moment, but could seem (risky, but) fine <S> (up until it all goes wrong.) <A> For the case of Ben passing the exam, "hit-or-miss" is the only option that makes sense. <S> As @TheRealLester mentioned, "hit-or-miss" essentially means 'having unpredictable results; random', so the situation here is that Ben doesn't really know enough to guarantee passing the exam, and only by some lucky guessing is he likely to get enough questions correct for a passing grade. <S> "Touch-and-go", as @SarahStark mentioned, is much more about a process or a duration : there is a period of time during which failure is not only possible, it actually appears likely, and success involves a sustained effort. <A> For the case of Ben passing the exam, "touch-and-go" is the only option that makes sense. <S> "Touch-and-go" is used in a situation where you are very close to succeeding, with the prediction that you might just scrape through and succeed, or that you just miss the target by a small margin. <S> For example, a job needs finishing at 2pm, it's 12 <S> pm know <S> and I estimate it will take me two hours. <S> It's touch-and-go whether I'm finished in time or not. <S> For example, Joe has no idea what shirt and what tie go together well, so when he wears a shirt and tie it is hit-or-miss whether they match or not. <S> Sometimes Joe is lucky, sometimes he is not.
| "Hit-or-miss" is used when you have no clear concept what to do to succeed, so you very randomly succeed sometimes and fail at other times.
|
What do 'er and patch 'er up mean? What does the contraction 'er and the phrasal verb patch 'er up mean in the following text: This section will cover a lot of ground and your brain may meltdown a few times, but don’t worry, that’s just a flesh wound. Patch ‘er up and keep going! <Q> It normally means "her", but often in terms of an inanimate object like a car or a boat. <S> I guess the quote is treating your brain as the 'inanimate object', just stretching the metaphor a bit. <S> To "patch something up" is to make running repairs, rather than take it to the garage/dry dock/... <S> doctor ;) & get your car/boat/brain back into working order using whatever you have to hand - a hammer, sticky tape, some chewing gum... or just a cup of coffee ... & get back to work. <A> It is a contraction of her , found in some regional accents. <S> Dropping h's is a feature of a few different regional accents and dialects, and while people who speak that way will endeavor to spell words correctly when writing, authors will sometimes try and imitate the way a person speaks when writing dialogue so that the reader can imagine their accent, adding to the atmosphere. <S> "Patch her up" means to repair a vehicle, as vehicles are often referred to affectionately in the female gender. <A> It is not a real contraction. <S> I know that sailors used to refer to their boats as female, and would say things like "Look at her go", for example, which is where this could have originated from. <S> To me, this entire sentence is basically saying "This section is going to have a lot of information and you might feel overwhelmed, but keep going and you will eventually understand". <A> In very informal English, the third person pronouns can get their pronunciations changed: him - <S> 'im her - 'er it - et (pronunciation only <S> , still spelt "it") <S> them <S> - 'em <S> The cause is the same in all cases: the start is weakened. <S> The /h/ which is already a weak sound is lost altogether, the /ɪ/ in "it" gets reduced to a schwa: /ə/, and the /ð/ in "them" requires more effort to say correctly than some other sounds, making it easy to drop in relaxed speech. <S> Examples: <S> Knock 'im down! <S> Patch 'er up! <S> Do et! <S> Get 'em! <S> Note that in each case the word is still treated as separate. <S> So, the 'er in Patch 'er up simply means "Patch <S> her up", which means "make a minor repair to it". <S> The use of "her" (or "him") to stand in for "it" is again only used in informal speech, with the exception of referring to impressive machinery as "her" or "she". <S> E.g. "She's a fine ship!" <S> Patch 'er up! <S> is not something you'd say in formal or careful speech.
| "Patch 'er up" is slang for saying "patch it up", with it being your brain in this instance.
|
is sentence "tend to be being mature" correct? Is sentence "They tend to be being mature" correct? Am I right in thinking that "being" is not needed here? <Q> "They tend to be being mature" "Being" is the progressive form (present participle) of the verb "to be", so " be being " makes about as much sense as " she flies flying " ( <S> ie no sense at all). <A> Perhaps grammatically correct, but odd. <S> There is no need for a "continuous" form "be being". <S> I can not think of a situation where this helps the meaning. <S> Instead just say "he tends to be immature" <S> We would say "he is being immature" to mean "he isn't always immature, but he is behaving immaturely now". <S> He "tends to be immature" means "he sometimes behaves immmaturely". <S> Those two meanings can't be easily combined. <S> I would understand "He tends to be being immature" as meaning the same as "He tends to be immature", so the extra word is no needed. <A> You are right. <S> If we omit "being", the sentence will be correct. <S> Use the pattern "tend + to be + adjective/participle/noun/noun phrase" : <S> Capital markets in Africa tend to be small and largely under-capitalized . <S> Older persons tend to be active voters .
| You answered your own question - "being" does not need to be there.
|
What to say to an insulting or a sarcastic customer? If a customer started to insult, what's the best and most polite way to say that they should not be Off-topic of the call and they should stick to the topic? Can I say watch your language? If they repeatedly insulted me, How can I threaten them of ending the call very politely? <Q> Never meet them on their own ground, they may be better at insults than you. <S> Always be polite. <S> Thank you for your call, but your issue is more complicated than my pay grade can handle. <S> This is an important question, and I can pass it up to the management team. <S> May I take some contact details? <S> Please wait to hear back from them. <A> That is what someone in authority says to someone over whom they have authority, such as a parent to a child. <S> (from comment) <S> If the customer is being rude about the company or the product, this is just them offloading. <S> For a sarcastic caller, where there is no personal abuse, you can say <S> “We really do appreciate this feedback, Mrs Brown…” <S> For a personally abusive caller you can use some form of words like <S> “I truly understand your concern, Sir/Madam, but unfortunately we cannot tolerate the kind of language you are using right now…” I took this expression from Callcentrehelper.com <S> which gives further advice on the right expressions to use with different types of angry customer. <S> However, that website is intended for call centre supervisors. <S> You should be given training on what to do with an abusive caller. <S> If you don't have training, then this needs to be raised with management. <S> It seems the standard practice is to give three warnings of the type above, and then say I am now terminating this call. <S> and hang up without further comment or apology. <S> Never threaten anything. <S> Further advice on what not to say to angry cuntstormers <A> An angry or insulting customer(or some of them) can push your buttons just as anyone else might. <S> ( Watch your language!!??? <S> I think you're just taking it very seriously. ) <S> When a customer hurls an insult your way, you have several choices for responses, but the first one to try is ignoring the attack. <S> So my first tip is: Silence! <S> Never return insult for insult. <S> If you can grit your teeth and continue as if you heard nothing, the situation may improve without a confrontation. <S> Stop yourself from taking personal offense. <S> Try saying something like: <S> “I can hear how upset you are. <S> Perhaps we could continue this conversation and work toward a solution tomorrow when you’re feeling a little less angry. <S> I look forward to the opportunity to resolve this issue when we meet again.” <S> Or you can say: <S> “I understand how upset you are. <S> I would like to transfer you to my supervisor to see if she/he can better assist you.” <S> You can also say: <S> “Would you like to continue this conversation over email?” . <S> Finally: <S> If there doesn’t seem to be hope of diffusing the situation by transferring the caller, or if the caller continues to be rude, you can say: <S> “I want to help you find a solution, but we cannot tolerate insulting or abusive language. <S> Please call back when you are ready to continue. <S> I am now ending the call.” <S> Read more at callcentrehelper . <S> Good luck! <A> If a customer started to insult, what's the best and most polite way to say that they should not be Off-topic of the call and they should stick to the topic? <S> Some "magic words" that are pretty standard are: <S> I understand that, {customer name}, but ... <S> I'm sorry you feel that way. <S> Can I say watch your language? <S> Only if they use "curse words". <S> Saying this is something that requires authority - which you do have as a customer representative. <S> You have a right to be treated professionally and to ask to be treated professionally. <S> If they repeatedly insulted me, How can I threaten them of ending the call very politely? <S> Excuse me, I will have to end this call if you continue to use offensive or harassing language. <S> Please watch your language. <S> The exact words "offensive" and "harassing" are important as many HR policies prohibit specifically "offensive" and "harassing" language/behavior in their handbooks. <S> It won't give you any legal power <S> but, if the reason for ending the call had to be logged or communicated, those words form the start of a great case for ending the call.
| Remaining objective and impersonal in your response may keep the interchange from escalating further. You cannot say "Watch your language". The second tip: End the exchange If the customer does not respond positively to your attempts at diffusing and resolving the situation, tactfully explain that you need to end the exchange.
|
Idiom for blaming a bad act on the devil Some people believe the Devil could inspire wrong-doings. I'm looking for a common expression where you can blame on the Devil such an action you have done. Implicit in the meaning is that we don't take full responsibility for doing it because we have been tempted to do so by the Devil. Here's the context I'm going to use it in: A: Remember when you tried to steal your uncle's car? B: It was just a devil-inspired act. <Q> A well-known phrase is The Devil made me do it. <S> From the CBS News article "Comedian Flip Wilson Dead at 64," it was popularized on <S> The Flip Wilson Show when the comedian routinely spoke the phrase while in costume as "Geraldine. <S> " It "became part of the national language." <A> My group of friends and I use the phrase " Satan had the wheel . <S> " <S> Usually the phrase is prompted by someone asking something like "I can't believe you did that!" <S> or "how did you get away with that one? <S> It's a play on that country song that goes <S> "Jesus take the wheel." <A> Demonic possession is a common theme in religion and the arts. <S> The word "possessed" is well known and in this usage it would be easily understood to mean you believe that you don't bear personal responsibility for your action. <S> From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: possessed (1) : influenced or controlled by something (such as an evil spirit, a passion, or an idea) (2) : mad, crazed Furthermore, demonic possession has been used as a criminal defense in court cases. <S> Here's one example. <S> When Johnson’s trial came, his defense attorney, Martin Minnella, decided to use the alleged demonic possession as an actual legal defense for his client. <S> It would be the first time in United States history in which the defense sought to prove innocence by arguing demonic possession and therefore a lack of personal responsibility . <S> Source <A> It was a Faustian act. <S> Faust is a character in a German legend. <S> But any educated English person will know what you mean.
| You could say, "I was possessed by the Devil."
|
How to write an essay without using 'used to' in following sentences? I am writing an essay for an exam where I am getting all the sentences with the word 'used to'. Is there a way I can write it without using it. For example: I used to be reluctant to eat food. My mother used to feel wrong about it and then she used to prepare different varieties. I used to try them but nothing interesting to me and then she used to scold and made me eat. It seems like my complete essay will go like this with 'used to'. Is there a way to write the above passage without using 'used to' anywhere? <Q> There are a number of options: <S> English speakers frequently use <S> would in the place of used to . <S> For example, they say things like: <S> When I lived in London I would go swimming after school which has the same meaning as I used to . <S> So you might change the passage (and make several corrections) to read: <S> I was once reluctant to (eat or take) food. <S> My mother would feel bad (rather than wrong ) about it <S> and then she would prepare different varieties. <S> I would try them but nothing <S> interested <S> ( or was interesting to ) me <S> and then she would scold (me) and <S> make (rather than made ) me eat. <A> Firstly "I used to food" doesn't make sense. <S> You're missing the word "eat" or similar. <S> You can use simple past tense for most of this narrative: <S> I used to be reluctant to eat food. <S> My mother felt bad about it. <S> You can also use the "would" construction. <S> She would prepare different varieties... <S> There are other errors here, but you will benefit from doing your own proofreading. <A> Some examples could be <S> In the past I was reluctant to eat food <S> While I was younger, I was reluctant to eat food <S> My mother felt bad <S> I tried to like them, but they did not interest me <S> A lot of the times "Used to" will sounds like a go to, especially when you are talking about yourself in the past tense. <S> While using synonyms, you are still expressing something that happened in the past and not using the same exact words each time. <A> At one time I was reluctant to eat many foods commonly prepared. <S> My mother was concerned and so would prepare different varieties. <S> I would try them but nothing about them interested me. <S> Exasperated, she would then scold and compel me to eat.
| You can try and find synonyms that mean roughly the same thing, without having to repeat the same words over and over.
|
What's the correct unit for homework? Consider the case when a teacher has thirty students in the class. The noun "homework" is uncountable so he cannot say "I have thirty homeworks to grade every week." My question is that if there is any unit of homework so that the sentence "I have thirty (units) of homework to grade every week" can be valid? Edit: After reading the replies, I think I should make the situation more clear. I myself am a math TA. What our students need to do for homework is usually about ten exercises from the textbook. I feel if I ask another TA how much homework he needs to grade, the usual reply will be like, "I have two sections, fifteen students each, and we have one assignment every week." Since the amount of exercises is usually the same, we don't really care about it. The amount of homework to grade mainly depends on how many students we have. But I always feel this kind of reply to be very indirect. So my precisely question is if there is any way to reply the question "how much homework do you need to grade?" by saying "I need to grade thirty (units) homework every week." Based on what I see from the replies, I have the impression that different countries have different answers for this question. Is this true? I'm on the west coast of the US so the way in which people there answer this question is what I care about the most. But I'm still interested in knowing the difference. <Q> In your example, you could use pieces , as in <S> I have thirty pieces of homework to grade every week . <S> piece <S> noun [ C ] (THING) a single object of a particular type: a piece of furniture/clothing/equipment <S> a piece of paper (= a whole sheet) <S> a piece of china (= an object made of china) <S> a piece of information/advice <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> However, that doesn't seem particularly idiomatic to me. <S> You could use assignments , as in homework assignments : assignment noun [ C/U ] us /əˈsɑɪn·mənt/ <S> a particular job or responsibility given to you: <S> [C] <S> The homework assignment was to read Chapter 2 in our history book. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> However, in my experience, it's more common to use the type of assignment instead of homework . <S> : I have 30 ______ to grade every week. <S> assignments <S> papers <S> essays <S> worksheets <S> modules <S> warm-ups <S> tests <S> quizzes etc. <S> Edit: <S> I was very briefly a grader (or, "reader") in a related field. <S> I can't remember exactly how I talked about it, but if someone asked me, "How much homework do you need to grade? <S> ", I would probably reply <S> I need to grade thirty [assignments] every week. <S> I'm thinking maybe even "papers", but that's usually used with reports or essay-like works. <S> I don't think I would have responded in the form you supplied, "I need to grade thirty (units) homework every week." <S> But, that's just my personal feeling of it. <S> You can still use pieces , as mentioned earlier. <S> It may or may not sound slightly strange to the listener, but you will be understood. <S> To my surprise, BrE users are reporting that pieces of homework is idiomatic to them. <S> I did a little Ngram search , and it appears that the phrase is more common in BrE. <S> I'm from the West Coast (US). <A> You are given homework assignments : <S> [Merriam-Webster] 2 b : a specified task or amount of work assigned or undertaken as if assigned by authority • a homework <S> assignment <S> The students were given a homework assignment . <A> You pick a different noun that is more flexible yet appropriate. <S> I have thirty reports to grade. <S> I have thirty assignments to mark. <A> You're asking about the teacher's workload in evaluating the homework that has been returned. <S> I think the word 'sets' is what you're looking for. <S> I have 30 sets of math homework to grade, and I still have 8 sets of geography homework from yesterday that I'm not done with. <S> set <S> (MW, noun definition 2) <S> a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together <A> I suggest you use the word exercise . <S> It's one of the most frequently used words in this meaning(=homework) & it's countable too. <S> Well, there are other simple ways: For homework , you're going to finish thirty exercises every week. <S> In other words: Do Exercises 3, 4, 5 etc on pages 51, 52, 53 etc for homework . <S> If you are student <S> you can say: My science teacher always sets a lot of homework. <S> The teacher told us to do thirty exercises for homework. <S> If you are teacher <S> you can also say: For homework <S> I want you to do thirty exercises. <A> "I have homework of 30 students to grade this weekend" <A> The dictionaries don't seem to have caught up yet <S> but, as somebody who regularly sets and marks homework in a university in the UK, I would quite happily refer to "marking 30 homeworks". <S> A comment on another answer says that this is also used in the US. <S> So, at least for informal use, I think it's fine to use homework as a countable noun and pluralize it. <S> If you wanted to be more formal, I'd go with my usual cowardly solution of rewording to avoid the problem: "I have to grade 30 students' homework" or "I have to grade homework for 30 students." <A> At MIT, most courses assign homework in " problem sets ". <S> A typical engineering student has to do four problem sets per week: one for each course that he or she is enrolled in. <S> A typical TA (Teaching Assistant) has to grade dozens of problem sets per week: one for each student in his (or rarely her) recitation section(s). <S> A typical problem set consists of several problems. <S> Some courses (especially in Technical Writing and the Humanities) require students to write weekly essays, instead of solve weekly problem sets. <A> '30 sets of homework' perhaps. <S> But 'I've got 30 homeworks to mark' <S> doesn't sound wrong.
| I'd quantify it by the amount of students whose homework you have to grade. I think the most broad term is assignment , but you could be more specific You could also say sets (as others have mentioned), or even submissions (more generic).
|
What does a "finish line" mean in English? What does a "finish line" mean in English? Is it the line that the runner must be the first one to cross in order to win the competition? If yes, then how is the last straight leg of the racing route is called? I am a bit confused here because in my first language the term "finish line" refers to the final straight stretch of the route that the runner must pass before completion, that is, the straight road having no turns (usually a route would contain many turns) and leading to the very end of the route. <Q> The first to cross the finish line is the winner. <S> The straight part of the race before the finish line is called the " final straight ", or (particularly in the US) the "home straight". <S> Both of these terms are also used metaphorically. <A> Yes, the "finish line" is the line you must cross to win the race. <S> The last part of a race is called the "final stretch" or the "last leg". <A> The finish line is the line you cross to complete the race. <S> You could also consider the home stretch . <S> Notice that it's also used figuratively. <S> Definition of homestretch 1 : <S> the part of a racecourse between the last turn and the winning post 2 : a final stage <S> (M-W) <S> the home stretch <S> The final portion of an activity, project, competition, etc. <S> Likened to the straightaway at the end of a race. <S> The bulk of the work is behind us now <S> —we're on the home stretch! <S> (TFD)
| The finish line is the line that marks the end of the race.
|
"Lunch", "Break", "Out to lunch"? What do they usually write on the sign in public places to inform the visitor that the service is temporarily paused for the lunchtime? "Lunch", "Break", "Out to lunch"? (Can you, please, specify which English-speaking country you mean?) <Q> In informal conversation, it's common to say "I'll be out for lunch from 12 to 1" or "We break for lunch at 11". <S> A sign might say "out to lunch", but I think this is rare today. <S> It's considered too informal. <S> The idea that the time from 1:00 to 2:00 (in this example) is a lunch break is usually not stated but simply implied by the gap. <A> There isn't any official sign that I'm aware of in the US. <S> But we wouldn't simply say Lunch or Break. <S> We Americans are a bit fussy about putting things clearly in any sort of official communication, often to the point that those communications are so wordy that they are hard to make sense of. <S> We might say Out to lunch or <S> On lunch break , <S> but that doesn't cover other reasons why we might be closed, and nobody really wants an explanation anyway. <S> They just want to know when you will be back. <S> So more typical is a sign that simply says when you are going to return. <S> There is a popular sign says WILL RETURN and then has a clock underneath with movable hands. <S> If you'd like to see one, you can have a look here . <S> I see this sign often. <A> "Closed for Lunch" is what I would expect to see. <S> Google image search for the term backs this up.
| A sign wouldn't normally just say "lunch", as that would not be clear whether it meant that the place is closed for lunch, or that they are serving lunch, or just what they are doing about lunch. Usually a sign will give the hours, like "Open 9:00am-1:00pm, 2:00pm-6:00pm".
|
Smart/casual dress is encouraged with longs/shoes a must : What is "longs"? A community-edited travel guide about Colombo (Sri Lanka) has this paragraph: Most nightclubs may charge admission and smart/casual dress is encouraged with longs/shoes a must. What does "longs" mean here? Online dictionaries I tried did not have the term. <Q> I've never heard of this either in the US. <S> I was able to find it in the Collins Dictionary online. <S> It appears to be BrE and what we in the US would call "pants". <S> Maybe someone else can speak to how common it is in BrE. longs in British <S> (lɒŋz ) <S> plural noun <S> 1. <S> full-length trousers <S> Edit: <S> BrE users are reporting that this might not be BrE and that it might be Indian English. <S> I also have a person saying that they've heard it used a couple of times by the elderly in Britain. <S> I found an entry in Merriam-Webster ("long trousers"), which leads me to suspect this usage might be dated, obsolete. <S> In any case, "longs" seems like a reasonable opposite of "shorts". <S> However, as far as learning contemporary, mainstream English is concerned, I recommend sticking to "trousers" or "pants" depending on your audience. <A> Longs are the opposite of shorts. <S> As to its usage - I am a native British English speaker born in the seventies and I've never heard it in 40+ years. <S> It is generally accepted that "smart" dress excludes shorts. <S> However, while this word might be in a British English dictionary, I'm not sure your guide is written by someone speaking British English, or any good form of English, as the term "smart/casual" is written with a slash. <S> This makes it look like an "either" option, yet the two are quite different. <S> Surely they mean " smart casual "? <S> The term " smart casual " is widely misunderstood. <S> What it actually is changes with time and fashion, but generally speaking <S> it means a smart form of dress that is not formal like a mans suit or a woman's cocktail dress. <S> For a man it means trousers ( not jeans) with a shirt and shoes. <S> But many think it means combining smart things, like a shirt, with something casual like jeans and trainers/sneakers. <S> This is thought of by some to be a massive fashion mistake. <S> My point is, whenever you see "smart casual" on an invitation, for the reason given above it is not uncommon to see some kind of clarification such as "no jeans", or even specifying tuxedos or ball gowns / cocktail dresses for formal events. <S> In your example, they are trying to say "no shorts" by specifying that long trousers are expected. <A> This is (or was) fairly common in NZ English or Australian English, where we have lengths of trousers as: <S> Short shorts ("Daisy Dukes") <S> Shorts (what we normally wear, because sunshine) <S> 3/4 lengths ("Knickerbockers") Longs (winter clothing in NZ, or to get into fancy nightclubs overseas) Types of longs include Slacks ("Chinos" in US English I think) Cords ("Corduroy") <S> Leather trousers (for motorcycles) - not "smart casual" Jeans - not "smart casual" Underwear would be "grundies" "undergruts" "underpants" etc. <S> not "pants", but probably not expected to be on view in "smart casual" parties, i.e. no "calvin klein"/"aussiebum"/"bjorn borg" on display.
| The most common word would be trousers (or, in some regions you may hear the more informal word pants , but in other regions this word is reserved for underwear), and if needed we sometimes clarify that they need to be smart by saying smart trousers .
|
Is it correct to say "I have class"? Why do people frequently say: “Got to run, I have class!” instead of “I have a class!” Why is the article missing? How can this be some “class in general since” since the speaker apparently means some particular lesson he has to attend? Is it acceptable to say “I have lesson!”? <Q> You can indeed use a determiner with class here if you are referring to a specific class — my class , this class , and so forth. <S> Class can also be used in a non-count way, however. <S> Macmillan notes this under sense 2a : <S> [countable/uncountable] education a period of time during which a group of students is taught together - in class: <S> We had to write an essay in class. <S> In fact, many nouns referring to some set, scheduled activity which preoccupies your time can be used without an article with have , where have is the sense of experiencing something (Macmillan sense 4b ). <S> I'm leaving the party early because I have work tomorrow. <S> The parish hall is closed while the contraltos have rehearsal. <S> My oldest son has practice until 5pm during the season. <S> On Thursdays we have therapy with Dr. Wong and then go out for dinner. <S> We never see the evening games because my family has church. <A> There are quite a number of nouns (as choster's answer indicates) which can be used with have without a determiner. <S> To say that we have {such a noun} refers to an item on your schedule, an obligation, a prior commitment. <S> But I don't think the meaning is "experiencing something" <S> (as in I have a headache ). <S> I cannot meet you after school, I have soccer. <S> I cannot join you for brunch, I have church. <S> I cannot join you for dinner, I have choir. <S> I cannot join you on the camping trip, I have community service that weekend. <S> I cannot join you on your trip to the beach, I have school. <S> I cannot make it, I have rehearsal. <S> The listener understands from the locution that what follows have refers to an obligation, a prior commitment, often a regularly scheduled one. <S> Sorry, I have court. <S> Sorry, I have rounds. <S> Sorry, I have kitchen detail. <S> You could even say: Sorry, I cannot join you. <S> I have Mary. <S> and the listener would understand you to mean that you had some obligation or commitment involving Mary. <S> This meaning of have also accepts an infinitive clause as its complement: <S> Sorry, I have to go. <A> It's an idiomatic expression. <S> While "class" (as in "lesson" or "lecture") is not, strictly speaking, an uncountable noun, in this case it's used in the same way as other uncountable nouns like "time" or "space", as in the following examples: I have time to help you with your homework. <S> I have space for more books on my shelves. <S> You can say either "class" or "a class". <A> As a British English speaker I suppose this sounds incorrect as class isn't commonly used in this context and would generally include the article if it was. <S> "I have class" sounds more like an ironic boast about how they conduct themselves. <A> I can't speak to why it is, but "I have class" is a common way to say the phrase in American English. <S> It is more typical to say it when the person you are speaking with knows about your class, like if you are a high school or college student people tend to know you attend classes. <S> In the case where the audience doesn't know about your class, it would be more common to say "I have a class" which opens itself up to more conversation like "I have a class on cooking every Tuesday and Thursday night". <S> "Lesson" is not used the same way in American English, especially as it refers to school. <S> A class is typically a series of lessons. <S> Even a class that is one sitting that only lasts an hour could contain multiple lessons. <S> "I have lesson" is not a common phrase, and sounds funny.
| "A class" would refer to a particular class you need to attend, while "class" by itself refers to the general concept of "classes I need to attend".
|
The mainstream media are _____ in/about reporting gossips of celebrities I want to fill in the blank of the following sentence with an adjective with a meaning similar to "interested/fascinated/passionate..." but I hope the word sounds negative or ironic: The mainstream media are _____ in/about reporting gossips of celebrities and politicians. Also, it would be great if you can change the structure of the whole sentence to make it idiomatic, if necessary. Thanks! I also want a literal word. I have thought about "crazy", but I think it is too colloquial. <Q> The definition of obsessive from Google is " a person who is affected by an obsession ", and the definition of obsession from Google is " an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind ". <S> Obsession of something is usually looked down upon in society, as an obsession with a particular person is seen as creepy, hence why I decided to use this word. <S> Going back to my hobby example, people normally say they are passionate about something, like guitar, but never obsessive. <S> If I was to say " I am obsessive about playing guitar" , I would likely get a lot of concerned stares. <S> The sentence would be essentially saying " The media cannot report on anything except for people who can only talk about the personal lives of celebrities and politicians ". <S> Your final sentence would therefore be: <S> The mainstream media are obsessed with reporting the gossip about celebrities and politicians. <A> are insistent in reporting gossip about celebrities and politicians. <S> are bent on reporting etc. <S> are focused on reporting etc. are unwavering in reporting on x. gossip does not take an s here. <S> It refers to the activity not people. <A> I'll go with to be hung up on sth <S> to be extremely interested in or worried by a particular subject and spend an unreasonably large amount of time thinking about it <S> the mainstream media are hung up on reporting celebrity and political gossip. <S> In my mind that sounds sarcastic; it invokes the image of desperate journalists doing all the weird stuff to get the best stories and headlines. <S> My second guess is to be obsessed with sth unable to stop thinking about something ; too interested in or worried about something: <S> the mainstream media are obsessed with reporting celebrity and political gossip. <S> It feels similar to the previous sentence in that journalists are acting irrational etc <S> but I'd say this choice to be obsessed with sth is less snide than to be hung up on sth. <S> My another guess is to live and breathe sth when a person lives and breathes something, it is extremely important to them : the mainstream media live and breathe reporting celebrity and political gossip. <S> This expression sounds almost in favour of the mainstream media compared to the previous two options, it's like gossips and scandals are these people's true passion, which makes this one humorous and sarcastic <S> ~All definitons from CD Grammar fixes as suggested by @ColleenV and @Andrew <S> The mainstream media are ___ in/about reporting gossips of celebrities and politicians celebrity and political gossip <A> You could also use fixated : fixated, adj. <S> def 1 <S> : so interested in someone or something that you do not pay attention to anything else definition from macmillandictionary.com fixate, v. <S> def 3: <S> ( Psychoanalysis ) to develop a fixation; suffer an arrest in one's emotional or sexual development. <S> Fixation, n. <S> def 5: <S> a preoccupation with one subject, issue, etc.; obsession definitions from dictionary.com <S> Since this is referring to a psychological disorder, it is definitely negative in tone. <S> Normally fixate <S> takes on as its preposition, so your example would be The mainstream media are fixated on reporting gossip about politicians and celebrities.
| I would say the best word for that spot would be obsessive , as interested sounds more passive than I would like, fascinated sounds like the positive version of obsessive, and passionate also implies something positive, as you are passionate about a hobby.
|
'I'm dressed warmly' or 'I'm dressed warm'? There are some controversies about the word usage in this context. So, which example is grammatically correct: "I'm dressed warmly " or "I'm dressed warm "? <Q> Since dress here is a verb, you need an adverb to modify it. " <S> Warmly" is the more common adverb, although in informal language, "warm" is also used adverbially in a restricted range of contexts. <S> Another example would be "wrong". <S> Compare: <S> You spelled that word wrong/wrongly. <A> Be sure to dress warmly for skiing. <S> [written style] <S> They were dressed warmly but still felt cold. <S> [written style] <S> "Hey, don't forget to dress warm when you come up North." <S> [colloquial, spoken] <S> "My advice? <S> Dress warm and don't forget your gloves!" <A> Both are used and both are controversial. <S> In a grammar-critical situation like an English test or formal letter, I would avoid both of them and rephrase the sentence. <S> The purported problem with the adjective "warm" is that there isn't a noun to be modified. <S> One could argue that "warm" modifies "I" but it's arguable whether this is accepted usage. <S> The purported problem with using the adverb "warmly" to modify "dressed" is that "warmly" isn't a quality of the action "dressed" but rather a quality of the unnamed clothes I'm dressed in. <S> I know it's freezing outside <S> but I'm dressed to stay warm.
| Both "dressed warmly " and "dressed warm " are correct and commonly used.
|
Difference between 'Take' and 'Bring' Did you bring Jack with you? Did you take Jack with you? Mike went to the movies with Jack, Samuel called to confirm whether Mike bring/take Jack with him. Which verb should I pick? Could you explain to me the differences here? <Q> This is always a difficult one to work out, because it primarily depends on relative positions before and after. <S> In the simplest terms, you bring it to here , but take it to there . <S> We are in the pub. <S> Fred arrives. <S> I ask him, "Did you bring Jack with you?" <S> In effect, "Is Jack here with you where we both are now ?" <S> Fred tells me about a trip he went on last week. <S> I ask him, "Did you take Jack with you?" <S> "Did you & Jack go to a place that is not here, now ?" <S> These are the simplest versions. <S> It gets more 'virtual' or even slightly 'existential' when the place you are talking about isn't 'here now', but will be 'here' by the time the event happens... bear with me... <S> "Jack, when we go to the park next week, be sure to bring a jacket, in case it rains" <S> That one is really an edge case, you could actually say 'take' in that circumstance. <S> Either would be understood, but to follow our rule... <S> Neither you nor Jack are at the park right now, but will be by the time that finishes happening . <S> By the time you are both in the park, he will have brought the jacket with him. <S> When I leave for the park, I'll take my jacket. <S> By the time I get to the park I will have brought it with me. <S> To use your example... <S> Mike went to the movies with Jack. <S> Samuel called to confirm whether Mike took Jack with him. <S> This breaks down to - <S> none of us are there now, so we talk about it as a 'distant location', there , so we use take . <A> In your given example 'Samuel called to confirm whether ...' <S> i.e. Samuel is not present at the place of event that is why it would be 'take' and the modified sentence would be- ' <S> Samuel called to confirm whether Mike took Jack with him.' <S> Hope it helps. <A> bring to the place where the speaker is take to the place a speaker is not <S> Please be aware that American English speakers tend to use bring everywhere . <S> You get sentences like: Dad <S> , can you bring me to the football field ? <S> Comment: the speaker is asking to be taken to a place where he or she is not. <S> The correct verb here is take: <S> Dad, can you take me t o the football field? <S> Bring: <S> I asked the waiter to bring us a house wine. <S> [toward the speaker] Take: <S> I asked the waiter to take them a house wine. <S> [away from the speaker, the "them" are not sitting in the same place as the speaker]
| ' Take someone with you ' is said when the person saying the sentence is not present at the place of occurring/event , And ' Bring someone with you ' is used when the speaker or questioner is present at the place of event.
|
Is there an expression for when you say one thing and the opposite happens? Is there an expression or idiom for the situation when you say something and then the opposite happens? For example I say “Today I don't have so much work.” and then something happens and you have loads of work for the rest of the day. <Q> "Speak too soon" is a suitable way of describing the scenario. <S> Tetsujin is correct that irony/ironic is NOT suitable, but strictly speaking coincidence/bad-luck/ <S> Murphy's law are not correct either. <S> Bad-luck and Murphy's Law are indicative that the things you didn't expect to happen DID happen, and they have negative consequences. <S> Your question could be positive or negative, and "speak to soon" covers both. <S> Speak too soon is usually taken to mean the OPPOSITE of expectation, like you describe in your example. <S> You tell someone you have no work - oops <S> , you spoke to soon and now you have too much work, for example. <S> Another alternative expression would be that you were too premature <S> - e.g. if you celebrate winning a competition before finding out for sure you were the winner your celebrations are premature. <A> It's just a coincidence, bad luck, Murphy's Law. <S> If anything can go wrong, it will. <S> It is not irony. <S> just before someone jumps in with an answer saying it is. <S> Now I need to go find a link to the comedy sketch explaining why the Alanis Morrisette song "Ironic" contains contains no irony whatsoever.... <S> Ed Byrne on "Ironic" - youtube <S> "Alanis Morissette updated ‘Ironic’ for today’s problems and it’s hilarious." <A> Idiomatically, we might say that you jinxed yourself. <S> " caused more work to appear.
| Jinx means something like a curse or bad luck, or to cause bad luck to someone, as though saying "I don't have much work today!
|
"Teach someone something" or "teach something to someone" Daisy was teaching Taekwondo to a group of children. Daisy was teaching a group of children Taekwondo. Which is the correct usage of "teach"? <Q> The former perhaps is marginally more common in everyday usage. <A> The first is more explicit. <S> The second is acceptable, but this usage can be harder to parse, especially in more complicated sentences. <S> For instance, "Daisy was teaching New York Chinese Americans British English" is much more confusing than "Daisy was teach British English to Chinese-American students from New York". <A> Both forms are acceptable. <S> It's worth knowing that second sentence construction is one with indirect objects , which represent the recipient of the direct object. <S> In fact, alternative phrasings that avoid indirect objects almost always use "to" or "for" like in your first sentence. <S> There isn't any real difference between the meaning of the two sentences. <S> There might be a small difference in emphasis due to word order (did we first think about what was taught or who we're teaching?), but that's trivial.
| Both are valid forms; teach somebody something and teach something to somebody are interchangeable.
|
What's the difference between "vanilla" and "plain" when talking about yogurts? Merriam Webster explains vanilla (when used as an adjective) as: lacking distinction : plain, ordinary, conventional It's not obvious why vanilla has such a meaning, and why plain is listed as its synonym. As you can find in the grocery store, vanilla yogurt and plain yogurt are two different products: So I'm wondering what's the exact difference between these two words and how to use vanilla correctly so that the salesperson doesn't hand you the wrong yogurt. <Q> Well, the vanilla you see on yogurt and ice cream cups refers to the flavor. <S> The definition you are asking about talks about something else. <S> It comes from the basic meaning of "vanilla", namely an ordinary flavor of ice cream or other dairy/bakery products, but has evolved to mean the default option that comes with no extra features. <S> So for example if someone says It's so hard to pick a laptop. <S> I think I am going to go with the vanilla version. <S> They are basically saying: "I will buy the one with no special features or outstanding characteristics. <S> " This usage has nothing with taste. <S> It comes from the notion that vanilla is the most common flavor among all the flavors. <A> Vanilla can be a synonym for plain , but that's not what's happening here. <S> With yogourt, vanilla is referring to the noun , as described by Merriam-Webster: 1 b : a commercially important extract of the vanilla bean that is used especially as a flavoring <A> The confusion seems to arise from the fact that in your quote from Merriam Webster, you provided only the second of two adjectival definitions. <S> The whole definition is: vanilla adjective Definition of vanilla 1 : flavored with vanilla 2 : <S> lacking distinction : plain, ordinary, conventional <S> In the case of Yogurt, the first is in use. <S> And in that context "plain" simply means "unflavored" (although anyone who has tasted plain yogurt will tell you, after they stop grimacing and smacking their lips, that it certainly does have a flavor!) <S> Outside of Yogurt, or food flavoring in general (and maybe the sub-field of botany dealing with Mexican orchids <S> ) "vanilla" is just a synonym for plain; i.e. lacking distinction, ordinary, or, to throw in another example of this kind of thing, "common or garden". <S> The reason "vanilla" took on that second meaning of plain/ordinary etc, is that in foods such as ice cream, yogurt, and custard, vanilla was by far the most commonly used flavoring, so much so that it came to be regarded as... <S> well, plain, ordinary, and so on. <S> Other examples of this kind of thing are the aforementioned "common or garden", and "box, standard" (sometimes mispronounced as "bog standard") <A> In my experience, vanilla in that sense is not used for food stuff. <S> As you correctly notice, that would lead to confusion. <S> In other areas, where no confusion with the actual taste of vanilla is likely, it often means unembellished , without any added stuff. <S> So a vanilla operating system on your phone means that there are (almost) no pre-installed apps from your provider or other parties. <S> A vanilla car would be a basic version without any extra options. <A>
| To answer the question in the title, vanilla yogurt is sweetened and tastes like vanilla, while plain yogurt is unsweetened and doesn't have added taste.
|
a man and a woman a. I talked to a man and woman. b. I talked to a lean man and woman. Does (a) mean they were together? Does (b) mean they were together? Does (b) mean they were both lean? ======================================= c. I talked to a man and a woman. d. I talked to a lean man and a woman. Does (c) mean they were not together? Does (d) mean they were not together? Does (d) mean the woman was not lean? Isn't (d) simply noncommittal as to whether the woman was lean or not? <Q> The first thing to say is that there are substantial differences between what statements may suggest or imply and what they mean. <S> What's more, context has a powerful bearing on both implications and meaning. <S> Your examples are bare - devoid of any context. <S> As Ian E says, one can only draw inferences from them as to any relationship between the two individuals and their body types. <S> While it's common practice to omit the second article in some contexts - eg: I had a sandwich and milkshake for lunch - it doesn't work in all contexts. <S> For instance to say: I saw a frog and balloon may be grammatical <S> but it's puzzling and makes a listener wonder about the relationship between the two. <S> I'm similarly uncomfortable with your example: <S> I talked to a man and woman. <S> For me, this is awkward and requires a second article to be idiomatic. <S> It certainly doesn't mean that the two individuals were together and the implication, if any, is weak. <S> This holds true for your other examples. <S> They mean only what they state. <S> Anything beyond that is what somebody chooses to read into them. <A> (a) does imply that they were together. <S> (b) does imply that they were together. <S> (b) does imply that they were both lean. <S> (c) does not eliminate the possibility that they were together. <S> (d) does not eliminate the possibility that they were together. <S> (d) does imply that it was only the man who was lean, not the woman. <S> To convey that they were both lean, say, "I talked to a lean man and a lean woman," or say, "I talked to a lean man and woman." <A> An entertaining quiz with much amibiguity here, rather like the classic (punctuation) book Eats shoots and leaves, ( a man walks into a bar, eats, shoots and leaves, and then a panda ambles into the same bar and eats shoots and leaves). <S> You can make a few simple inferences from the sentences, but that is all. <S> Thus a) <S> Their marital status is also unclear, however the subject would probably have described them as a couple if they knew them to be close. <S> b) <S> As with (a), the lean man and woman were met on the same occasion, but it is ambiguous who was spoken to and is not clear whether the woman was leanor not. <S> c) <S> The use of two articles 'a' implies the man and woman were two separate subjects. <S> However it is not clear whether they were spoken separately at different times, or at the same time (and if the latter then whether both were individually spoken to or not). <S> d) <S> In this case the two separate articles differentiate the man as lean and the woman as not lean, however it still does not clarify who was spoke to and when, as with (c)
| The single article 'a' implies the man and woman were a single object (in the subject-verb-object sense), thus the subject spoke to both of them on the same occasion, however it is not clear whether they spoke to both persons individually or as a pair.
|
I don't understand the sentence of "people have grown used to wasting water" I don't understand the sentence "people have grown used to wasting water". Does it mean that the people who were used to wasting water have grown? The original context is: "Unfortunately, the world's supply of water is under threat. People have grown used to wasting water , and changes in the global climate mean that droughts and water rationing are becoming increasing common." <Q> People have grown used to wasting water <S> One paraphrase would be: <S> One definition for the verb grow (found at Wordnik ) <S> is: grow ( verb ) <S> To come to be by a gradual process or by degrees; to become: grow angry; grow closer . <S> The phrase used to in this case matches this adjectival definition (also in Wordnik ): used to ( adj. ) <S> accustomed to, tolerant or accepting of. <S> So, the sentence is saying that people have gradually become more accepting of the practice of wasting water. <S> Or, if we look at this from the opposite angle of conserving water (rather than from the angle of wasting water ), we could paraphrase the sentence by saying: Over time, people have become less and less concerned about conserving water. <A> This sentences means that people have formed a habit of wasting water. <S> Here, "used to" indicates a habit. <S> If you understand it like "the people who were used to wasting water have grown", the sentence should be phrased like this, "People who used to waste water have grown". <A> If, as you suppose might be a possibility here, used to wasting water directly modified people , the syntax would have to change. <S> The modifying participle clause would immediately follow the noun people : <S> People used to wasting water have grown. <S> Associating lavish water-consumption with physical growth would be a rather silly thing to do with people, although it might be true of some vegetation. <S> But if you wanted to say the the portion of the population which wastes water has increased: <S> The number of people used to wasting water has grown. <S> But the original sentence does not have that meaning. <S> grown there is a synonym for become and its complement is a clause that functions as a subject complement: <S> People have become used to wasting water. <S> They waste water habitually. <S> They don't think twice about it.
| People have become accustomed to wasting water.
|
tense of two similar sentences are different in the Vikings main title song there are two similar sentences: If I had a heart I could love you If I had a voice I would sing the first sentence can't be "If I had a heart I would love you"(like the second sentence)? what is the difference between using could and would here? <Q> The difference lies in having the mere ability to do something and choosing to do something that you are able to do. <S> If he had a heart, he would be able to love. <S> If he had a voice, he would choose to sing. <S> If I had the money, I could buy it. <S> ability <S> If I had the money, I would buy it. <S> intention <S> Having the ability to do something does not necessarily mean that you would actually do it. <S> If I had the money, I could buy it. <S> I wish I had the money to buy it! <S> I want it! <S> If I had the money, I could buy it. <S> But it is a foolish extravagance and I would never buy something like that! <A> It may just be a way to have each line sound similar but by using could <S> instead of would it gives a subtle indication that even if the singer could have their way and devote themselves to loving, that choice might not be theirs to make anyway. <A> To me, the singer is implying that he/she does not have a heart. <S> Therefore they cannot love the object of his affection. <S> In the second sentiment, they also imply that they do not have a voice, but if they did, they would sing. <S> The "if I had" phrase makes the would/could subject moot <S> (Adj. 2. of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance; purely academic). <S> It doesn't matter what they would or could do, it's impossible. <S> The reasoning behind using one word in the first phrase and another in the second phrase is most likely poetic in nature, i.e. it sounds better than saying would or could in both phrases.
| The use of "could" implies that if the singer had a heart, loving the subject is something they would want to do but there may be other factors that get in the way - knowing Vikings, the looting & pillaging comes first and the lovin' comes second.
|
What does "Here it comes" mean? “There’s something I need to say,” Riley says at last, her voice serious... Here it comes , Gwen thinks. Could you please tell me what the meaning of "Here it comes" is? The fuller text: Maybe it’s time to try. Maybe it’s time to let go of the baggage, the guilt, and try to live her life, she thinks. Maybe last night is a new beginning for her. She feels a surging warmth and happiness inside about David that she can’t help, even though Dana is dead. She’d wanted so much to go to him just now. But it would have been completely inappropriate. They’d managed a warm glance at one another, but that was it. There was time. They would be together again. Riley won’t like it that she was with David last night. Gwen knows that, but Riley is her friend, not her keeper. Riley should be happy for her that she’s met someone. Gwen was always happy for Riley when she met someone, and Gwen usually didn’t have anyone special herself. She’s sorry it had to happen when they were supposed to be spending time together this weekend, but you must take good things when and where you find them. They are rare enough. Dana’s dreadful accident has brought this home to her. Riley should understand that. It’s not like she planned it this way. They reach the room and Riley closes the door behind her. Gwen looks up at her warily, waiting for her to say something. When she doesn’t, Gwen reaches for some clothes from her overnight bag. She would like a shower, but that seems out of the question. The water will be freezing. “There’s something I need to say,” Riley says at last, her voice serious, as she pulls a top on over her head and flips her long hair over her shoulders. Here it comes , Gwen thinks. “That attorney, David Paley.” “What about him?” Gwen’s voice comes out more sharply than she intended. “Did you sleep with him?” “Actually, yes, I did.” An Unwanted Guest By Shari Lopena <Q> In this instance, the it in the sentence is referring to the thing that Riley needs to say. <S> So when Gwen says, " Here it comes ," he knows that the question was going to be asked and was preparing himself for the tough question. <A> As TheRealLester says: the it in the sentence is referring to the thing that Riley needs to <S> say <S> but this is a very flexible phrase (could I even say idiom?) <S> For some more examples: Your whole family has a nasty cold, and you have just finished a really loud long snotty sneeze. <S> You think, "HERE IT COMES!" <S> This one means: <S> "Oh no! <S> That sneeze means I have caught the cold, haven't I?" <S> The company you work for has been losing money for months, an urgent all-staff meeting has been called. <S> Someone says: "Come on chaps, here it comes." <S> This means: <S> "Come on, everyone; this is the meeting where they tell us we are all out of a job." <A> "Here it comes. <S> " <S> This is a typical idiomatic spoken phrase. <S> People say this all the time to point out something that is "heavy" <S> (troubling in some manner) in their own head or for themselves, or which could be heavy for the other person. <S> In the conversation in question, Gwen knows she is about to ask a question that will be a "heavy" question for her and the other woman: "Did you sleep with him?". <S> It refers to her being reticent to asking the question and then going ahead and asking it. <S> It is also used when you do or say something and expect some kind of specific reaction from the other person: anger, surprise, etc. <A> Here it comes means "it is about to come" (that is, it is incipient ) and the phrase can be used of a variety of things: <S> I can see the train in the distance. <S> Here it comes. <S> The forecast said there was a 50% chance of a violent thunderstorm, and here it comes! <S> Look how dark the sky has become. <S> She thought the subject of taxes would cause him to rant. <S> " <S> Here it comes" she said to herself.
| It is something you can think or say whenever you know something bad or unwanted is expected and has now arrived.
|
Saying "very much" right after "Nice to meet you, too" Can I say "very much" right after "Nice to meet you, too."? The other day I was introduced to one native English speaker and said that - just to emphasize how glad I was, but he looked a bit puzzled by what I said. It was me who said, "Nice to meet you, too", which was in response to his "Nice to meet you." If what I did was wrong, then what was the right way in English to emphasize the fact that I am glad to meet a person? <Q> However, you can't just add "very much" anywhere. " <S> Nice to meet you, very much" would be grammatically incorrect. <S> If you wanted to express intensity, you should say "Very nice to meet you!" <S> (If you add "too" at the end, that would mean that your response matches the intensity of his initial greeting. <S> That's mildly awkward, if you added "very". <S> and he didn't say "very".) <S> In very extreme circumstances, you might say: "I'm so glad to have a chance to meet you at last! <S> I've been a great fan of your artwork!" <A> "It's nice to meet you too, very much," is grammatically fine; but I think a more natural way of saying it would be: " <S> It's very nice to meet you too." <S> However, I think the reason for his surprise was more because you veered from the standard script in that situation. " <S> Nice to meet you" is the kind of thing a person says automatically, without real meaning behind it; and the standard response is either "Nice to meet you too" or just "You too." <S> He probably just wasn't expecting you to add more to it. <A> That's very much acceptable response what you gave. <S> Here one expression which I heard from my trainer, when I said, "Nice to meet you," in reply he expressed: " <S> Same here" ...just two words. <S> Hope <S> this is okay with native English speakers..
| "Nice to meet you, too!" is a perfectly fine response to "Nice to meet you."
|
Need help with restructuring a sentence The war induced provincial governments to establish their own system of free public employment offices. I am trying to say that at the time of the war, provinces each established a system of employment offices. These offices aided in the distribution of labour for the war effort. The provinces did this on their own, they felt there was a need for such a system. They were obviously not the same, but had one key element that was common: they were labour exchanges that distributed man power. The way I have written it sounds weird to me, esp. the part "their own". It kind of feels that using "their own" somehow conveys that the federal govt. beforehand set up these offices FOR the provinces. I will explain their purpose in following that sentence. Can someone help me figure out a way to restructure this please? <Q> Reading the question, an answer, and all the comments, it's still not clear to me if you're actually trying to describe a set of individual systems or a single system. <S> Depending on what you're actually trying to describe, I would suggest one of the following: <S> The war induced each provincial government to establish its own system of free public employment offices. <S> Here, adding each and changing their own to its own clarifies that it's one system per province. <S> The war induced provincial governments to establish a joint system of free public employment offices. <S> Here, it's clear that it's only a single system—but <S> one that was established through the joint effort of all provinces. <A> Using " their own " is correct since the provincial governments came up with the systems themselves. <S> You could preface your sentence by saying <S> Without a formal labour exchange in place , the war induced provincial governments to establish their own system of free public employment offices. <S> This would remove the ambiguity you point out of whether the government already had something in place for the provinces. <A> The war induced provincial governments to establish their own system of free public employment offices. <S> The way it's currently worded, it sounds like all the provincial governments had the same system, since English, unlike for example French, tends to use the plural when multiple entities own one of the same thing each. <S> Multiple things altogether, plural noun. <S> (In French, one thing each, singular noun.) <S> The war induced provincial governments to establish their own systems of free public employment offices. <S> Using the plural makes it less likely (but still possible) that the provences were sharing systems. <S> Words you can add to try and mitigate this effect are each and independent : <S> The war induced each provincial government to establish their own independent systems of free public employment offices. <S> The war induced the provincial governments to establish their own systems of free public employment offices, independently of each another .
| The war induced each provincial government to establish their own systems of free public employment offices, independently of one another .
|
Best way to say after calling someone and no answer! What is the best formal way to document when you called someone and did not succeed to get hold of him/her? I am usually documented the case as calling Mr X but no answer, but have the feeling could be much more better than this simple words. <Q> You can note your unanswered call down in several ways, including: <S> No answer <S> No reply <S> No response See a previous similar question and the answers to it at: <S> What are the differences between response and answer? <A> I called Mr. X <S> but nobody answered. <S> or I called Mr. X <S> but nobody picked up (the phone). <A> It depends on whether you called the person via a direct-dial phone (one where Mr X would answer himself) of via a telephonist or personal assistant. <S> For a direct-dial phone, you could say but I got no answer <S> but he did not answer <S> but he did not pick up <S> If you had to go through and exchange and nobody answered, you could say I called Mr X's office <S> but I got no answer <S> but I couldn't get hold of him <S> or, if the person who offered a reason for his unavailability, you could quote the reason but he was not at his desk <S> but he was on holiday <S> but he was out to lunch
| I called Mr X's office but nobody answered If you did speak to somebody else, then it is better to say
|
meaning of the phrase "name over"? It is from Crash Course Biology . It is at 1 minute and 37 second. Here is the context: Because coal is made out of carbon, so they named the epoch of geological history over how face-meltingly intense and productive these forests were. Does it mean the same as name after ? Could you please rephrase the sentence for me? <Q> I think that "name after" is slightly different from "name over" because when I hear "name after" I tend to think that the two things share the same name. <S> For instance, I named my son after Freddie Mercury. <S> In this example, you could not use "name over". <S> So, "name over" shows not exactly the thing by which it was named, but more the idea by which it was named. <S> It's also worth noting that "name over" can be used interchangeably with "name for." <A> "Named over" isn't a fixed phrase in English, the way "named after" and "named for" are. <S> "Over" means "pertaining to [some subject] <S> ", so you see uses like <S> There was a scandal over Trump's alleged use of the n-word. <S> The writer is using "over" in that sense, but it's not idiomatic. <A> British English prefers "named after"; American English prefers "named for". https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=was+named+after%2Cwas+named+for%2Cwas+named+over&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwas%20named%20after%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwas%20named%20for%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwas%20named%20over%3B%2Cc0
| This "named...over" is a mistake for "named after"/"named for".
|
What do we call a wife who "cheats" on her husband (without having sex with the other person)? Is " cheater " the suitable word for calling a wife who cheats on her husband in a secret romantic relationship with another man (no sex included)? I found that " cheater " is a slang word, and I don't want it to be slang. I know the word " traitor ", but it doesn't explain the situation, even if its definition is "being disloyal". Note : I have this scenario that I need the word to fit in: I bet that you wouldn't miss this part where a video shows the true face of Jasmine. The face of her being a ______. <Q> disloyal • <S> an unfaithful friend b : not faithful to marriage vows <S> • <S> suspected her husband of being unfaithful definitions from m-w.com <S> There is a strong connotation of physical intimacy (i.e. sex) as part of being unfaithful, but it's not required. <A> You can use adulterer <S> which means: a married person who has sex with someone who is not their wife or husband. <S> It's gender neutral. <S> Adulteress can be used for a female. <A> There is emotional affair (Wikipedia): <S> The term often describes a bond between two people that mimics the closeness and emotional intimacy of a romantic relationship while never being physically consummated. <S> An emotional affair is sometimes referred to as an affair of the heart. <S> An emotional affair may emerge from a friendship, and progress toward greater levels of personal intimacy and attachment. <S> What distinguishes an emotional affair from a friendship is the assumption of emotional roles between the two participants that mimic of those of an actual relationship - with regards to confiding personal information and turning to the other person during moments of vulnerability or need. <S> Then your example becomes "The face of her being in an emotional affair ". <S> You could call the person an "emotional cheater", but that doesn't seem to be well-established. <S> There are a few examples of that usage out there though, and I think it would be understood from context. <A> By common use of the words, "cheater" does include sexual relations. <S> However, a significant majority including experts in the field, disagrees with that and finds that cheating involves intimacy and trust and most importantly, the forming of a conspiracy against your regular partner (network of lies, etc.) <S> as the primary element that defines cheating. <S> So it depends on which meaning you want to convey. <S> From the wider context of your question, you already say you look for a term of someone who "cheats on her husband". <S> That, of course, would be "cheater". <S> To illustrate the point: If said husband came home early one day, and found his wife in the arms of another man, sharing a snack and enjoying a movie together, I don't think his emotional reaction would depend on the question of penetration. <A> "more than a flirt" There's no word that says someone has crossed the line beyond harmless flirting, but has not progressed to physical adultery. <S> Of course, in these situations, it's often hard to know exactly what has gone on in secret. <S> "More than a flirt" conveys the notion that a wrong has been done in a relationship, though not necessarily physical adultery.
| If you're willing to tweak your sentence ever so slightly, you can refer to the person as unfaithful : : not faithful: a : not adhering to vows, allegiance, or duty :
|
Meaning of the phrasal verb "tap into" in context It is from this video . It is at 4 minute and 48 second. Here is the context: The point is on the one hand when we describe what we are, we tap heavily into our own identity, the way that we would like to see ourself. <Q> The definition for tap into something is: to understand and express something such as people’s beliefs or attitudes. <A> I think tap here means this sense: verb. <S> For example, The utility group has launched the company in an attempt to tap into the market for green energy. <S> [VERB + into] <A> It is a figurative use of the faucet device that is placed in the bung of a barrel to allow the beer or ale or cider to flow out, though many speakers are no doubt unaware that they are invoking that metaphor when they use the word. <S> For them it simply means "get access to". <S> Figuratively we can tap into anything that is a source of something that can "flow" out in a metaphorical sense. <S> We can tap into the electrical supply line behind the bank of elevators. <S> Dali sought to tap into the subconscious by depriving himself of sleep. <A> I think that the phrasal verb tap into sth is used in the sentence with the following connotation: to manage to use something in a way that brings good results. <S> You look into and use your identity just the way you would like it to be. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary)
| If you tap a resource or situation, you make use of it by getting from it something that you need or want.
|
What do we call "three people who united on a person to destroy something he\she has"? Let's say that X is a girl who has a deal with Y, she would absolutely get many benefits of that deal after it comes to its deadline. However, there's A, B, and C who are three people that hate X and want to destroy her deal with Y. X doesn't know about their planning until after a while, so she says:"It was a _____ all that time!". I thought of tri-scheme , but I'm not sure if it fits X's situation. Any suggestion for a word that would describe X's situation? Update : 1- I found " tri-aggression " and " tri-alliance ". 2- I want a term as this one " tripartite aggression ", but expressed with less violence. <Q> If what they were planning was a bad thing, you could call it a conspiracy - the activity of planning something that is bad or illegal. <A> There is a rather common English expression: three against one <S> (the first number can be three , or two , or four , or pretty much any number). <S> The expression means that three people are ganging up together on one opponent. <S> This could be in some kind of physical altercation (such as a fistfight), or it could be in an argument or debate. <S> One example usage is found in a book review : On the Beatles’ breakup, McCartney was often on the losing end of three-against-one arguments over finances [and] album releases. <S> So, going back to your scenario, where X suddenly realizes that A, B, and C are all actively opposing X's relationship with Y, X could say: " <S> It was three against one all that time!" <S> A general word that leaves off the aspect of a trio specifically is cahoots . <S> and it's typically preceded by the word in , as in: <S> Authorities are still looking for others who may have been in cahoots with the criminal gang. <S> So, you could say: The three of them were in cahoots against me all along! <A> I reached this term " Tripartite alliance against (someone) ", which expresses X's situation the most. <S> So X's sentence will be like this: <S> "It was a tripartite alliance against me all that time!" <A> If the three people were concealing or misrepresenting their real intentions and actions, you could refer to what they did as sandbagging . <S> to conceal or misrepresent one's true position, potential, or intent especially in order to gain an advantage over Webster Usage examples: It was a sandbagging all that time! <S> The three of them were sandbagging me all along! <S> The three of them sandbagged me! <A> There are a number of terms in English that relate to groups of three , none seem quite appropriate. <S> Trio, particularly a group of three musicians. <S> Threesome means three people, but is particularly used of a sexual group. <S> It is used in sociology to refer to groups of three people, but is also a type of Chinese gang structure. <S> Troika, from the Russian, this suggests a political grouping. <S> Triumvirate, from the Roman Empire, a group of three people acting as rulers. <S> Trinity, Particularly the three-part nature of God. <S> Triplet, one if a group of three, particularly of three children born together. <S> Coven, a group of witches, often a group of three witches. <S> In your situation, X can say "It was that scheming trio all along!" or perhaps. <S> "There was a trio of A, B and C obstructing me all the time". <S> Changing "trio" to "troika" would suggest a rather more organised and conspiratorial group of three.
| Triad means three objects. One dictionary defines it as: cahoots ( n. ) informal Questionable collaboration; secret partnership
|
"So if ..." vs "so that if ..." I'm a bit confused about these two options. I'm not sure if they mean exactly the same or if I should prefer the former or the latter. Example sentence: She had some space in front and behind her, so (that) if she spun ninety degrees in any direction, we would stop making physical contact. I tried checking an example phrase on Google Books. But both options yield more or less the same number of results: so if she moved and so that if she moved . I would like some insights on this. <Q> In your sentence the use of so that if would imply that the space in front and behind her had been deliberately left free for the purpose of allowing her to turn ninety degrees in any direction to avoid making physical contact. <S> So if - this phrase is used to tell you the effect of something that has been done. <S> In your sentence the use of <S> so if would imply that the the result of having space in front and behind her was that it allowed her to turn ninety degrees in any direction without making physical contact. <S> In this case there is no implication that this result was pre-planned, the result may have just been fortuitous. <S> If is not essential to these phrases, although it is essential in your sentence. <S> For example: I went to Melbourne so that I could go to the concert. <S> In other words, going to the concert was the reason or purpose for me travelling to Melbourne. <S> I am in Melbourne, so <S> I can go to the concert. <S> In other words one of the effects of me being in Melbourne is that I can go to the concert, but that was not necessarily the reason for me travelling to Melbourne. <A> They have essentially the same meaning but a slight difference in register. <S> so if is conversational/informal; so that if would be preferred in writing that seeks a more formal tone. <S> We're running out of widgets pretty fast, so if you want one you'd better buy it now. <S> We have modified our website to accept back-orders, so that if you would like to add your name to the waiting list, you may do so. <A> Try replacing 'so if' and 'so that if' with 'when' or 'so when', can read better in many instances.
| These two phrases have similar, but nonetheless distinct, meanings. So that if - this phrase is used when you are telling someone the purpose, reason or intent for which something has been done.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.