source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
My friends and I went snowboarding When I say My friends and I went snowboarding. somebody said to me there is a grammar mistake in my sentence but I could not figure out what it is. What is the grammar mistake in the sentence? Should it be I and my friends went snowboarding. <Q> That somebody is wrong and does not speak proper English. <S> You are correct on both of your sentences. <S> My friends and I went snowboarding. <S> Is a perfectly valid phrase ( And by FAR the most common). <S> However, you could also say I and my friends went snowboarding. <S> Which is also valid (but in REAL life no one uses this phrasing) . <S> I would use your first choice though as it is more commonplace and is more courteous (as you put your friends before you). <S> Also the first phrase just has more of a ring to it (sounds better). <A> I'm not sure why they thought it was incorrect, but I'll explain why you're correct, and then guess what their mistake may have been. <S> When we use two subjects together, we should be able to use either one by itself. <S> My friends went snowboarding. <S> I went snowboarding. <S> Both of these work fine, so there is no mistake there. <S> Further, it is traditional to place "I" as the last person in a list of subjects (probably to be humble). <S> "I and my friends", while not grammatically wrong, is generally considered to be incorrect. <S> Next, we use the verb "go" for (almost) any activity that is made with [verb]-ing. " <S> Go shopping", "go swimming", "go skiing", etc. <S> You used "go" (or here the past tense, "went"), so that's correct. <S> The only thing that could possibly make your sentence wrong is if it was for the wrong time. <S> For example: I went snowboarding next week. <S> This is wrong (assuming you don't have a time machine), but I really don't think you made that mistake. <S> So why did they say it was wrong? <S> Well, there are two possibilities I can think of. <S> First, they may have been thinking that you should use the verb "do" or "play" instead of "go". <S> That's wrong. " <S> Go" is the correct word. <S> Second, they may have been making a common mistake (even among native speakers). <S> Many people say "My friends and me went snowboarding. <S> " This is not correct, because it doesn't pass the test I mentioned in the beginning. <S> My friends went snowboarding. <S> This is correct, but... <S> Me went snowboarding. <S> ...is not correct. <S> Therefore, it should be I, not me. <S> Hope that helps! <A> My friends and I went snowboarding <S> There's nothing wrong with the sentence; it's perfect. <S> How come somebody says that your sentence is not correct? <S> Maybe he likes to use object pronouns when they are cojoined with other nouns/subject pronouns as many people tend to do so in informal speaking and writing. <S> In this case, the sentence will be: <S> My friends and me went snowboarding. <S> Or maybe he likes to begin the sentence with "I" as follows: <S> I and my friends went snowboardig. <S> This sentence is also OK grammatically, but your sentence is more polite and common. <S> Another reason may be that he prefers the following sentence as presented by J.R: <S> I went snowboarding with my friends. <S> This sentence like yours also sounds easy on the ear. <A> It is possible <S> your friend had your sentence confused with a similar grammar error that you did NOT make. <S> It is incorrect to say "John gave apples to Ann and I" <S> Same reason: <S> You can say "John gave apples to Ann" <S> but you cannot say "John gave apples to I" <A> Your friends expected to see 'me' instead of 'I' . <S> For example: 'Me and my friends went snowboarding.' <A> Generally speaking.. <S> My friends and I went snowboarding .. <S> would be considered good "proper" English and is grammatically correct. <S> However, in general conversation people will say.. <S> Me and my friends went snowboarding .. <S> which is perfectly acceptable in all but the most polite of circumstances - by which <S> I mean - meeting the queen etc. <S> ( "The Queen"?? <S> :) ) <S> If someone picks you up on using the second form then they are probably either.. <S> Joking President of the Correct English Society (fictitious) <S> In need of a stick removing from their a <S> ** <S> But I and my friends went snowboarding .. <S> is not correct, and just sounds "wrong" to a native speaker. <S> It should either be me and my friends or my friends and I (see above). <A> "me and my friends" is a fixed construction, which works well as subject in this sentence, allowing the object form "me". <S> "I and my friends" is not. <S> One could argue that "my friends and me" is a totally acceptable construction too, but in this sentence, "me" would be followed by the verb, which makes it sound much too close to "me <S> went skiing..", which is by most considered grammatically very wrong.
| Your sentence is entirely correct.
|
How is called the color which is the combination of yellow and orange in English? In my language (spanish) this color is called amarillo huevo ("egg yellow") which is a clear contrast to amarillo patito ("little duck yellow"). How is called the color which is the combination of yellow and orange in English? <Q> The closest I can think of off the top of my head is ocher [US spelling], ochre [British spelling] <A> A survey found these colour names: for "bright" colours: Your colour is near the left side, at the yellow and orange border. <S> So, in general terms your colour is a "Yellow" or a "Yellow-orange". <S> There are several secondary colour names that name a similar colour: <S> Saffron (named after the spice) Ochre (named after a type of clay) <S> Amber <S> (Fossilied pine resin) <S> Mustard (a spice) <S> And some proprietary names: your colour is similar to Sunglow by Crayola. <S> (found by an online tool <S> Colour words in English fall into roughly three groups. <S> Main colours like "Red", "Black", "Brown" <S> : These are words that mean the colour, and other uses are secondary to the colour meaning. <S> "Orange" is probably in this group, even though it was named after the fruit. <S> These words can be combined to indicate a combination for example "Green-yellow" <S> Then there are words like "Teal", "Olive", which name a colour after an object. <S> Finally there are specific proprietary names used by painters and other colour workers. <S> These names don't have much use outside this realm. <S> For example, dulux use "Rising sap" for a green-yellow paint. <A> Depending on how precise you want to be, "Egg Yellow" or "Egg Yolk Yellow" works in English as well. <S> For example, Egg Yolk Yellow (1235C) Rosco E-Colour+ <S> #768 Egg Yolk Yellow (48 <S> " x 25') <S> Roll Egg Yellow CK Squeeze Gel Food Color <S> Color names are a tricky business. <S> Even when we use the name of something that everyone is familiar with, like "egg yolk yellow", it only gives us a general idea of the color because of natural variations in the saturation and brightness . <S> Different color names like "ochre" or "mustard" can mean different things to different people and you should reference a color system like Pantone if you want to be precise. <S> For example, "ochre" in the Pantone system has a wide range of colors from yellowish to deep red.
| You will generate minimum confusion if you just say "yellow-orange" or "yellowish orange", but any of the other secondary colour names could also be used.
|
What does "He has insurance, but Christ" mean? He has insurance, but Christ. Could you please tell me what the meaning of phrase above is? I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct. The full text is here: James scrubs the frying pan in the big kitchen sink and ponders how to rejig things so that he can feed his guests adequately without any electricity. The refrigerator isn’t working. At least he can cook with the gas oven. But he’s without a dishwasher. Breakfast was easy enough—eggs and pastries, and nobody much felt like eating anyway, from what he could see, after that poor girl fell down the stairs. He’s lost his appetite too. He feels terrible for that man’s loss. And the whole thing makes him sick with anxiety. It’s the kind of situation every hotel owner loses sleep over—an accident in his hotel, a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but Christ . What a thing to happen. He knows he’s not to blame. His carpets aren’t loose—he’d gone up to the landing and checked over that carpet himself the first chance he got. It was fine. She must have stumbled for no reason. There’s absolutely no way anyone can blame him or his hotel. An Un Wanted Guest by Shari Lapena <Q> "Christ" in this context serves as an exclamation rather than a literal reference to Jesus Christ. <S> It can convey a fairly wide range of emotions, but the next sentence ("What a thing to happen.") implies that in this case it's some sort of sadness about the hotel owner's situation. <S> So the sentence means that even though the owner has insurance (which presumably shields him from legal implications of the accident), it's still a terrible thing to happen. <S> I think you want to interpret it as something like "The owner has no insurance, but he has Christ on his side", which is definitely not what the author meant given the context. <A> As James scrubs the frying pan, he ponders (thinks). <S> This is a signal that what follows are his thoughts. <S> He is thinking about the refrigerator not working, but at least he can cook, etc. <S> He considers the death of a guest in his hotel. <S> He has insurance but... <S> At that point, the text reports directly what would be a religious oath if spoken aloud: "Christ. <S> What a thing to happen. <S> " One might often see exclamation marks instead of periods in such reported utterances, thought or spoken. <A> I think it would be clearer if the sentences had been punctuated differently. <S> Rather than: <S> He has insurance, but Christ. <S> What a thing to happen. <S> I’d write (to express the same meaning): He has insurance. <S> But Christ! <S> What a thing to happen. <S> The second variant makes it clearer that “Christ” is an exclamation, not a continuation of the previous sentence, and that “But” is a conjunction that introduces the following sentence. <S> You could even use em dashes to mark the exclamation as a parenthetical remark: He has insurance. <S> But — Christ! <S> — what a thing to happen. <S> I’m not entirely sure why the original text’s author chose to do this differently <S> but it seems to be a somewhat common stylistic choice to combine sentence fragments in this way using commas. <A> A profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions ( Oxford Dictionaries ) <S> The meaning would be the same if you replaced the word "Christ" with something like "holy crap" or "oh my god" or even "wow". <S> I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct. <S> If you want the meaning of that to be "He has no insurance except for his faith in Christ", that wouldn't have the comma. <A> As others have pointed out, it’s not about the insurance. <S> What I would like to point out is that the period after Christ is probably what caused your confusion and is what is wrong with the sentence. . <S> He has insurance, but Christ . <S> What a thing to happen. <S> The period indicates a complete sentence an end to the thought, but really it is just the opening to the real thought - that this was a terrible thing to happen. <S> Punctuation is used as a way of grouping and separating things, ideas, thoughts, who said what, action, etc. <S> The punctuation in these two sentences is incorrect, because they shouldn’t be two sentences they should be one. <S> The writer is trying to say that a terrible thing happened, while simultaneously saying that it could have been worse and that it wasn’t his fault and really shouldn’t impact him. <S> The incorrect punctuation both separated those things, and by incorrectly grouping parts of them the whole is confusing-the “Christ” could be taken as a complaint about the deductible or trouble that insurance doesn’t cover. <S> I don’t think that is what is meant, but it could be. <A> The author uses the phrase as an aside explaining the situation the owner now faces: an accident, presumably fatal, involving a guest. <S> Since he has insurance, he may not be liable financially for the accident, and should not be anxious. <S> “But Christ” is a commonly used emphasizer, sometimes seen as “ <S> But Christ Almighty”... <S> I know it is good to check my blood sugar in the morning <S> but Christ Almighty <S> if the lances don’t hurt like no tomorrow! <S> Or “But Jesus H. Christ”... <S> Johnson was a role-model student, but Jesus H. Christ take a bath once in a while. <A> I agree with former answers with the slight modification to assert that people often interject the word Christ as an appeal to the divine. <S> In the cited text, the hotel owner is protected from financial or legal responsibility by having insurance and checking the carpet to make sure it's tight, but requests divine protection <S> should there be a spiritual liability assessed against him. <S> He feels it necessary to request this as he feels guilt despite knowing on rational grounds <S> there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident <S> (or it's severity) <S> I also agree with other answers that this should have been punctuated as one sentence: He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen!
| As the other answers have explained, "Christ" here is being used as an oath, in the sense of An irreverent or careless use of a sacred name ( Merriam-Webster )
|
Does the English language have a word explaining a song in your head that you can't stop singing? Sometimes after listening to a popular song you can't stop repeating it in your head. Is there any term for this in English? You can't say the same in Russian using one word. <Q> <A> You could say the song is "stuck in your head". <S> I haven't found a dictionary listing the phrase, but here's a Time article on the subject, with the title " <S> Why Do Songs Get Stuck In Your Head?" <S> For example usage, to express "after listening to a popular song you can't stop repeating it in your head <S> " I would say: I heard [popular song] on the radio, and now it's stuck in my head. <S> "Earworm" is a very related term. <S> Essentially, if a song gets stuck in peoples' heads frequently <S> then it can be called an earworm. <S> On the other hand, the phrase "stuck in your head" is how you talk about a specific time when it happened, such as "it's stuck in my head right now" or "it was stuck in my head when I left yesterday". <A> The German Wikipedia on "Ohrwurm" lists earworm as a loanword from German. <S> To be more precise, it is a calque (thanks @PLL), a word for word translation of the two parts Ohr and Wurm (ear and worm). <S> It also has other suggestions: sticky music, head music and the English Wikipedia on loanwords calls it catchy tune. <S> Based on the comments by two native speakers and their up votes - those suggestions are even less used. <S> Catchy tune is better used for an appealing and memorable tune rather than a song which is stuck in your head at the moment. <A> Another term I've hear used is " song virus ". <S> Surprisingly to me, I couldn't find this listed anywhere other than Urban Dictionary , but it's definitely a usage I've heard as an American native speaker. <A> You can use hook : <S> Catchy part of a song that draws in the listener, not necessarily the chorus. <A> The word I've heard is " earbug ". <S> Here's the example there: <S> Person 1: <S> Why are you acting so weird? <S> Person 2: <S> Sorry, I have an earbug. <S> I can't get this stupid Metallica song out of my head.
| You can use " Earworm " which means: a song or melody that keeps repeating in one's mind
|
What is the word that means "not saying anything bad in any way about someone"? I have this sentence where I used the word infringement , and I think I'm exaggerating things a bit by choosing it. Moreover, I want it to mean: not saying anything bad in any way about someone , not speaking of them badly . The sentence: How do I explain my stance without infringement his family and without putting myself in an awkward position in front of him? So, is there a suitable word to put it instead of infringement ? Also, about the word stance , does it mean position ? And, does it fit in that sentence? <Q> It should be infringing <S> and it’s <S> not clear to me what it could mean in this example. <S> disparage transitive verb <S> If you disparage someone or something, you speak about them in a way which shows that you do not have a good opinion of them. <S> [formal] ... <S> Larkin's tendency to disparage literature. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <A> If the context is that you're trying not to say something bad about the family, you could possibly use casting apsersions ? <S> cast aspersions to say harsh critical things about someone or someone's character <S> [formal] ... <S> He tried to discuss his political opponents respectfully, without casting aspersions. <S> (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) <S> So in your case, that would be <S> How do I explain my stance without casting aspersions on his family and without putting myself in an awkward position in front of him? <A> Because your question asks for a term that means the opposite of "infringing" or "disparaging", the word I would recommend is "tact." <S> tact <S> a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense <S> The peace talks required great tact on the part of both leaders. <S> The word "tact" is often used in the form of an adjective ("tactful") or an adverb ("tactfully"). <S> One might also say that something must be said "with tact. <S> " The sentence you provided could then become: <S> How do I explain my stance with tact, so that I do not offend his family or put myself in an awkward position with him? <A> In my opinion, you can both use stance and position . <S> Instead of infringement (which should be without infringing in your sentence, by the way) I'd use offending . <S> How do I explain my stance without offending his family and without putting myself in an awkward position in front of him? <S> (Native German Speaker) <A> It's not entirely clear what you mean by bad —it can be taken in many different ways. <S> It could be an insult, a criticism, a social faux pas, and so on. <S> But I can think of a general word to use that would cover almost all meanings of bad : <S> How do I explain my stance without upsetting his family and without putting myself in an awkward position in front of him? <S> You can be upset in any number of ways—from mild displeasure or annoyance all the way to insult and anger. <S> As for stance , I would say that it means viewpoint or belief here. <S> (It could be equated with one sense of position , but that word has other senses that don't make it quite as relevant.) <S> Stance is perfectly understandable in this sentence. <A> You may be thinking of impugning, it has an archaic meaning "to assault with words". <A> Try diplomatic (adjective) or diplomatically (adverb). <S> diplomatic <S> Exhibiting diplomacy; exercising tact or courtesy; using discussion to avoid hard feelings, fights or arguments. <S> Used like this: <S> How do I explain my stance diplomatically ? <A> I'd say that you want to do it "without badmouthing his family". <S> Here's a definition of the verb "badmouth": to say bad things about (someone or something) : to criticize (someone or something) <S> MW <S> The word is slightly informal and can be either written as a single word or hyphenated ("bad-mouth").
| You could consider disparaging : Your usage of stance seems correct here.
|
Can we use "would" in present tense? I've read this sentence somewhere on the Internet and I'm wondering if it's correct: I would be surprised if it makes any difference. Shouldn't it be: I would be surprised if it could make any difference (Second conditional.) ? <Q> Both sentences are correct, but have slightly different meanings. <S> The first sentence means that the person will feel surprised after the difference is made, whereas the second sentence means that the person would feel surprised if 'it' had the potential or capability to make a difference. <A> If you change X to {modal} X, X doesn't change tense or form. <S> If you want to make a modal verb refer to the past, up and above the meaning of the modal itself, your only choice is to make it perfect by adding have : <S> I go to the park. <S> I would go to the park. <S> I would have gone to the park. <S> Can won't work with <S> have - use could . <S> Ought without not will sound a bit literary unless you say I ought to have X . <S> Should is practically equivalent and doesn't have this limitation. <S> Modals cover a lot of "gray areas" in respect to when something happened, and if it happened or will happen, or if we are talking about possibility, obligation, expectation, etc. <S> Modal expressions aren't the same "type" or category of non-modal past or of present expressions. <A> Think of it on these terms. <S> ("He could make | He is making | He has made | He makes.')
| Both sentences are correct but it is up to you to decide what tense you are referring to.
|
I want a word like "Assure" but on the other way around When someone says: Prepare (by wearing nice clothes) for tonight's date. Over and over again, whenever that person sees you, he tells you that, not to annoy, harras, or bully you, but to make sure that you understand how important is your preparation for that special night. So, we say: He ______ to get prepared for tonight's date. I thought of: He "assured me" to get prepared for tonight's date. And He "made sure/confirmed" that I get prepared for tonight's date. But I found that their meanings are reassure which is like the other way around of the word I want. The text I have that needs that word (and some correction in its construction, I think) is: I'm not sure of how Nathan would react to my preparations. He ______ that I get prepared for our only and last night. That sentence is what a girl says about Nathan, her husband, with a neutral tone, after she didn't have the time to get prepared as she was being told. <Q> This is a phrasal verb, not a single word, but it sounds like keep on may fit the bill. <S> It can be used in different ways, but a simple definition is: to continue or persist. <S> A couple of options, depending on what you would like to emphasize would be: <S> I wasn't sure of how Nathan would react to my (lack of) preparations. <S> He had kept on insisting that I get prepared for our last and only night. <S> or: ... <S> He had kept on about my preparing for our last and only night. <A> You say the statement is made with a "neutral" tone, by which I take you to mean that there's no criticism of Nathan's behavior here. <S> You write "as she was being told" so it seems you might want a verb like demanded or made clear or expects . <S> Nathan demanded that I be ready for the date. <S> I'm not sure how he will react when he finds out that I won't be ready. <S> or Nathan made it very clear that he wanted me to be ready for the date. <S> I'm not sure how he will react when he finds out that I won't be ready. <S> or Nathan said multiple times that he expects me to be ready for the date. <S> I'm not sure how he will react when he finds out that I won't be ready. <A> Assure is more passive: telling someone that something will happen without intervention. <S> It's more like a promise. <S> Ensure is active: making something happen through some enforcing action, such as reminders to prevent someone from forgetting. <S> I'm not sure of how Nathan would react to my preparations. <S> He ensured that I get prepared for our only and last night.
| The word you are looking for is "ensured."
|
Who is the subject(doer)? (There, she’s said it) There, she’s said it. 1- Could you tell me please who the subject(doer) in a sentence like above is? The last subject or questioner(in this case David)? The others(all the peoples who are present there)? The subject is uncertain? 2- What does refer it to? 3- What's the meaning of there here? The full text is: It seems to me,” Henry says, in his slightly pompous way, “that if this is a murder, it would be almost impossible to solve. It seems to have happened in the middle of the night. We were all asleep in our beds. There are no witnesses. Unless someone wants to confess, or share some helpful information about seeing someone creeping about in the night, I don’t see that there’s much to go on.” Beverly listens to him, licks her lips nervously, and waits. No one else volunteers anything. Finally, she blurts out, “There’s something I should probably say.” All eyes turn her way. She almost loses courage. She doesn’t know if the argument between Dana and Matthew is relevant or not, but it will certainly sound damning. “What is it?” David says calmly, as she hesitates. “I heard them arguing, last night.” “Dana and Matthew?” David says, as if in surprise. “Yes.” “What was the argument about, do you know?” She shakes her head. “I heard them shouting, but I couldn’t make out any words. Their room is next to ours, on the same side of the hall.” She looks at her husband. “Henry slept through it all.” “What time was this?” “I don’t know, but late.” “Did it sound . . . violent?” David asks. “I don’t know. It was just raised voices. No crying or anything. Nothing slamming, if that’s what you mean.” There, she’s said it . If Matthew’s done something wrong, then it’s good that she’s told them. <Q> The subject in this sentence is the person referred to by the pronoun "she" -- in this case, this is Beverly. <S> I'm not 100% clear on your thought process, so it's difficult to provide much guidance on how to identify this beyond the fact that "she" is a nominative pronoun and is in the typical position for the subject of a sentence. <S> As for "it", this refers to what she's just said, and harkens back to her earlier line: <S> There’s something I should probably say What she just said, that Dana and Matthew were arguing, is the "something she should probably say". <A> Let's say that I warn you that an heirloom I'm handing you is fragile and that you should take care when examining it. <S> As you take it from my hands you get an incoming tweet on your mobile phone, which you are so eager to read that you fumble the hand-off and drop the heirloom on the floor where it smashes into bits. <S> I might say: <S> There, you've gone and broken it! <S> There is an exclamatory reference to what has just transpired. <A> In spoken English and not written English, the word "there" placed at the beginning of a sentence like yours refers to the expectation of the speaker that the other person will do or say something that the speaker expect him or her to say. <S> The fact this narrator uses it suggests she is telling the story aloud. <S> Even if, in fact, she isn't. <S> It mimics speech. <S> It is a spoken form usually. <S> However, in your text, the author is referring to what comes earlier in the text. <S> Here, it seems to refer to the fact that Beverly is telling the others what she heard. <S> The there comes from the narrator telling the story. <S> "There, I have explained it to you." <S> (I can say to you now here.)
| There refers to the entire explanation.
|
"A Thai youth soccer team were found alive Monday" Why is an adjective "alive" following a verb "found"? or "found alive" is an idiom? I have read this sentence in a newspaper of USA Today, "Thai soccer team found alive after 10 days lost in caves" : A Thai youth soccer team and its coach were found alive Monday in a vast, flooded cave complex where they disappeared more than a week ago, and a photo taken by rescuers showed the smiling faces of several survivors. I wondered why is an adjective "alive" following a verb " found"? or "found alive" is an idiom? <Q> There's no reason an adjective can't follow a verb. <S> The sentence could be rephrased: A Thai youth soccer team and its coach were alive when they were found Monday... <S> Or: A Thai youth soccer team and its coach were found Monday, alive, in a vast, flooded cave complex. <S> "Alive" refers to the state of the team and coach, it doesn't modify the verb "found". <S> There is flexibility in where it can be placed in the sentence without changing the meaning, as long as it's clear who "alive" refers to. <S> "Found" also refers to the team and coach. <S> You could say: A Thai youth soccer team and its coach were found Monday... and not talk about the state of their health. <S> The fact that they were alive can be added to the sentence. <S> Putting it after the verb doesn't change what it modifies. <A> A Thai youth soccer team and its coach were found alive ... <S> "Alive" is an AdjP (adjective phrase) functioning as a 'predicative adjunct': predicative because it is related to a predicand -- in this case the subject "A Thai youth soccer team and its coach" -- and an adjunct because it is an optional item in clause structure. <S> Note that "alive" does not modify the predicand (it is not part of the NP constituent), but simply refers to it. <A> In active voice: Rescuers found the team alive. <S> There, alive is a complement predicated of the object, team . <S> They found the team (to be) alive. <S> In the passive voice with the agent (the rescuers) omitted: <S> The team was found alive.
| "Found alive" in the referenced sentence just means the team and coach were found and they were alive (both words referring to the team and coach). That's a common sentence structure.
|
a word/phrase for something that is very obvious What do we call it when something is so obvious (about someone) that there is no point in stating it? Is there a phrase or an idiom? For example: It is very obvious that he is a drug addict. <Q> An example of an idiom for "obvious" would be "as clear as day": <S> that's he's a drug addict. <S> You can even use words like "clearly" at the beginning of the sentence to emphasise the phrase you're talking about: <S> Clearly , he's a drug addict. <S> It captures the same meaning as "It's very obvious that...", which is what you're looking for, it also adds a layer of emotion to the sentence as well. <A> In addition to Qwerp-Derp's answer, I found stand/stick out a mile which means : to be very obvious or easy to see <S> I want to talk about something very obvious and recognizable about someone, so I can say: His drug addiction sticks out a mile . <S> or She sticks out a mile with her red hair. <A> One word is evident : [Merriam-Webster] : clear to the vision or understanding <S> She spoke with evident anguish about the death of her son. <S> The problems have been evident for quite some time. <S> In your case: It is evident that he is a drug addict. <S> Or a variation: <S> A longer expression is it goes without saying : [Cambridge] used to mean that something is obvious: <S> Of course, it goes without saying that you'll be paid for the extra hours you work. <S> In your case: It goes without saying that he is a drug addict. <A> One idiom is “ right in front of your nose .” <S> In your example, though, I think this phrase would be more likely to be used to emphasize the point rather than to state it outright. <S> In other words, this wording seems rather clumsy, and I would avoid it: <S> It’s <S> right in front of your nose that he’s a drug addict. <S> → not recommended <S> However, the idiom can still be used effectively, if we add a bit of detail. <S> For example: <S> It’s obvious that he’s a drug addict. <S> The signs are right in front of your nose. <S> TFD defines the idiom as: in front of (one's) nose <S> Immediately obvious or clearly apparent. <S> The solution was right in front of my nose, but I just couldn't grasp it .
| It's as clear as day He is evidently a drug addict.
|
What does “lament their teenagers’ noses” mean? “ Parents lament their teenagers’ noses constantly in their phones. ” Could you help me with the understanding of the "lament their teenagers' noses" in this sentence? I am confused about it. <Q> Lament (... something) is used here as a transitive verb which can take an expanded phrase as its direct object. <S> You can find similar examples here: <S> https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/lament_1 <S> In other words, parents are unhappy with (or complain about) <S> the fact that their children spend all the time with their noses buried in their phones. <A> The partial quote in your title suggests that you're parsing the quote such that their refers to the parents. <S> That is, the parents are using their own phones to lament their teenagers' noses. <S> This gives rise to the odd interpretation. <S> It would be more natural to associate their with the teenagers. <S> That is, it is more natural to take the antecedent of <S> their to be “teenagers’” rather than “parents” ( <S> credit: KarlG ). <S> The lament is that teenagers are using their mobile phones excessively. <A> to bury one's nose in phrase OED (d) to bury one's nose in: to become intently occupied with, spec. <S> to read studiously or intently; so to have one's nose in: to be engrossed with <S> As in: <S> “Parents lament their teenagers’ burying their noses in their phones, to the exclusion of all else”
| The noses in the phones then refers more naturally to where the teenagers are facing during mobile phone usage.
|
What does "God" exactly mean here? God, she’d love to get out of here! Could you please tel me what God exactly means here? The fuller text is: Lauren examines a broken fingernail, trying to recall whether she brought a nail file with her. She glances at all the gloomy faces around her. No one appears to be enjoying themselves—even if they wanted to, it would be in bad taste. Candice going off to the library to work, as if nothing has happened, seems a bit callous. God, she’d love to get out of here! And it’s barely past lunchtime. She wonders how much longer they will be trapped in this hotel. <Q> Note that: some people consider this expression offensive”. <S> God! <S> Would you shut up for a minute? <S> My God, you scared me! <S> Oh my God, are you all right? <S> (Macmillan Dictionary) <A> Some people in societies with a Christian tradition use the names of sacred figures such as God, Jesus, etc, as an oath or exclamation, particularly to intensify an utterance, often with an exclamation mark afterwards, e.g. God! <S> It's hot today; <S> Jesus! <S> I'm tired. <S> Some Roman Catholics invoke the entire "Holy Family" - Jesus, Mary and Joseph! <S> I want a drink! <S> Using these words in this way does not necessarily imply strong religious belief, in fact many Christians consider such swearing to be wrong, and a form of profanity. <A> God in your example is used to emphasize what you are saying when you are surprised, annoyed, or amused (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). <A> Visitor @goelakash says in a comment that it's not clear how swearing is involved, and asks whether a living person, a president, say, can be invoked merely by name in such a locution. <S> It's not swearing as in cussing ( <S> cursing) but as in telling the truth. <S> The exclamation is a shortened form of By God , that is, an invocation of God to attest to the truthfulness of the utterance. <S> We swear by something, for example, "by all that is holy". <S> God, it's hot today! <S> or Jeez it's cold in here! <S> Speakers have long lost the sense that an oath is involved when using these exclamations. <S> They are merely very strong emphatics and can express intense emotion, such as anger or dismay or alarm. <S> Jesus Mary and Joseph, what the f--k are you doing to my car!? <S> To swear by a living person or some other ad hoc entity, we need to use the preposition by . <S> By the Trump brand, I'm telling the truth, I say! <S> The god's honest truth! <S> P.S. Speakers who consider such language truly offensive are a small minority. <S> The speech of many people who are good and devout, and who are kind and charitable to others, is peppered with such "oaths". <S> But on those occasions that require propriety most of them would rein themselves in. <S> P.P.S. <S> I've spelled the word f-- <S> k only because the answer might get censored otherwise. <A> Although there is no "!" <S> just after god, it is used as an exclamation. <S> Notice <S> the exclamation at the end of the sentenceThe author remarks as with how much will or love <S> she wanted to get out of here. <S> She was very willing to get out. <S> One example: "God, how beautiful that painting is!"
| God is used in this case as an interjection : used for expressing strong feelings such as anger, surprise, or worry.
|
GRE verbal question ("legislation" and "autonomy") Federal efforts to regulate standards on educational achievements have been met by intransigence; local governments feel that government imposition represents an undue infringement on their _____. This is a GRE verbal question. The answer on the blank is "autonomy". But, I am wondering why "legislation" does not work on this blank. <Q> Legislation is law (also known as statutes or code ) enacted by the legislative branch of a government (also known as legislators ). <S> Autonomy is a civil right to self-determination (that is, to make decisions for yourself about what you will do .) <S> Infringement is undue limitation or interference. <S> You can infringe on civil rights. <S> You can't infringe on legislation. <S> Federal laws or court rulings that limit or interfere with local legislation don't infringe on the legislation, but they may infringe on the legislators' civil rights to make laws for themselves. <A> It doesn't make sense to infringe upon an infringement. <S> This would lead to a double-negative of sorts, which is generally considered poor form in English grammar. <A> on their autonomy. <S> Local governments are the place where education standards are set. <S> They want to feel free (have autonomy) to decide standards. <S> In fact, these are usually at the state level but local governments have a big role to play as (public) education is all locally funded in the US. <S> Local and state governments in fact have autonomy to decide educational issues and do not like their rights to do so to be infringed upon. <A> I would say it's not so much a matter of the word legislation "not working" in the blank, but more a matter of autonomy being a much better fit. <S> This happens a lot with GRE verbal questions. <S> They don't merely asking which of the two (or more) words can fit in the blank grammatically, but they also expecting some degree of reading comprehension, so that the best word is chosen. <S> As a simpler example, imagine a sentence like: <S> It was summertime, the time when Paul liked to look at the _______ leaves. <S> or: Paul was in New York City, looking at the long line of _______ taxis. <S> We can put any color we want in those blanks, and the sentences would still be grammatical. <S> But if it's summertime, we expect most leaves to be green, and if we are in New York, we expect most of the taxicabs to be yellow. <S> Green and yellow are better answers than pink and red – even though nothing prevents a taxi company from painting their cabs red. <S> With that in mind, let's say that a local school district has recently passed some new legislation, but a new federal mandate will wreak havoc on the new city law. <S> In that case, I suppose a lawyer arguing in court on behalf of city might say: <S> The city government feels that new federal impositions represents an undue infringement on their legislation. <S> That makes sense, but I had to contrive an example to make it work. <S> The following sentence, on the other hand, makes sense on its own and doesn't need a hypothetical example as a backdrop: The city government feels that new federal impositions represent an undue infringement on their autonomy.
| Legislation is an enacted piece of law that can be viewed as an infringement or restriction upon individual freedom. Autonomy is the freedom of an individual to make their own decisions and policies derived from the Greek auto, meaning self, and the Greek nomo meaning law.
|
How do natives say how they would like to pay? How do natives answer the question "How would you like to pay?" When I want to pay with my bank card, sometimes they ask credit or debit? Sometimes they ask Visa or Mastercard? So I now usually say "credit", or "Visa". Does that sound natural? Besides to what you think it's natural to say, what do you think about the following options? Card? Bank card? By card? With card? On my/the card? Credit/Debit (card) Visa/Mastercard Additionally, what if you want to pay with cash? Cash? By cash? <Q> How would you like to pay? <S> In short, informal interactions, such as with a cashier, it's perfectly fine to respond with one word. <S> Or, you don't need to use a proper sentence with a subject and a verb: Cash Card etc. <S> If you need to specify, again, you can be brief: Visa <S> Mastercard <S> Apple Pay Debit <S> Credit etc. <S> If you want to use a preposition, you can use with . <S> In my AmE opinion, you cannot use *by with cash or card : With cash With a/my card <S> This is generally short for <S> I will pay with cash/my card , or in response to "Will you pay with cash or card?" <S> BrE users are saying "by card" works form them: By card (BrE) <S> It wasn't mentioned in the OP <S> and I completely forgot, but @JeremyC points out that you can say by check/cheque : <S> By check (AmE) <S> By cheque (BrE) <S> I think on my card is okay in a few cases: <S> You can charge it on my card. <S> You can put it on my card. <S> I agree with @J.R. <S> Charge it to my card <S> sounds better to me. <A> The fewer words, the better: "Cash", "Credit", or "Debit". <S> If they want more information, they'll ask. <S> There was a time when they needed to know the type of card, (e.g., Visa or MasterCard), but that's rare today. <A> Depends on the context. <S> People usually say "By card". <S> The merchant also usually doesn't care * , because they'll plug your card in a machine, that reads any of them. <S> * Sometimes merchants may be unable to support a few cards, such as AMEX. <S> In that case it might be useful to say if yours is a Visa/Mastercard/etc. <A> Honestly, I usually just hold up the card (if I’m going to use it <S> and there’s a terminal I need to use it in), or hand them the card (if I don’t have a terminal) or the cash. <S> [United States] <A> The correct answer depends on what question they asked, exactly. <S> If they ask "How would you like to pay? <S> " you can say something like "cash", or "by credit card", or "debit card, please". <S> Other answers talk about the exact choice of words to use here. <S> If they ask "Credit or debit? <S> ", then you have to use either the word "credit" or the word "debit". <S> This will affect the way that the payment is processed, and the details are a little complicated. <S> It's fine to say "credit" if it's a credit card and "debit" for debit cards. <S> If you'd like more information, try doing a Google search for " Should I say credit or debit ? " <S> Likewise, if they ask "Visa or MasterCard?" (or "What type of card is it?"), then you have to tell them who your card processor is: Visa or Mastercard (or Discover or American Express). <S> If you're paying by cash and they ask "credit or debit" or "Visa or MasterCard", you can say: "Oh, uh, I've got cash, is that all right?" <A> Generic Answers Are Usually Better <S> I will answer from my own perspective as both a consumer and a business owner in the United States. <S> Here, the question is generally asked because the cashier needs to press the right key on a point-of-sale system to prepare the transaction for payment. <S> The generic choices are typically: cash check <S> debit <S> credit <S> Any of these four are acceptable answers to a generic question from cashiers. <S> However, some point-of-sale systems differentiate between different credit card systems and networks, or have separate readers, PIN pads, or other devices depending on the payment type. <S> If it truly matters, the cashier may ask you “Visa or MasterCard? <S> “, or ask other clarifying questions, so that they know which keys to press on the register. <S> They may also need to know which of their various payment peripherals to present or direct you to. <S> The various examples you gave all seem like reasonable responses, but are possibly too detailed for most routine transactions. <S> Answering a generic question with more detail is sometimes a polite way to ensure that a less widely-accepted payment method (e.g. American Express, Discover, or Google Pay) will be okay before presenting it, but this is neither required nor expected in most situations.
| No need to say anything, though as stated above, a single word of “card” or “cash” is generally sufficient, and if they need to know more (e.g. credit or debit), they’ll ask.
|
Using an idiom, how to describe a two-faced friend who speaks ill of you behind your back? In Arabic, there's a handy expression that literally translates as A mirror to your face, a prickle to your nape (back). It describes a two-faced friend who is so nice to your face that you'd see yourself in him, but behind your back would say all kinds of bad, defamatory stuff about you. The Arabic expression is always used as a standalone remark. That is, without being connected to a subject. Husband: I couldn't believe Jack would say any of those things about me. I was shocked when I overheard him say I was mean and insecure. Wife: A mirror to your face, a prickle to your nape. <Q> As you note, two-faced is a good expression for that. <S> Backstabber has a similar meaning of "someone covertly taking actions against you without you knowing". <A> I would use backstabber : <S> One who attacks or betrays someone in a deceitful, underhanded, or treacherous way. <S> He proved to be a backstabber in business, assaulting the character of his competition to get ahead in the game. <S> I thought Mary was my friend, but then she said those mean things behind my back. <S> She turned out to be nothing but a backstabber. <A> Though not quite an idiom, in the US, you can call such a person a Benedict Arnold . <S> Benedict Arnold was a military officer who served as a general for the American Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. <S> He famously betrayed the US and defected to the British. <S> His name has since been used as a byword to mean someone who betrays their friends. <S> I suspect this wouldn't be used in BrE English that much. <A> Since you seem to be looking for a phrase, I think this quote from Shakespeare would do nicely: <S> One may smile, and smile, and be a villain. <S> The phrase comes from Act 1, Scene 5 of Hamlet . <S> In this scene, Hamlet discovers that Claudius, his seemingly-friendly uncle (and stepfather), murdered Hamlet's father to seize his throne (and Hamlet's mother). <S> On learning this, he describes Claudius like so: <S> O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain! <S> My tables 1 —meet 2 <S> it is <S> I set it down <S> That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain— 1 tables: writing tablets 2 meet: fitting, proper <S> You can see how the phrase fits your criteria: it describes a person who is nice and pleasant to your face, but is doing terrible things to you in secret (like murdering your father). <S> The main drawback is that the phrase is not common enough to be called an "expression" or an "idiom". <S> If the listener doesn't catch the literary reference, the phrase loses some of its impact, since the words of the phrase don't actually say who the villain is hurting. <S> Fortunately, most English speakers have studied Hamlet in school at some point, so there is at least a chance that they will recognize it. <S> One last note: Shakespeare's definition of "villain" was not quite the definition we use today. <S> In his usage, it describes someone who lacks noble qualities, in both senses of the word "noble": that which is good and admirable, and that which is characteristic of the nobility. <S> (These concepts were more synonymous in Shakespeare's time than they are today.) <S> See this question from the English Language & Usage StackExchange for further details. <S> Anyone who hears you say the phrase will most likely assume the modern definition of "villain" ( "a deliberate scoundrel or criminal" ), which is close enough. <A> play a double game; be a double-dealer; be double-faced; be two-faced; carry fire in one hand and water in the other; double cross; <S> double-dealing; double-faced tactics; have two faces; say one thing and do another; use dual tactics: Double-tongued Duplicity double dealing and back stabbing
| A wolf in sheep's clothing is similar as well, referring to someone who's outwardly a good person, but hides their true evil nature.
|
Why does the phrase "cross my fingers' mean just "cross middle finger over index finger"? Originally, I thought "cross my fingers' would mean something like this picture shows: But by a search for the phrase " cross my fingers images " on the web, I get most of pictures like this: So, I want to know: Is there a reason (if there is) why "cross my fingers' means just "cross middle finger over index finger"? Is there a phrase to describe all the five figures of both hands get crossed just like the first picture shows? <Q> To cross one's fingers is a phrase going all the way back to ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible, a gesture used by Jewish judges. <S> This gesture was later adopted by the Christians who saw the symbolism of the Christian cross in it. <S> It means the person crossing their index and middle fingers is praying for good luck, hoping something good or something they wish for will happen. <S> The first picture you include in your question can be described as, "lace one's fingers" or "interlaced fingers". <S> She laced her fingers. <S> He rests his hands on the table, fingers interlaced. <S> Some also call it "folding/folded hands". <S> However, "to fold one's hands" is ambiguous, and can be interpreted differently by different people. <A> People cross their fingers when they hope for a favorable outcome or wish for good luck. <S> Wikipedia has To cross one's fingers is a hand gesture commonly used to wish for luck. <S> Occasionally it is interpreted as an attempt to implore God for protection. <S> The gesture is referred to by the common expressions "cross your fingers", "keep your fingers crossed", or just "fingers crossed". <S> Some people, mostly children, also use the gesture to excuse their telling of a white lie. <S> By extension, a similar belief is that crossing one's fingers invalidates a promise being made. <S> There are probably few different ways to describe the version with the hands. <S> I think the most common way to say this (at least in AmE) might be folding your hands , though I might be forgetting one. <S> fold one's hands to bring one's hands together, palm to palm, with the fingers interlocking; to grasp one's hands together, palm to palm, perpendicular to one another. <S> Please fold your hands and put them on the table while the teacher reads you a story. <S> Please fold your hands and be quiet. <S> You can also say clasp your hands , interlace your fingers , interlock your fingers . <S> Clasp your hands could also mean cupping and grasping your hands, without interlocking the fingers. <S> Also, hand clasping seems to also be scientific jargon. <A> To add to the existing answers: "clasping one's hands" is also an acceptable description of your first picture (although it might also refer to different gestures involving holding one hand in the other). <S> And crossed fingers, in addition to being a good luck gesture, can also (usually jokingly) refer to lying - kids would cross their fingers behind their backs when telling a lie or making a promise they don't intend to keep. <A> In addition to what the other answers said: The definition of "cross" applicable here would be "intersect", as in the meeting of two things stretching in different directions. <S> This is clearly what's happening in the second image, where the index finger can be seen passing from one side to the other side of the middle finger, thus the two fingers cross at some point in the middle. <S> For the first image, the fingers are mostly parallel rather than "crossing". <S> Of course these aren't hard and fast rules - there can certainly be some crossing going on when folding one's hands / lacing one's fingers, or not so much crossing when crossing one's fingers, even when you just look at it from a different angle, but this is the basic idea. <A> Some may interpret this as making the sign of the Cross, from Christianity, but now it typically does not have any religious connotation. <S> "Cross your fingers" is a common phrase someone might make before doing something risky. <S> The right phrase for the first gesture you show is "folding one's hands", at least in American English. <A> To address the latter part of the question, ”cross middle finger over index finger": This is likely due to physiology. <S> Most people can cross the middle over index, or rather the index under the middle. <S> Many can also cross the ring finger over the pinky. <S> Some may be able to cross the middle and ring fingers. <S> The middle and ring fingers are generally the longest fingers and thus have a greater ability to cross others. <S> Some people can cross middle over index and ring over pinky at the same time.
| "Cross your fingers" refers to to this specific gesture because it is traditionally a sign of good luck.
|
What does "blade" mean exactly in this sentence? I saw this sentence in an online article . Like its predecessors—the Countach, Diablo, and Murciélago—the Aventador SV is an impossibly wide, ridiculously low-slung blade of a car, with doors that scissor skyward and a huge V-12 behind the seats. I know blade means a dashing man, but not sure it applies here. None of the word's definitions appear to fit here. What does it mean exactly? <Q> Here's my guess. <S> Blade doesn't have special meaning here. <S> Blades can be "wide" or thin, and "low-slung" makes be think of a sword that's hung (or slung ) on one's side so that it's low to the ground. <S> I assume the car also rides low to the ground. <S> I think the metaphor continues by saying that the doors "scissor" towards the sky. <S> This also references the name "scissor doors". <S> And the body is designed to cut (= move quickly) through the air, like a blade. <S> From Wikipedia <S> The Lamborghini Aventador is a mid-engined sports car produced by the Italian automotive manufacturer Lamborghini. <S> In keeping with Lamborghini tradition, the Aventador is named after a fighting bull. <S> Aventador (pronounced [aβentaˈðoɾ]) earned the Trofeo de la Peña La Madroñera for its courage in the arena in Zaragoza, Spain, in 1993. <A> The pattern {noun1} of a {noun2} is a form of metaphorical comparison, where noun2 is being called a noun1. <S> He was a lion of a man. <S> It was a smokestack of a hat. <S> So the car is being likened to a blade (knife, sword, fan, axe, adze) -- something sleek and aerodynamic. <S> It has very little ground clearance and has itself little height, like a blade lying with its broad side parallel to the ground. <A> They probably mean the front lower part of the car, which means there's almost no gap between the ground and the bottom of the car.
| The car is being compared to a blade, like a sword blade. There's also a possible bullfighting reference, as apparently Lamborghinis are named after famous fighting bulls.
|
An idiom describing a strong desire for alcohol Is there any idiom in English describing a strong desire to have a drink or two (or more) of an alcoholic drink? EDIT: I am interested more about an idiom describing a case of an alcoholic wanting a bottle of some alcoholic drink (for example, whiskey). Something like a person would say about himself: "I really ______________ today", especially when the great such opportunity is coming like a banquet or a birthday party. <Q> A very common verb used here is crave : <S> They really crave a drink. <S> But one could crave ice-cream as well. <S> To give anything for : I'd give anything for a drink. <S> The same meaning goes for die for, as in: <S> I'm dying for a drink. <S> He's dying for some chocolate cake. <S> Less strong: I could really use a drink. <S> I could really use some coffee. <S> There are, of course, many other ways to say this. <A> In US English, a strong desire for something, especially something like a drug, is sometimes called a jones , and a person can be said to be jonesing for something. <S> So you could say He's jonesing for a drink. <S> or He's got a jones for some booze. <A> People usually crave chocolate or have a hankering for a hamburger, but whenever we talk about substance abuse or habitually self-destructive behavior, we may say that they are fiending for something. <S> Slang. <S> to desire greatly: just another junkie fiending after his next hit; As soon as I finish a cigarette <S> I'm fiending to light another. <S> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiending <A> Hanker : to have a strong or persistent desire is a word that could be used in this case. <S> If you take a look at the synonyms, some similar words are hunger, thirst, and long, but the nuance given to hanker is that it: suggests the uneasy promptings of unsatisfied appetite or desire. <S> Two ways that you could use it are: <S> He's got a hankering for a bottle of whiskey <S> He's hankering for a bottle of whiskey <A> One can say gagging for a drink, in the same way as gasping for a cigarette. <S> A number of online sources focus on the idiomatic (in the UK at least) use of this to refer to sexual lust, but we equally use it to mean thirst , e.g. see gag for at The Free Dictionary: <S> To have a strong desire for something, especially a beverage of some kind. <S> Primarily heard in UK, Ireland. <S> Good lord, I am gagging for a cup of tea. <S> If someone is gagging for something, they want it very much. <S> I arrived there late, hungry and gagging for a drink. <A> Phrases drink like a fish (usually describing others as alcoholics) down a bottle <S> go for a drink <S> throw back (as in do a shot) <S> sloshed / sloshed to the gills (be very drunk) <S> drink happy <S> (This is the only one that really fits into your desired sentence and isn't really a common phrase but works as an adjective and in the right context <S> could be understandable). <S> Examples <S> To fit with your prompt precisely <S> I'm really drink happy today <S> Alternatives <S> I'm down to throw a couple back <S> I'll probably drink like a fish today <A> "I could really use a drink today." <S> (AmE) - It's generally understood that you mean an alcoholic drink. <S> From the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Drink <S> ...2) alcoholic liquid. <S> Have we got time for a quick drink? <S> Whose turn is it to buy drinks ? <A> Here's a colloquial "Australianism" to describe this: Tonguing <S> i.e., "Mate, I'm absolutely tonguing for a pint" http://www.slang.com.au/t/tonguing-for-a-beer/ https://becomingaussie.wordpress.com/category/speaking-australian/ <A> There are two very good and more importantly extremely popular expressions that I can think of: to get wasted which, with respect to alcohol, means to get completely drunk and to have a cold one which is most typically understood as having a bottle of beer . <S> The expression to get wasted is a variation on the idiom wasted which is usually defined as follows: <S> very drunk or ill from drugs <S> Examples: <S> Dude, I really wanna <S> get wasted today! <S> Let's go to a pub tonight. <S> It's Friday night! <S> Guys, let's get wasted ! <S> And here's the definition for the expression a cold one : a cold glass, can or bottle of beer <S> Examples: <S> There's nothing better than a couple cold ones after a hard day's work. <S> Pass me another cold one there, Jim. <A> If you are focused on an alcoholic, as per your edit, the it could be: <S> I'm really going off the wagon today. <S> Goping off the wagon is a reference to being on the water wagon, ie. <S> staying sober, not drinking alcohol. <S> If the focus is less on an alcoholic, but more on a person 'needing' a bit more than a drink you could use: I could really do with a few. <A> "How dry I am." <S> This line from a (now rather obscure) 1919 song is still often used ironically to express a desire for alcohol. <S> "Dry" is a common term for abstinence, as in "a dry tavern" which serves only soft drinks.
| I really could do with a drink today I'm ready to get sloshed
|
how she is charming / how charming she is What difference, if any, is there between "how charming she is" and "how she is charming" in the following? John understands how she is charming / how charming she is. I'd appreciate your help. <Q> The version John understands how charming she is. <S> is about how much charm she has. <S> The version <S> John understands how she is charming. <S> is about what makes her charming or why they call her charming. <A> The other two answers are both correct, even though they are slightly different. <S> Why? <S> Because " He noticed how she is charming " is ambiguous. <S> It can either mean: <S> He noticed that <S> she is charming <S> (Tᴚoɯɐuo's interpretation) or <S> He noticed in what way <S> she is charming (Alex_ander's interpretation) <S> With no other context clues (like the text going on to describe the specific ways in which she is charming), I'd say the first is the more likely meaning a native speaker would infer. <S> The other version (" John understands how charming she is ") isn't ambiguous, it always refers to how much charm she has . <A> how charming she is refers to the degree of her charm. <S> He noticed how the ladder was wobbly. <S> He noticed how wobbly the ladder was. <S> The first refers to the fact that the ladder is wobbly. <S> The second refers to the degree of the ladder's wobble. <A> John understands how charming she is . <S> What this is saying is that John is coming to the realization that the girl is really charming. <S> That is, he now understands that she is beautiful and attractive to a high degree. <S> The word why is an adverb and it can have many different usages, but in our case here it talks specifically about the extent or degree to which the girl is charming. <S> John understands how she is charming . <S> In this example, we're saying that John has no problem understanding why or in what way people find or think that the girl charming. <S> I think this still needs more clarification, so, please take a look at the following examples: <S> You will never understand <S> how good chocolate truffle cake is unless you try it yourself! <S> The only way to understand to what degree chocolate truffle cake is good is to actually taste it. <S> I don't really understand how PCs are good . <S> On the contrary, I think they are total crap compared to Mac computers! <S> (This is just an example to make a point. <S> I'm not trying to be offensive or anything like that.) <S> Here, I'm saying that I don't understand why people think that PC computers are good. <S> In what way are they good? <S> I think that Macs are way better.
| how she is charming refers to the fact of her being charming.
|
If "I read the book in five minutes" is to duration, what is "I read the book five minutes ago?" If duration is the general term for the class of words that reference the time difference between now and the future when an event is finished (i.e. I read the book in five minutes ), what is the general term for the class of words that reference the time difference between now and the past when an event occurred (i.e. I read the book five minutes ago ? Context: I am looking for the hypernym to use as a descriptor that references how long ago an event occurred with respect to the current time. <Q> Recentness seems to be a word (or recency ) that you can use if the times would typically be short. <S> Time ago is a short two word phrase that would work regardless of the length of time. <A> If Age is too generic, perhaps elapsed time would work. <S> It refers to the difference between any two points in time. <S> (In many cases it is used synonymously with duration , as the two points chosen are the start and end of an event.) <A> The present time: how long ago an event occurred with respect to the present time. <S> past time of occurrence [yesterday, two months ago. <S> etc.] <S> duration is not about when something occurs. <S> It's about how long it occurs.
| Age might work, even though typically age is used in terms of days/months/weeks, or something not recent in relation to the context.
|
I don't understand grammar and meaning 'to hate did not back down' I don't understand grammar 'to hate did not back down' and meaning of whole sentence. Is it special style of the news? President Trump’s favorite news outlet to hate did not back down from the commander-in-tweet’s recent attack on its reporting. <Q> It's not "to hate <S> did not back down", it's two separate phrases. <S> ( President Trump's favorite news outlet to hate ) ( did not back down ) <S> That is, the subject in the sentence is "President Trump's favorite news outlet to hate", which means "The news outlet that President Trump is most fond of hating." <A> It is not a phrase because the sentence should be parsed differently. <S> It goes like this <S> President Trump’s favorite (news outlet to hate) did not back down from the commander-in-tweet’s recent attack on its reporting. <S> So to hate follows news outlet and describes what it does and is its attribute. <S> And the news outlet didn't back down from the commander-in-tweet’s recent attack on its reporting. <S> The sentence core is: Trump's news outlet did not back down <A> I think you're confused about how to break that down into parts of speech. <S> The subject of the sentence is not "President Trump's favorite news outlet". <S> Rather, it is "President Trump's favorite news outlet to hate".
| You're parsing it slightly incorrectly.
|
A teacher said to use "I don't need that" instead of "I won't be needing that" because there is no "continuous in modal verbs" Oh, friends, I had this interesting discussion with one teacher just now, and all I want to know is, who's right? MP, today at 18:00 you're welcome. I work in Cambridge assessment as well, so if you need some help with your exam preparation, I'l be happy to help you AL, today at 18:07 I won't be needing that. MP, today at 19:23 I don't need , there's no Continuous in modal verbs AL, today at 19:25 Who says? MP, today at 19:26 Cambridge grammar and common sense AL, today at 19:26 I was expressing a continuous action with a seed of personal everlasting certainty. AL, today at 19:29 Well, you might be grammatically correct about it, yet, English is not all about grammar only, like in Russian there's a certain way of expressing yourself by only breaking certain prescriptive rules. I guess you know that already. You can't but agree because even Cambridge, Oxford and any other agree with that. MP, today at 19:30 I agree with that, but why do you deliberately choose to sound like poorly educated person? AL, today at 20:13 Who said it sounds like a poorly educated person? AL, today at 20:20 I am well sure you disagree with yourself on this matter although you insist that this is bad Grammar, in your opinion, it actually is not in fact. I would recommend you take a look at some advanced explanations concerning the continuous tense, verbs of opinion, preference and necessity, and the conjunction of the "BE+VERB+ING". MP, today at 20:34 of course you are absolutely right! I've just lived in UK for 35 years and completed CELTA, TESOL and MA in language teaching. And Cambridge grammar is wrong as well [Photo] https://vk.com/photo474946374_456239079 MP, today at 20:47 this is bad grammar that's used only by teenagers who are trying to be cool and poorly educated people who don't use "s" after he/she/it in Present Simple. they just say "He work" instead of "he works" the question remains, why do you want to sound like them? There're a lot of mistakes that native speakers make, but it doesn't mean you have to copy AL, today at 21:02 Sorry, but you're trying to compare absolutely different things. Saying "He work" is definitely bad grammar, that's basic subject-verb agreement. What I was talking about is a very different part of grammar. You mean to say that sentences like "Don't put away that screwdriver, I'll be needing it soon" or "She's thinking about him now that's why she's crying", or even "I'm wanting a beer right now" are absolutely incorrect while most people speak like that and use it in both formal and informal English. Not everything grammar tells us should be accepted entirely. <Q> Both "I won't be needing that" and "I don't need that" are grammatical. <S> The problem with your teacher's logic is that "need" is not a modal in either of those. <S> Two easy-to-detect signs of modality are: <S> They have the syntactic properties associated with auxiliary verbs in English, principally that they can undergo subject–auxiliary inversion (in questions, for example) and can be negated by the appending of <S> not after the verb . <S> They do not inflect (in the modern language) except insofar as some of them come in present–past (present–preterite) pairs. <S> They do not add the ending -(e)s in the third-person singular (the present-tense modals therefore follow the preterite-present paradigm). <S> Wikipedia <S> For the first point I listed, it should be pretty obvious that not does not follow <S> need in "I don't need". <S> For the second point, since people say "he need s ...", we know it's not modal in this sense either. <S> "Need" specifically is a semi-modal . <S> Your sentence needs modification were it to use <S> need as a modal: <S> I need not have help. <S> According to the statistics here , the modal form of need is not used very often in American English (which is why I think it sounds old fashioned). <S> A COCA search for <S> BE needing (capitalizing "be" means it matches all forms of the verb, such as <S> be , were , <S> 're , etc.) <S> returns 356 results, so <A> There certainly can be "modal + continuous infinitive" <S> I won't be singing at the club tonight <S> I must be talking to angel. <S> John might be sleeping so don't go upstairs. <S> Notice in the first case "I won't sing" would express a promise or determination (I won't sing, not even for a million dollars!), whereas "I won't be singing" is just describing a future state. <S> "I must talk to an angel" would refer to a future time, whereas "I must be talking" is about a current state. <S> So using the continuous Your example of "won't be needing" is common for spoken English, but less so in written. <S> Google does offer some examples: <S> And what of the senior who learns on the day before commencement that he won't be needing his cap and gown, ... <S> But in general "I won't need ..." can express the same fact, and would be preferred in written English. <A> Need isn't a modal auxiliary in either of your examples <S> ( I don't need that ; I won't be needing that ), but rather a lexical verb, just like, say, play . <S> It is true that "there's no Continuous in modal verbs" (i.e., as I understood it, modal auxiliaries don't have any secondary inflectional forms, such as the gerund-participle, and therefore don't occur in constructions where they'd be required – note the ungrammaticalness of <S> * We're canning to do so ), but that doesn't apply to need in the mentioned examples. <S> If need were strictly a modal auxiliary, both of the mentioned sentences would be ungrammatical as need would lack the plain form ( I don't need would be ungrammatical) as well as the gerund-participle (the second example). <S> But, as evidenced by numerous instances of need being used as a lexical verb, <S> need <S> isn't a pure modal auxiliary. <S> However, even as a lexical verb, need isn't commonly used in constructions where its gerund-participle form is required. <S> Other verbs, such as for example, mean , or want follow the same pattern. <S> For instance, LDOCE instructs learners simply and clearly (and wrongly) that " Need is not used in the progressive". <S> Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and your example is one such exception. <S> See <S> this <S> regarding the construction will be needing / meaning / wanting .
| I think it's safe to say that educated speakers do use "will not be needing" and similar (I would).
|
Yours Lovingly and Yours Loving Can an informal Letter end as: 1) Yours Loving,John OR 2) Yours Lovingly,John OR 3) Your Loving Son,John I guess the 2nd and the 3rd ones are okay; I'm not sure about the 1st one, please help. <Q> However, Yours Loving is unusual and somewhat puzzling. <S> So unless you want to mystify the recipient, it's best avoided. <S> Also, in all three examples, the word loving would usually be in lower case rather than with a capital L . <S> And your name would be on the line below. <S> Apart from that, examples 2 & 3 seem fine, assuming that your love for the recipient is what you especially want to convey. <A> When looking at the first two versions, the most common way of ending a letter with the words you picked would be: <S> Lovingly yours, John. <S> Typically, an adjective comes before yours . <S> The last version is fine. <S> Although, in it and the others, only the first word and any proper nouns should be capitalized. <A> I agree with the other answers that "Yours Loving" sounds very odd (but that if it's informal you can sign off however you like). <S> However they don't explain the why. <S> Valedictions such as "Lovingly yours", "Sincerely yours", etc. are all variations on shortening the phrase <S> "I am yours". <S> "Am" is a verb and so it has to be modified by an adverb <S> : "I am lovingly yours", "I am sincerely yours" etc. <S> If someone said, "I am loving yours," I would respond, "You are loving my what?" <S> :) <S> Consider the responses to this very similar question: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/166374/314427
| You can end an informal letter any way you like as this is a matter of preference and possibly etiquette rather than grammar.
|
Looking for a word for: "not easily recognizable" I am looking for a word. The word should mean something that is: "not easily recognizable" E.g. 'His hat was not >>easily recognizable<<' 'The problem was not >>easily recognizable<<' <Q> Inconspicuous adj. <S> not easily noticed or seen; not prominent or striking <A> For one of your cases, you could use 'obscure' <S> (MW, noun definitions 1c and 2) not clearly seen or easily distinguished <S> not readily understood or clearly expressed <S> But this doesn't apply as well to the hat. <S> As expressed in comments above, what part of 'not recognizable' applies? <S> Is the hat not recognizable as a hat? <S> Is the hat hidden by something else? <A> If you are looking for a word that means "has not been encountered before", the best word would be " unfamiliar ". <S> This would fit with your second example: "The problem was unfamiliar" would mean "I have not seen this problem before, so I do not know the answer to it". <S> For the hat example, this would mean "I have not seen his hat before", but it's not clear you want that meaning. <A> The hat was uncommon; it was an uncommon hat. <S> However, I would say it like this: <S> The style of hat was uncommon . <S> For clothing and hats, styles can be said to be common or uncommon in terms of being easily recognizable. <A> The closest thing that I can think of would be unidentifiable : <S> If something or someone is unidentifiable, you are not able to say exactly what it is or who they are. <S> Your examples <S> : His hat was unidentifiable . <S> The problem was unidentifiable . <A> How about peculiar? <S> It's always used to refer to something/someone/anything really that does not fit into the speaker's previous experience.
| The problem was obscure Obscure
|
“Equivalent part on my body” or “the equivalent part of my body”? What's the correct option? The former yields zero results on Google the latter has one . So, I'm not very sure about the correct answer. Example sentence: She stood silently beside me, her shoulder and hip making contact with the equivalent parts of/on my body. <Q> The sentence: She stood silently beside me, her shoulder and hip making contact with the equivalent parts of/on my body. <S> can be simplified by writing it this way: <S> She stood silently beside me, her shoulder and hip touching mine. <S> meaning : her shoulder and hip were touching my shoulder and hip. <S> The pronoun mine makes it unnecessary to make the sentence longer. <A> If you wanted to explain what was happening, you'd be better off saying ... <S> her shoulder and hip making contact with mine . <S> It's clear, concise and neater prose. <S> If you insisted on your own construction, your shoulder and hip are parts of your body rather than on your body. <S> On your body is really better suited to describing tattoos, blemishes or other marks. <S> While preferences are personal, I wouldn't be keen on body's counterparts as an option. <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterpart <A> She stood silently beside me, her shoulder and hip making contact with the equivalent parts of/on my body. <S> of - equivalent parts of my body - standing or lying side by side. <S> on - equivalent parts on my body - subject is on your body. <S> under - equivalent parts under my body - subject is under your body (in contact). <S> below - equivalent parts below my body - subject is under your body (probably non-contact). <S> above - equivalent parts above my body - subject is above your body (non-contact). <S> over - equivalent parts over my body - subject is above your body (probably in contact) <S> Exception: <S> Someone or something can be on you if it's not in contact with something else, particularly the ground; when referring to the other object/person in its entirety and equivalently. <S> Examples: <S> You are standing and someone is standing on your feet. <S> both are not the same height, then their feet are on yours, there isn't an equivalency. <S> both are a similar height and holding hands <S> then each person's parts are touching equivalent parts of the other's body. <S> The word to also means beside, as long as you are not either on or under . <S> I put my hand to their forehead. <S> (Implies side by side). <S> They were lying down face up , and I put my hand on their forehead. <S> They were lying down face down , and I put my hand under their forehead. <S> There's no opportunity to use of . <S> How do I choose between "as to", "on", "of", and "about"? <S> Provides information “on”, “of” or “about” somthing?
| You can put your hand on (above or beside) or under a different part of someone's body (or something), without an equivalency there's nothing to be equivalent of .
|
help in "more work than he can help" The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives the following example sentence, along with its interpretation in brackets: He never does more work than he can help (= he does as little as possible) . Actually, the problem lies not so much with the meaning of "help" as with the structure. Consider a structurally identical sentence: He never does more work than he is given. That means, for example, that if he is given 10 pieces of work, he will not do an eleventh. He only does what he is asked to do. Back to the OP sentence. Suppose "help" means "avoid." Then the original sentence can be rephrased as below: He never does more work than he can avoid (doing). Bearing in mind that it means "he does as little as possible," we can see the puzzle is that the intended interpretation is actually the reverse of the above sentence: He never does more work than he cannot avoid (doing) . I.e., he never does more work than he has to do; he only does as much as he has to do. <Q> Late Edit: I see from comments & other answers there is still potential for some confusion with the word "help" in this context. <S> It has no connection to "assisting" It does not share meaning with 'Can you help me fix this?' ' <S> Help' has two completely distinct meanings. <S> Original answer below... <S> He never does more work than he can help (= <S> he does as little as possible) . <S> Read it as He never does more work than he can avoid having to do . <S> Consider... <S> I can't help falling over in these roller skates. <S> Being a poor skater, you can't do any better than constantly fall; you can't help falling; you can't avoid falling. <S> 'Help' in such circumstances is safer to read as avoid , which then carries exactly the same meaning from being a poor skater to being adept at not doing any work, unless you must. <A> to help [doing something] means: <S> it's beyond your abilities to do something; usually used in the negative. <S> I can't help doing this. <S> [is typical usage; it is beyond my abilities to not do this] <S> He never does more work than he can help [doing]. <S> In other words, he never does more work than what is beyond his abilities. <A> He does no more than the work required to help himself.
| He never does more work than he can help (himself by doing).
|
Would it be strange to replace "crowded" with "massed"? I couldn't find this usage on Google (search results), so I'm not very sure if it's a right way to use the word "mass". Example sentence: The train was more massed than usual. <Q> The underlying question is whether there is a transitive verb, to mass something . <S> There is, and it means "to arrange something" or "to group something" or to "gather something together". <S> They massed a considerable quantity of arms [weapons] in the jail-house. <S> A considerable quantity of weapons was massed in the jail-house. <S> The jail-house itself was not "massed". <S> In the same way, it is not your train that would be massed. <S> The passengers are massed. <S> But you could say: The train cars had been massed in the train yard. <S> The cars had been brought to the yard. <S> There is also an intransitive verb, to mass , which means "to gather together in a crowd or in a (somewhat disorderly) group". <S> The children massed near the ice-cream truck. <A> Using 'massed' in place of 'crowded' as in your example sentence is not a correct usage. <S> You could use 'packed' though. <A> They are going to attack us! <S> They have been massing troops in the past month. <S> A crowd of over a hundred have massed outside your house. <S> You have a number of other options for synonyms of "crowded". <S> The train was more packed/crammed/cramped/congested than usual.
| No, mass as a verb means to gather or mobilize people, usually troops, or for people to assemble.
|
Why is New York often said with the word "City" in English? Usually, while watching some videos/movies or reading books in English, I tend to see that people always adding the word "City" to New York(New York City). What's behind this stuff in English? I can only guess that it's used just to distinguish state and City itself. However, in some other languages(e.g. Ukrainian), usually people don't use "City" after NY. They would assume that the person is talking about the city already. If you want to talk about state, you can mention that. <Q> Your assumption is correct—it's to distinguish between the city and the state. <S> (Having said that, I have heard people refer to New York State —but not as often.) <S> I can't tell you why this would have been the case originally, simply that it ended up that way and we continue to use it. <S> Update : Per the Wikipedia entry for the history of the city of New York <S> the timeline of its names is as follows: 1524: <S> New Angoulême 1664: New York 1898: <S> City of New York <S> And per the main entry for the city of New York : <S> The City of New York, often called New York City (NYC) or simply New York, is the most populous city in the United States. <S> Also per the Wikipedia entry for the state of New York : 1664: Province of New York 1776: New York <S> And: To differentiate the state from the city with the same name, it is sometimes called New York State. <S> But, strictly speaking, the city is named City of New York and the state is named New York . <A> While watching some videos/movies or reading books in English, I tend to see that people always adding the word "city" to New York (New York City). <S> What's behind this stuff in English? <S> Adding the word "city" is not "stuff in English". <S> The name of the city is New York City . <S> Quite often, though – perhaps because it happens to be one of the biggest and most famous cities in the world – this is shortened to New York. <S> To make matters a little bit more confusing, New York City happens to be in the state of New York, so, when someone says, "I drove through New York last month," that could mean a person drove across the state, or it could mean they drove through the city. <S> But all ambiguity could be eliminated if they say, "I drove through New York City last month," or "I drove through New York state last month." <S> This is more a quirk of geographic names than it is a quirk of English. <S> There is a town called Nebraska City in the state of Nebraska, but no one shortens that to Nebraska. <S> When they say "Nebraska," they mean the state, and when they refer to the city, they call it "Nebraska City." <S> The same is true for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. <S> I have never heard anyone from Traverse City, Michigan refer to the city as "Traverse" (although I have heard it affectionately called "TC" by locals.) <S> And, for the most part, no one calls Seattle, "Seattle City", or refers to Miami as "Miami City" (although you might read or hear "the city of Seattle" from time to time). <A> If I tell people that my wife and her family are from New York, they frequently assume I'm talking about New York City (NYC). <S> Only I'm not, I'm talking about a place that's 5 and half to six hours away by car. <S> It's fairly important to say whether you mean NYC or New York State because the city comes to mind first for most Americans, not the state -- which is logical -- since 8 1/2 million people live there, making it the most populous city by far in the States. <S> Far fewer people have been to what is commonly referred to by New York City inhabitants as "Upstate New York" or just "Upstate". <S> This area is generally any area not New York City, as New York City itself sits on the southernmost latitude of the state in line with the state of Pennsylvania. <S> Those people that do visit upstate generally only visit the Niagara Falls in Buffalo on the other side of the state, or visit the Adirondacks to the north.
| Idiomatically, it's simply the case that the phrase New York city (or the proper noun New York City ) was picked as the more common "identifier" over than the phrase New York state (or the proper noun New York State ).
|
What do we call it when someone injures himself? What do we call it when someone injures himself on purpose because of a mental problem? For example, they cut their own flesh or something. <Q> The generic terminology is self-harm : <S> [Merriam-Webster] : the act of purposely hurting oneself (as by cutting or burning the skin) as an emotional coping mechanism <S> • <S> Although most cutters are young women who have been emotionally, sexually, or physically abused as children, [Marilee] Strong's research shows that this specific type of self-harm also appears in other groups. <S> —Maria Simson et al. <S> As mentioned in a comment, and by Merriam-Webster, this can also be known as self-injury or self-mutilation . <A> If you're referring specifically to people who "cut their own flesh", then that's called cutting . <S> Both of these words have verb forms. <S> This short passage from TeensHealth shows both the noun and verb forms of these words in action (emphasis added): <S> Injuring yourself on purpose by making scratches or cuts on your body with a sharp object — enough to break the skin and make it bleed — is called cutting . <S> Cutting is a type of self-injury , or SI. <S> People who cut often start cutting in their young teens. <S> Some continue to cut into adulthood. <S> People may cut themselves on their wrists, arms, legs, or bellies. <S> Some people self-injure by burning their skin with the end of a cigarette or lighted match. <A> We can use self-laceration which means : the act or action of cutting or tearing one's own flesh
| If you're referring to any type of injury, then it can be called self-injury .
|
How to describe an abandoned sailboat having been finally brought by winds to the shore? What's the verb to describe an abandoned sailboat being finally brought by the winds to the shore of a sea or of the ocean? The sailboat was finally brought to a shore. ? The sailboat was finally carried to a shore. ? The sailboat was finally borne to a shore. ? Or what? <Q> You could say drifted. <S> Which means: be carried slowly by a current of air or water. <S> "the cabin cruiser started to drift downstream"synonyms: <S> be carried, be borne; <S> More As in: The sailboat finally drifted to shore. <S> ‘Drifted’ means that the sailboat was not moving under its own power, but rather that it was out of control; being propelled by the wind or waves. <A> A lot of debris was washed ashore during the storm. <S> (M-W) <S> From The Guardian Salvage crew plans to board oil rig blown ashore on Isle of Lewis <A> The term for an object either deliberately or accidentally are brought ashore is beached : <S> Hauled up or stranded on a beach. <S> Oxford <S> The term is often used for marine mammals, but applies to sailing vessels as well.
| You may use the expression blown or washed ashore to bring (something) onto the shore by waves
|
Idiom for trying to avoid misfortune, but it happens anyway Is there an idiom, proverb or expression in English describing a situation in which a person is trying really hard to avoid misfortune (by taking precautions) but what exactly he`s trying to distance himself/herself from, eventually gets him/her (befalls him/her)? "You can`t run away from your destiny" is too broad to convey the same idea expressed in my question. It is more specific and describes a situation in which a person is cautious, thus trying to prevent himself from getting in trouble but in spite of everything, what a person has been afraid for a long time finally gets him. <Q> I'm not sure if these phrases are exactly what you want, but these are what I can suggest: backfire : (of a plan) to have the opposite result from the one you intended <S> You can't cheat fate. <S> If something can go wrong, it will. <S> (Murphy's law) <S> A bad penny always turns up. <S> (This proverb refers to the recurrence of any unwanted event. <S> It means someone or something that is unpleasant or unwanted, will always return or appear.) <S> what you fear will come to pass. <S> ("Come to pass" means "to take place") <A> You might be able to express your thought with the word irony . <S> For example, Chancellor Palpatine said “Ironic: [Palpatine’d master] could save others from death but not himself.” <S> This is ironic because you would expect the master to be able to save himself from death because of his skills, but in fact it has happened that the master died. <A> There are a few expressions that come to mind: <S> What you resist persists. <S> This is a paraphrasing of Carl Jung, who suggested that the more you fight something handed to you in life, the larger it grows in your mind. <S> "Escaping your fate" is a futile attempt to run away from what is supposed to happen to you. <S> Generally speaking, people aren't allowed to escape their destiny or lot in life . <S> You can't delay the inevitable . <S> "Delaying the inevitable" or "fighting the inevitable" are common ways of saying that you are trying to hold off something that will definitely happen in the future. <S> For example, an old person who tries really hard to look youthful is just "delaying the inevitable." <S> Self-fulfilling prophecy <S> This is something you believe (or disbelieve) so much that somehow it becomes true. <S> For example, a person who believes that his significant other is cheating on him might subconsciously do things that eventually cause her to leave him.
| You can't escape your fate . Irony is used to describe a situation in which something you would expect to be less likely to happen because of the circumstance, has in fact happened.
|
What's the difference between "veggie" and "vegetable"? What's the difference between "veggie" and "vegetable"?Can I use them interchangeably? or is there any difference in terms of meaning and usage? <Q> In British English , veggie means vegetarian <S> (at least according to the Collins Dictionary ). <S> It can also be an adjective which is used to talk about food that doesn't contain any meat or fish: Going veggie can be tasty, easy and healthy too. <S> Veg is an informal British word which means a vegetable or vegetables: <S> I like both fruit and veg. <S> In American English <S> veggie means vegetable first of all. <S> But of course it is more informal than <S> vegetable : ...well-balanced meals of fresh fruit and veggies, chicken, fish, pasta, and no red meat. <S> So, if you want to use veggie <S> right, mind the regional differences and and the level of formality appropriate to your situation. <A> You would use veggie in relaxed speech or writing and vegetable in more formal writing. <A> In Australian English, "veggie" is an informal way of saying "vegetable". <S> In certain formal contexts, for example books about health or recipe books, "veggie" is frequently seen. <S> However, in technical contexts (e.g. "is a tomato a fruit or vegetable?", "ginger is technically a vegetable") <S> it is unusual to say "veggie".
| Veggie is informal and casual and vegetable is standard English.
|
A pro and a con at the same time Is there a word for anything that is a con and a pro at the same time. I mean it is both good and bad, has both a minus and a plus, is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. A second entrance door is a ____ Two heads is a ____ A fifth wheel is a ____ for a car. <Q> A good term for that is a mixed blessing . <S> You would use it like Being the only person in town who could read or write <S> was a mixed blessing ; the villagers were impressed and respectful, but they also came to me with a non-stop flow of letters to read, contracts to sign, etc. <A> A common expression is a double-edged sword : something that has or can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences <S> Here is an example of it in use, showing the subject's positive and negative effects, from an article titled, Technology is a double-edged sword : ... <S> innovation is a double-edged sword. <S> Digital technology is indeed creative, in the sense that it enables us to do new things that were hitherto impossible.... <S> But technology is also destructive in the sense that it destroys or undermines things that are valuable: bookshops and print newspapers... <S> Alternate versions of the same concept are " two-edged sword " and " it cuts both ways ". <S> So we could reword the above example as either: ... <S> innovation is a two-edged sword. <S> or: ... innovation cuts both ways. <A> Something that has both good and bad qualities can be said to be a blessing and a curse : Something that is both a benefit and a burden or that may seem initially beneficial but also brings unforeseen negative consequences. <S> Here's an example sentence: <S> The Internet is both a blessing and a curse —a blessing in that you have easy access to all the information in the world without having to leave your house, but a curse in that it gives evil people like terrorists and pedophiles an easy tool that they can use to commit their crimes. <A> Here is an example of how it's used in a sentence. <S> The service at the restaurant was a mixed bag. <S> The staff were very friendly, however, the service was incredibly slow and we had to wait nearly half an hour until our food was served. <A> Maybe the term trade-off ? <S> Although it is sometimes used to describe a compromise which may be neither the "pro" nor the "con" but somewhere in-between, it is also often used to describe something which has both pros and cons. <S> For example a piece of software that lacks some features of one competitor (so has cons) but has advantages over another (pros) may be described as " a good trade-off ". <A> I suspect this is quite a niche colloquialism (I'm English) <S> but we use the term swings and roundabouts to describe something that can be positive or negative, ie where there are two options, both having positive and negatives but overall adding up to making no real difference. <S> Related question on ELU: <S> Why does 'swings and roundabouts' mean 'gains and losses that offset each other'?
| Another phrase for something that has both positive and negative aspects is a mixed bag .
|
A question about verbal noun I'm a beginner in English, and I have a question. When do we use the verbal noun of some words (Like "Charge") that are both nouns and verbs? For example, what is difference between "Battery charge efficiency" and "Battery charging efficiency"? Thanks a lot for your answers, but I ask a question about "verbal noun", not about "battery charge". Can you say, what is the difference between "This bad drawing of a dog is not acceptable for your project" and "This bad draw of a dog is not acceptable for your project"? I asked this question here: What is the difference between two sentences? <Q> Gerunds (or verbal nouns ) look like present participles, but they function as nouns. <S> A gerund can be the subject of a sentence, an object, the object of a preposition, a subject complement, or the complement of a possessive adjective. <S> Gerunds can answer the question what . <S> Now, let's start with your second question: <S> Can you say, what is the difference between "This bad drawing of a dog is not acceptable for your project" and "This bad draw of a dog is not acceptable for your project"? <S> First, drawing is not a gerund in your example sentence. <S> It is a just a regular noun. <S> This sentence contains a gerund: Drawing is fun. <S> To answer your second question: the first sentence is correct, but the second sentence is not. <S> A "draw" is not a picture. <S> On to your first question, which is more complex: You have asked when we should use a gerund inside a compound noun vs a regular noun. <S> Right. <S> Let's look at examples and compare them: <S> battery charging efficiency battery charge efficiency <S> Regrettably, your uncle knows nothing about battery charging efficiency. <S> (how to charge batteries efficiently--the process) <S> However, your aunt knows a lot about battery charge efficiency. <S> (facts about the efficiency of battery charges) <S> Notice that these are two very different things: battery charging efficiency and battery charge efficiency. <S> Tᴚoɯɐuo rightly says that the gerund describes a process and "contains a tad more information". <A> Clarity can be a deciding factor in such stylistic choices. <S> They're both grammatical. <S> The process whereby a battery stores up energy which is being supplied to it is better expressed by the -ing form of the verb, which denotes the ongoing or continuous. <S> But in a text, charge efficiency , once defined, or once its meaning has been made clear in context, could serve more or less equally well as a name for this process. <S> charging contains a tad more information than charge does. <S> But it is often the case, especially in technical contexts, that a "static" label is preferred over a descriptive noun phrase that can also serve as a label. <S> Another consideration is whether these terms are well-established in a particular domain. <S> This list might not be definitive; I'm only citing it as an example. <S> On that list, the label charge efficiency is preferred. <A> Think of these words in terms of actions or things. <S> Running is an action. <S> A run is a thing that you did - a thing that exists in the past tense, that you can tell me about (I did it in 5 minutes, etc.). <S> Charging is an action. <S> A charge is a thing that was done. <S> You charged that battery. <S> The battery now has a charge that you can tell me about <S> (it has a 98% charge, it will have a 70% charge in a couple of days, etc.). <S> I went running. <S> I ran, and now I am tired. <S> Let me tell you about my run. <S> I charged my battery. <S> The battery charging efficiency of my charger is pretty lame. <S> My battery now has a full charge, though. <S> (The battery charging [action] efficiency [thing] of my...) <S> By the way, I broke a glass in the hotel and they charged me for it. <S> (They took action and charged me for it.) <A> There is no such thing as a "verbal noun". <S> There are some words that can function as both a verb and as a noun. <S> " <S> Charge" is an example of such a word. <S> In the context of a sentence each word has its function. <S> The function of a word is determined mostly by syntax, partly by meaning. <S> So if you say "Charge the battery!" we recognise the verb "charge" since the noun "charge" wouldn't make much sense in that position. <S> But if you say "The battery's charge has gone" we have to understand the word "charge" as a noun. <S> Similarly, "draw" has both verbal and nominal meanings. <S> The noun "a draw" means "a raffle". <S> The verb "to draw" has lots of meanings. <S> Some of the meanings of "to draw" are related to the noun (to draw lots) <S> some are not ("to draw a picture")But again, the meaning and function are understood by syntax and context. <S> It is possible to craft sentences that illustrate how we parse sentences from context. <S> The word "fly" is both a noun and a verb, "like" is verb and a preposition. <S> This means that the sentences: Time flies like an arrow. <S> Fruit flies like a banana. <S> are initially confusing, but it doesn't take one long to realise the "flies" in the first sentence is a verb and in the second is a noun. <S> Now we use the word that we need to use. <S> The word "charge" has a certain meaning as a noun. <S> When I want to use that noun I use it. <S> It doesn't matter that the word also has other meanings.
| We use a "verbal noun" when the meaning of that word is the meaning that we want.
|
How to understand: "The owls are nothing next to the rumors that are flying around"? Professor McGonagall shot a sharp look at Dumbledore and said, " The owls are nothing next to the rumors that are flying around . You know what everyone's saying? About why he's disappeared? About what finally stopped him?" This paragraph is excerpted from Harry Potter. I don't quite understand the sentence in bold. I figure it means: The owls are nothing compared to the rumors that are flying around or The owls (thing) are not important at all compared with the rumors flying around . But I am really not sure about it! So, how should we understand the sentence? <Q> Both Eddie's and Enguroo's answers are correct, but neither say why . <S> The easiest way to compare two things is to put them next to each other and have a look. <S> Hence, the idiom is derived from the act of identifying differences in objects by placing them side-by-side and measuring: eg, which is taller/shorter, what colour the two objects are. <S> In the example, if you took all the owls that are (literally) flying around, and conceptually placed them next to all the rumours that are (metaphorically) flying around, you would see such a large difference in the count that the number of owls would look like nothing. <A> You are right. <S> In this sentence the author compares owls to rumors (one of the meanings of next to is in comparison with ). <S> If some ideas, accusations, remarks or rumors are flying around , they are passed quickly from one person to another and cause excitement. <S> It goes without saying that, being birds, owls fly around too. <S> Note that Professor McGonagall seems to refer to mail owls, since in the Harry Potter books and films owls deliver mail. <S> And these owls are not as fast as rumors are. <S> So, in this particular excerpt we see a metaphor , a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. <A> Your hunch is correct. <S> Next to is a set phrase meaning "in comparison to", "compared to. <S> " Here's what Merriam Webster says about this phrase: in comparison to next to you <S> I'm wealthy <S> Your boldfaced sentence basically means: <S> The owls cannot compare to the rumors that are flying around. <A> In addition to the excellent explanations already here, this could also be an example of implied zeugma or syllepsis . <S> Syllepsis and zeugma are related terms which Wikipedia defines as "in which one single phrase or word joins different parts of a sentence". <S> This term is especially appropriate when the different parts of the sentence use the word in different senses or meanings. <S> A common example is the phrase " <S> He took his hat and his leave", in which the speaker combines the literal action of take his hat (pick up his hat) and the phrase take his leave (depart). <S> Zeugma is also featured in the comedic song "Have Some Madiera, M'Dear" , which has the line " <S> she made no reply, up her mind, and a dash for the door": She made no reply (she was silent), she made up her mind (she decided), and she made a dash for the door (she ran toward the door). <S> By listing these unrelated actions in parallel as if they are in the same category (things she made), the sentence is deliberately complex and misleading, even to a native speaker. <S> In this sense it is wordplay , like a pun or joke. <S> In your excerpt, McGonagall compares something happening literally (owls are flying) and something happening figuratively or metaphorically (rumors are flying), and comparing them directly ("A is nothing next to B", meaning that A is insignificant compared to B) even though they cannot be compared. <A> While all answers above are correct, I would like to add a bit more context to it. <S> The conversation takes place at the beginning of the first book, when all wizards are celebrating the defeat of Voldemort and McGonagall is pretty irritated about it: <S> "Oh yes, everyone's celebrating, all right," she said impatiently. <S> "You'd think they'd be a bit more careful, but no - even the Muggles have noticed something's going on. <S> It was on their news. <S> " <S> She jerked her head back at the Dursleys' dark living-room window. <S> "I heard it. <S> Flocks of owls ... <S> shooting stars... <S> Well, they're not completely stupid. <S> They were bound to notice something. <S> (...)" <S> In that context, you can see, why McGonagall uses such a phrase in a sentence. <S> It is a smart wordplay, as she refers to both the flocks of birds as well as the fact that rumors fly around just as the owls do.
| We can understand the speaker to mean that the rumors are even more noticeable than the owls, but also that this line is stylized or humorous (which matches the rest of the Harry Potter series).
|
Can I use a comma between "so «adjective»" and "that «clause»"? Now I am writing a scientific paper, and I want to write a sentence as follows: A has a chemical composition so similar to that of B that it also has a high potential. As you can see, the first 'that' is used to substitute for 'chemical composition', and the second 'that' is used to introduce the following clause. However, I am so worried because it seems to confusing due to the repetition of 'that'. (Because I am not a native, I cannot make a sentence with assurance...) So, I tried to use a comma before the second 'that', but I don't know if it will be a correct sentence. <Q> For example: Those that know, do. <S> Those that understand, teach. – <S> Aristotle <S> However, I think your sentence reads fine and needs no comma. <S> Moreover, sentences that contain the word that two times are not uncommon. <S> As a matter of fact, sometimes the two <S> that's appear consecutively : <S> Don't be seduced into thinking that that which does not make a profit is without value. <S> – <S> Arthur Miller <S> If you still insist your sentence seems awkward, here's what I might do instead of trying to fix it with a comma: <S> A also has a high potential, because it has a chemical composition so similar to that of B . <A> SUPPLEMENTAL to J.R.'s answer: <S> A comma would not be appropriate before the second that : <S> this that marks the complement of so ... and consequently should not be disjoined from it. <S> As J.R. remarks, the double use of that is not really problematic. <S> It's really two different words, demonstrative that and subordinator that . <S> They are only historically and orthographically the "same" word. <S> In Present-day English speech they aren't even pronounced the same way: the demonstrative is always stressed, and the subordinator is always de-stressed and pronounced with a reduced vowel. <S> I confess, however, that I personally find the use of two orthographic ‹ that ›s in different senses a little jarring in written English when they're so near one another. <S> My own solution would be to recast the sentence to eliminate the first—perhaps something like this: A 's chemical composition is so similar to B 's that it also has a high potential. <A> Your instinct to use a comma before the second that is a good one. <S> Commas do not have hard and fast rules, and as J.R. points out, there are indeed times when a comma may be added for the sake of readability. <S> I, however, respectfully disagree with J.R.'s opinion about the use of a comma before your second that . <S> I think that doing so makes your sentence clearer, and more easily understood. <S> And that is the point of good writing; not being so obsessed with rules like "Don't start a sentence with 'And'", and "Don't use a comma unless it's absolutely necessary". <S> My rule is this: If a comma helps me to convey meaning, and if it helps my writing sound more conversational, I almost always use one.
| There are times when a comma may be added for the sake of readability.
|
Improve the bracketed part of the sentence Last week Tim went camping with his friends. They seemed (to have a good time) . To having a good time. To have had a good time. To be having a good time. No improvement. Here I think option 4 is correct but my book suggests option 2. Please explain the correct option with its meaning. <Q> "They seemed to have a good time" implies Tim and his friends are still camping, as in, "I went to see Tim and his friends during their camping trip and they seemed to have a good time." <S> If you were to say, "They seemed to have had a good time," then the action is most certainly passed already. <S> Tim is no longer camping. <A> I would agree with you on 4. <S> To me it reads naturally. <S> While 2. might be technically correct, it is overly wordy for no real reason. <S> The example is already in the past, and "a good time" is understood to be a period of time, so saying that with perfect tenses isn't necessary. <A> Excellent question with a subtle answer. <S> As others have commented, "They seemed to have a good time," sounds correct. <S> It sounds correct because in some instances it is. <S> In your example it is not the best answer. <S> Seemed is merely the past tense of seem and 'seem' involves YOU having interacted with it in the present moment, even though that present moment may have occurred in the past. <S> "They seemed," means you saw it when it happened, in the past, and now you are reporting back what you saw. <S> In your sentence you did not witness Tim on his trip. <S> You are instead, at this future point, making a judgement on what happened in the past. <S> You have no experience of Tim's camping trip that occurred in the present, therefore the simple past doesn't work as well. <S> You express your lack of presence during the event by using "seemed to have had" meaning the information you are using to make this determination was all provided after the event occurred.
| "They seemed to have a good time," implies that something happened in the past that you witnessed.
|
To be vs. Being What is the difference between these two sentences? I like being a Doctor. I like to be a Doctor. For instance I am a a Doctor by profession. And if someone asks me if I like my profession? Then what should my answer be? 1 or 2. I searched the internet for the answer and found out that there are some verbs after which both progressive forms and to infinitives can be used and Like was listed under such verbs. So am I right? And Do both sentences mean the same? Thanks in advance to anyone who will solve my query. <Q> Both sentences are correct but the common/normal usage is <S> I like being a doctor if you are currently a doctor. <S> The other usage sounds a little odd and might be used if the statement is currently not the case. <S> For example if you were saying I would like to be a doctor or <S> I like to be a doctor when we role-play . <A> That's true for all professions, and easy enough to memorize. <S> But you'd probably like to know why, and that's not an easy question to answer. <S> Here's what my intuition tells me. <S> "I like to" is almost always followed by an action you make the conscious choice to perform. <S> You might like to eat Chinese food, ride a bike, or play dress-up as a doctor. <S> But you don't say "I like to go to work," you say "I like going to work," because that's a choice someone else makes for you. <S> On the other hand, if you said "I like to go to work early <S> so I'm prepared for the day <S> ," that's once again a deliberate decision. <S> If this seems oddly specific, that's why we don't use this phrasing as often. <S> "I like being a doctor" is akin to "I like eggs." <S> Instead of an action, "being a doctor" is a concept, a noun you're expressing appreciation for. <S> You can also use "I like ___ing X" statements interchangeably just about anywhere you can use " <S> I like to ___ X," but not vice versa. <A> By and large, I think these mean the same thing, although I also think that,'I like being a doctor', sounds more natural. <S> If I think about it long enough, and in all honesty probably overthink it, I believe that, 'I like being a doctor', is likely to be said by someone who is a doctor, and who identifies strongly with the idea of being a doctor, i.e., healing the sick, being needed, fighting disease, etc. <S> On the other hand,'I like to be a doctor', sounds like someone (who may or may not be a doctor) who likes to be seen doing the things that a 'Doctor' does, e.g. wearing a white coat and wearing a stethoscope around their neck, ordering tests 'Stat!', having social prestige, having a nice house and driving a flashy car, saving someone's life with a last minute stroke of genius, etc.
| "I like being a doctor" is definitely the correct form.
|
How to understand "before her Sept. 14" in this context? On Wednesday, Judge Dow ordered Badway to tell clients, who were not in court, that they must appear before her Sept. 14 after giving sworn depositions on what happened to the money at Badway's law office on Monday morning. Dow also voiced concern that McClure and D'Amico will attempt to flee her jurisdiction. The phrase can be seemingly parsed into two different ways: [ they must appear before her(in front of her) ] { (on) Sept. 14 }: in this case, the prep 'on' is omitted [ they must appear ] { before her Sept. 14 }: I'm not sure if the phrase " her Sept. 14 " could really make sense. If it does, it sounds like Sept. 14 is a timeline in her schedule list. So, what would be the correct way to understand it? I feel the first one looks more correct or plausible. The full source . <Q> The first interpretation is correct one -- this is made more clear by the fact that "appear before a judge" is a relatively common turn of phrase. <A> Collins Dictionary: <S> And, I second you that 'on' is omitted. <A> There's no way that her could modify Sept. 14 . <S> However, you might find ... before her [month] 14th [noun] <S> where both <S> her and <S> the date would modify the noun, such as ... before her June 14th meeting with so-and-so <S> This sentence is not very clearly written: <S> On Wednesday, Judge Dow ordered Badway to tell clients, who were not in court, that they must appear before her Sept. 14 after giving sworn depositions on what happened to the money at Badway's law office on Monday morning. <S> There are a lot of facts to be assembled there. <S> If they have to be put into a single sentence: On Wednesday, Judge Dow ordered Badway to tell clients, who had given sworn depositions at Badway's law office on Monday morning about what had happened to the money but were not present in court, that they must appear before her on Sept. 14.
| When someone appears before a court of law or before an official committee , they go there in order to answer charges or to give information as a witness.
|
Using a comma right before "too" in the end of a question Do I always have to place a comma right before "too" in the end of a question?: ... and those were completely different kind of problems to solve. Those were called "complimentary problems". They were not to be solved by us immediately, however, solving them required some additional wit and shrewdness. So, I want to ask the moderator if he minds if I say a few things about those problems, too ? Will this question be understood wrongly I decide to omit the comma? <Q> The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.), 6.52, says (I cannot provide a link as it's behind a paywall for the online version): <S> I had my cake and ate it too. <S> Anders likes Beethoven; his sister does too. <S> The airport lacked charging stations; there were no comfortable chairs either. <S> When too comes in the middle of the sentence or clause, however, a comma aids comprehension. <S> She, too, decided against the early showing. <S> So, if too is at the end of a sentence, as in your question, then Chicago would likely not use a comma; if it's in the middle of a sentence, then it probably would. <S> This is more direct than what is relayed by the FAQ entry provided in the other answer. <S> But if you look at the full text of that entry, you'll see there's more to it and that it gives similar examples: <S> A comma can do some work in making the meaning of a sentence clear, but to claim two different meanings for <S> I like apples and bananas too with and without a comma before <S> too puts too much pressure on the comma. <S> Out of context, neither version would be perfectly clear. <S> To make the different meanings more apparent, short of additional context, you’d have to be more explicit: I, too, like apples and bananas. <S> I like not only apples but bananas too. <A> No, rather I think the writer was a little excessive with the commas. <S> While I think you should place commas surrounding clauses, putting clauses in the middle of sentences also means adding two breaks and not just one. <S> This isn't even a clause, but a deliberate pause at the end. <S> Perhaps the writer was expressing artistic license? <S> Though again, in short, no. <S> The comma contributes nothing other than a quite possibly unnecessary pause at the end. <A> The Chicago Manual of Style writes that putting a comma before 'too' is preferred to show a significant shift in thought. <S> He didn’t know at first what hit him, but then, too <S> , he hadn’t ever walked in a field strewn with garden rakes. <S> The same thing is mentioned in Grammarly : <S> Since it really depends on the writer’s intent, there is no hard-and-fast rule when it comes to using a comma before too. <S> Remember that commas often denote a pause, especially when emphasis is intended, so reading the sentence aloud and listening for a pause may be helpful. <S> So, no, it won't be understood wrongly. <S> And, there is no such thumb rule .
| The adverbs too and either used in the sense of “also” generally need not be preceded by a comma.
|
Are some schools teaching "They" as genderless singular? I've read this article in The Atlantic saying that in English schools in Europe, teachers have started teaching pupils the new "they" used as a gender-neutral or genderless singular he/she/it. They can write what they wants. When they needs help they gets it. Is it true? Does this come from having any strings leading into deep history of English where this existed? <Q> To start, the sentences you gave are not how singular they is normally used. <S> The verb simply takes the normal form for they . <S> The sentences would be: <S> They can write what they want. <S> When they need help they get it. <S> As for Does this come from having any strings leading into deep history of English where this existed? <S> It is actually explained in the article you linked to: <S> [W]e tend to miss that English speakers have been using they in the singular since English was anything we'd recognize as English. <S> Back in Middle English, the Sir Amadace tale includes, “Each man in their degree.” <S> The Bard has Antipholus of Syracuse in Comedy of Errors chirp, “There's not a man I meet but <S> doth salute me / <S> As I were their well-acquainted friend.” <S> Thackeray has Rosalind toss off in Vanity Fair, “A person can't help their birth.” <S> Whence the idea that all of these people were butchering the language? <S> The article goes on to explain why people started to think it was "wrong": <S> It was the schoolteacher and writer Anne Fisher whose English primer of 1745 began the notion that it's somehow bad to use they in the plural and that he stands for both men and women. <S> Grammarians of Fisher's day tended to believe that real languages should pattern themselves after Latin and Ancient Greek, in which the words for they happened not to have experienced such developments. <S> Like so many nonsense-rules in English, that sadly have been taught to generations of students, the whole notion came from the misconception that English should be some form of Latin or Greek. <S> "Never end a sentence with a preposition" is another example of those grammatical fancies that were drilled into the heads of unsuspecting students without any good reason. <A> I think the title Call Them What They Wants was chosen for a joke, to emphasize the fact that the singular they is not used everywhere and is even rejected in some style manuals in favour of 'he or she'. <S> The verb used with the singular they actually doesn't take ( <S> e)s in the 3rd person Present, and remains grammatically adjusted to plural (same as with 'trousers', as suggested earlier in the related forum . <A> It should be " <S> They get what they want" and <S> "When they need help, they get it." <S> They has a singular case, but that shouldn't change the rest of the sentence. <S> The key here is to recognize that you don't know who or what they is. <S> They could be congress, or Steve from accounting. <S> "They get what they wants" is just poor English. <S> No amount of teaching it that way will ever fix change that, and if you leave the "s" on the word "wants" when using "they" in the singular case, you're going to sound awkward and grammatically incorrect at the most basic level to native speakers. <A> Firstly, as per other answers, the sentences still need the correct verb forms: They can write what they want . <S> When they need help they get it. <S> There's nothing particularly new in using 'they' as a singular. <S> What it denotes is that the person in question is an unknown or unspecified person. <S> It is therefore often used in conjunction with words like 'someone' or 'whoever': <S> Someone who writes a diary can write what they want. <S> Whoever it was that wrote that rude message on the wall <S> , I think they need help. <A> The word "they" could refer to "him" or "her". <S> You could refer to "what he or she writes", "what he or she wants", or wants", or "the help that he and/or she needs". <S> Eventually some people tried to shorten "he and/or she" to "they". <S> Note: In JoeTaxpayer's answer , the same phrase could have been, "Whoever left his jacket in the library..." (instead of "their jacket"). <S> Even for people who don't like "he and/or she" being replaced with "they", enough people have talked (and written) this way that most people will understand it easily. <S> JoeTaxpayer's sample is a great example of how something can be wrong (really, "his jacket" would have been a better way of saying it), but sounds tolerable enough that many people may not even notice the issue. <S> Some people liked that. <S> Some people didn't. <S> The shortened version was liked by some people, and disliked by others. <S> I believe the fair consensus is that this has is considered to be controversial. <S> In other words, there is a lot of disagreement. <S> So, if anybody tells you that this is definitely "good English" that is widely accepted by most speakers, that is wrong. <S> However, if anybody tells you that this is definitely "bad English" that is widely rejected by most speakers, that is also wrong. <S> This "rule" of English is currently in a state of being questionable. <S> If you are thinking of using such a phrase yourself, the safest approach would be to think of another way of phrasing things, thereby avoiding the argument altogether. <A> English is fluid, and often, 'proper' follows usage. <S> It make take time, but there's no ignoring this. <S> I recall, in the late 70's, an announcement came on the PA system in my high school. <S> "Whoever left their jacket in the library, please stop by to pick it up. <S> " It was an all boys school, no need for the polite gender blurring 'they.' <S> I work in a HS now, and so far, it's less a matter of being 'taught' as 'accepted'. <S> People are choosing their pronouns as a statement of their own self-identity. <S> And in an age of acceptance, this verbal choice process is taken as a sign of not being against those who make such choices.
| So, yes, this use of they is quite old in English.
|
What do we call our conversation partner on the telephone? What is a proper word for a person who you have telephone talk with?I found the words interlocutor, interviewer, addressee and hearer . What is the best to choose, especially for using in a formal way? <Q> But it is rarely used and will have most people reaching for a dictionary. <S> The others are not telephone-specific and also carry other inferences, especially interviewer which suggests that the telephone conversation itself is a formal interview and perhaps rather one-sided. <S> The two parties on a telephone call are officially called the calling party and the called party , although I have not personally heard this used and may be considered old-fashioned. <S> Alternatively, you could just refer to them as " the other party ". <A> People often say " the person on the other end ". <S> We speak of a party on a call or of the parties on a call. <S> In legalistic contexts, party is the word used for either person (or any person) on a phone call. <A> The formal term used in telecommunications is caller and call recipient. <S> This text on caller ID shows this usage: caller and [call] recipient <S> In everyday language, as has been suggested, the person I was talking to, the person called, etc., the call taker, for example. <S> There is no single term that is commonly used. <A> None of these are good words for this idea. <S> "Interlocutor" means someone involved in a conversation of any kind, not necessarily on a telephone. <S> If you're not worried about that distinction, then it's a valid word. <S> But it's a very rarely used word. <S> I haven't taken a survey but I suspect most English speakers are not familiar with the word and would have to guess its meaning or look it up. <S> "Interviewer" implies that this conversation is an interview, that is, that someone is being questioned by a reporter for a news story, by a company that is considering hiring him for a job, or something of that sort. <S> We don't use this word for an ordinary conversation. <S> "Addressee" is normally used for someone to whom you have sent a letter, not a participant in a verbal conversation. <S> It can be used in cases where a speaker calls someone out in some way, for example, a teacher picks a student to answer a question. <S> But this is rather rare and use for a phone conversation would be unusual and possibly confusing. <S> "Hearer" implies that the person is listening only and not speaking. <S> The word might be used for someone in a crowd listening to a speech, or someone who overhears a conversation between others. <S> It is not used for someone who participates in a two-way conversation. <S> All that said <S> , there is no one word in English to refer to someone participating in a telephone conversation. <S> We normally use a short phrase, like, "the person I called" or "the person who called me". <S> Other words to refer to a person may be used, like "the man who called", "that jerk who called", etc. <S> You can call the person who called, "the caller". <S> You might think that by analogy to other words you could refer to the person receiving the call as "the callee", but no fluent speaker says that. <S> If you weren't trying to reach a specific person, like if you called a company, you can say "there person who answered" (or "the woman who answered", etc) <S> Once the context of a phone call is clear, we usually simply call the person by the same sort of shorthand we use for people in general: "him", "that lady", etc. <A> If we know who which side made the call, then " answerer " or " caller " can be applicable. <S> Otherwise, there are some other answers here. <S> I will go ahead and submit another one for consideration: The " phone ". <S> In some cases, this won't work well. <S> However, in some situations, referring to the phone is a way that people may describe the conversation. <S> "What I learned from the phone is..." <S> "He got mad and was screaming at the phone." <S> The phone told him... <S> The phone is making her angry <S> In these cases, people will know that you're actually referring to the person on the other side of the phone. <S> Actually, a more clear term is something like "the person she is talking to", like noted in Lambie's comment to Tᴚoɯɐuo's answer . <S> There is one common advantage to trying to use " caller ", " answerer ", or referring to the " phone " like as if the phone itself is what is listening or speaking. <S> That advantage is simply shortness. <S> You can say any of those faster than " the person on the other side of the phone call ". <S> If you are looking for a shorter phrase, these terms will sometimes accomplish that goal.
| If the other person initiated the call, you could refer to them simply as " the caller ", which is more common. "Interlocutor" is a great word!
|
get with past participle Let's get started! In this sentence "get started" means that "to begin or start".But as far as I know "get + v-ing" has that meaning too .Such as in the following examples : We have to get moving now. It's getting dark. So can we use "get+past participle" to mean "to begin or start" ? or "get started" is just an exception ? I mean can I say I have to get written. instead of I have to get writing. <Q> get started, get finished: <S> Those are idiomatic. <S> Those mean: begin doing something or get through something, a task. <S> But get plus <S> a gerund meaning to start has invaded other areas, too. <S> get writing, get studying, get moving, get going, get rolling, get dancing <S> , [movement] Get here means: <S> start , start writing, start studying, start going, get writing. <S> It's often heard in AmE speech. <S> Get also means become : <S> get rich, get tired, get bored , etc. <S> Get is very complicated so I am limiting myself to those aspects. <A> As you say, "started" is a past perfect participle which effectively is an adjective, <S> The program is started . <S> It seems to me you can use the "get + past perfect participle" with any verb where the past perfect participle is a similarly idiomatic adjective. <S> We need to find a way to get them motivated . <S> You'd better leave before you get tired . <S> In the dark of the moonlight night the young explorers got turned around and didn't know where they were. <S> Or, more colloquially: Come on Willy. <S> Let's get sloshed ! <S> The past perfect participle of "write" is "written", and it's perfectly fine to say something like: <S> Let's get this (report) written . <S> in the same way you might say: Let's get this (project) done . <S> "Written" here is an adjective that describes the intended status of the report. <S> However you do have to be careful since the meaning of "written" can vary depending on context. <S> A "written report" is usually considered to be one that has been written by hand <S> not one that is completely finished . <S> As usual, you have to know what is idiomatic. <A> "Get started" is a fixed phrase. <S> It seems you are troubled by the thought <S> that in the sentence "Let's get started on the essay" <S> we is the subject and the agent of the action, the essay the object and patient of the action. <S> You are right to think that "start" here is a past participle. <S> It might be easier for you to understand its grammar structure this way: it is true people idiomatically say "get started", but "get" can also be used in the structure <S> get + object + past participle : <S> Let's get the job done tonight. <S> I will get you started on the project. <S> "Start" as a transitive verb can be used with a person (sentient being) as the object. <S> For example, you can say: The lecture started me thinking. <S> So such phrases as "get someone started" "get the work done" indeed imply passive voice. <S> You can understand "let's get started" in a similar light. <S> He got dumped" means "he was dumped". <S> Think of it this way <S> : in "get + past/present participle" the participle gives you a state. <S> The subject of "get" will be put in/achieve that state through "get". <S> For example, "He got tired" means <S> he was put in the state of being tired. <S> "It is getting dark" means it (the environment/sky) is reaching the state of being dark. <S> By the same token, "I should get going" means <S> I should reach the condition of moving.
| Subject + get + past participle means upon the subject an action is carried out. "
|
A word or a phrase for "riding a bicycle on only one wheel" What do we call it when someone rides a bicycle or a motorcycle and suddenly stands on only one wheel (usually on the back wheel) for a short period? <Q> You might be referring to a wheelie or a stoppie <A> A trick or manoeuvre whereby a bicycle or motorcycle is ridden for a short distance with the front wheel raised off the ground. <S> Example: <S> A boy cavorted around on a dirt bike doing wheelies . <S> Here's a picture of a motorcyclist performing a wheelie: <S> And riding on the front wheel, apart from being called a stoppie , can also be referred to as a nose wheelie . <S> This was suggested by the user Matt Menzenski in the comments section. <A> Noun: <S> wheelie: <S> the only term I use wheely: An alternate spelling according to Wiktionary wheelstand: A synonym according to Wiktionary. <S> mono: <S> Listed on Wiktionary as UK and Australian slang. <S> For a verb or a verb phrase: pop a wheelie: the only version I use wheelie: according to Wiktionary do a wheelie: according to users wheelstand: according to Wiktionary. <S> perform a wheelie: seen on the Wikipedia page <S> You can also use the verb phrase in the plural if you're doing the stunt multiple times. <S> Wiktionary lists these nouns for a wheelie on the front wheel <S> endo <S> stoppie <S> nose wheelie <S> : I'm guessing on the meaning of this one based on an image search. <S> Example sentences from various parts of Wiktionary: <S> I learned how to let the clutch out slo-ow-ly <S> so my tractor wouldn't pop a wheely and go hauling over backward. <S> Jim fell off his bike when he was trying to do a wheelie. <S> Popping wheelies with your bike was really cool as a kid. <S> You can also feather the clutch to keep from wheelying over, as wel as using throttle control. <S> The other possible problem with uphill, downhill and crested roads is that bikes tend to wheelie over them. <S> I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia page, too, because that shows a whole vocabulary of technical distinctions that I never imagined. <S> Most fun you can have on your computer. <A> In addition to the various terms already given, mountain bikers refer to this as a manual (see, e.g., British Cycling , REI , Red Bull ). <S> "Manual" can also be used as a verb. <A> The person is doing a "Wheelie" <A> Perhaps out of date, but: Doing a mono , or Mono-ing Mono being a prefix meaning "one" or "single", eg monopod - a camera support having just one foot (mono=one pod=foot) <S> - c.f. <S> a tripod <A> In Australia you are 'doing (or pulling) <S> a mono'. <S> Interestingly, the meaning of 'wheelie' now depends on whether you are on a bike or in a car. <S> It used to be that if you got the front end of a car in the air it was a 'wheelie' (short for wheel stand), but this required tremendous amounts of power. ' <S> Wheelie' eventually came to mean spinning the rear wheels- something much tamer. <S> On a bicycle, however, you can still do a legitimate, old-style wheelie, or mono. <A> When talking about the trick in BMX for example: Manual , a bicycle technique similar to a wheelie, but without the use of pedal torque . <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual
| This trick is called a wheelie :
|
"Whose car is this red one?" vs "whose red car is this?" I would like to know if it's OK to add a descriptive phrase between whose and the thing owned, i.e, car : Whose amazingly painted white house is this? Whose red car is this? Do these sound OK? If yes, do they sound better than the following? Whose house is this amazingly painted white one? Whose car is this red one? <Q> Which ones are better is an opinion. <S> Your first ones draw attention to the characteristics whereas your second sentences draw attention first to the object. <S> They might usually be expressed as <S> Who owns this amazingly painted white house? <S> Who owns the red car? <S> Drawing attention to the purpose of the question, ownership. <A> Native speakers will often ask things like: <S> Whose big dog is that? <S> The dog's size is important to the speaker for some reason that goes beyond identifying which dog the speaker is referring to. <S> So unless the car's redness is significant, it would be a little odd to ask Whose red car is this? <S> Whose car is this red one? <S> or Whose is the red car? <S> are simpler. <S> It is simply a way of referring to a particular car, which happens to be red, and asking who it belongs to. <A> All of those sentences are fine. <S> (And both adjectives and adjectival phrases can come after possessive pronouns and before nouns.) <S> Having said that, I think the first versions would be used more commonly used in conversation than the second versions.
| All four of your sentences are correct.
|
What do you call a person who's receiving a service? Example: a social worker goes to anti-social people and tries to bring them back to society. What do you call the anti-social people? A few words pop up in my mind: clients, customers, patients ... but I think they don't fit this situation very well. What's a more adequate word? <Q> For social work contexts, where there is a government program or one provided by a non-profit, the word client is used in the US once they are being treated. <S> In some cases, if receiving treatment, patient is used. <S> And, these clients are beneficiaries of these social assistance programs. <A> The word itself will vary depending on who is delivering the service. <S> Many professionals who offer services will refer to them as cases when talking about the overall situation. <S> This includes medical professionals, legal professionals, social workers, and others. <S> Public defenders are routinely overworked and can have an overwhelming case load. <S> Health care workers (doctors, nurses, physical therapists, psychologists, acupuncturists, etc.) have patients . <S> The doctor- patient confidentiality protects communications between a patient and his or her doctor from being used against the patient in court. <S> The renowned psychiatrist primarily was a professor at the medical school, but still occasionally saw clients on the side. <S> Social workers who work with adults have clients . <S> Certain social workers work with families . <S> Others work with children . <S> School counselors work with students . <S> Still others work with veterans . <S> With each, the more specific term is often used in place of client . <S> When working with clients , social workers must maintain clear boundaries to assure professional integrity and responsibility. <S> Today's school counselors help all students in the areas of academic achievement, career, and social/emotional development. <S> Parole/probation officers have clients , but these are also frequently called offenders . <S> While GPS units can help monitor offenders , probation and parole officers must use them in conjunction with other supervision methods. <S> Police officers serve the public , but individual situations that require a police response are calls . <S> Individuals who are arrested by the police are referred to variously as perpetrators , suspects , or defendants , depending on the context, and whether they have been charged with a crime. <S> Two Falmouth police officers were wounded responding to a call Friday afternoon, and a suspect was shot multiple times by the officers. <S> In your specific example, you can use client or case depending on the context. <S> My client has severe anxiety and has trouble talking with anyone he doesn't know. <S> He's a difficult case because sometimes he refuses to even answer the door when I come by. <A> It's difficult to say you are receiving a service officially if no framework is being used that provides a definite start/stop to the relationship. <S> If a social worker is going to random people and trying to get them in a program, probably the most correct and neutral term is candidate . <S> Once in a program they can be considered a member or client . <S> It's not uncommon to use the term customer outside of a strict commercial setting to communicate that the relationship is expected to be similar.
| Some mental health professionals may refer to their patients instead as clients , to avoid the implication that there is something medically wrong with them.
|
Bring forward vs. put forward a proposal As for the topic of proposal , what is the difference between United Nations must bring forward a proposal to denuclearize South Korea to secure World peace. and United Nations must put forward a proposal to denuclearize South Korea to secure World peace. When googling, the result didn't clearly state what I really needed, especially to compare them. There is another website, but I consider it as still vague. bring forward a proposal put forward a proposal Although they MAY be the same, I THINK there may be subtle differences between them, and that's what I really needed as a foolproof. <Q> Not sure where to find a source on this, but here is my opinion as a native speaker: <S> Bring forward , put forward , <S> suggest , offer , and propose are definitely synonyms. <S> First, I find one subtle difference between them is the amount of confidence <S> the speaker/writer has in what is being offered. <S> Just between the two, put forward <S> shows more confidence than bring forward . <S> (strongest) <S> I will push forward with the proposal at the next meeting. <S> (strong) <S> I will put forward the proposal at the next meeting. <S> (weaker) <S> I will bring forward the proposal at the next meeting. <S> (weakest) <S> I will [ suggest / offer ] the proposal at the next meeting. <S> So when I read your example sentences, the one that uses "bring forward" makes me think that the proposal is more open for discussion and not yet complete. <S> But the one that uses "put forward" makes me think that it has already been considered thoroughly and less discussion or opposition is expected. <S> Another subtle difference is whether the proposal still needs to be made or not . <S> When I read your example sentence: United Nations must [ bring forward / put forward ] a proposal to denuclearize South Korea to secure World peace. <S> "bring forward" carries a hint <S> that the proposal still needs to be made. <S> "put forward" carries a hint <S> that the proposal is already made. <A> Both bring forward a proposal and put forward a proposal <S> mean making a proposal. <S> Which phrasal verb to use is just a matter of preference: <S> An array of proposals put forward last week by the Trump administration to reorganize and reform federal agencies would have major impacts on their workforces. <S> ( source ) <S> British Prime Minister Theresa May urged Donald Trump to bring forward proposals on achieving peace in the Middle East after the U.S. president recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. <S> ( source ) <A> If you search within the United Nations site http://www.un.org/en/index.html , then there are 173 instances of "put forward a proposal" versus only 3 "bring forward a proposal". <S> For example the Model United Nations page The Process of Negotiation says: You can put the proposal yourself (alone or in association with other delegations) <S> You <S> can encourage another delegation to put forward a proposal responsive to your wishes <S> You <S> can persuade another delegation to revise its proposal, to make it more accommodating of your wishes <S> You <S> can merge your proposal with the proposal of another delegation <S> You <S> can persuade the conference to amend a proposal put forward by another delegation, again to bring it more into line with your wishes <S> Often you will find that another delegation has done one of the above, in which case you can support them or just let them do the work.
| Both are acceptable and mean the same thing, but in the United Nations the phrase " put forward a proposal" is used much more often currently.
|
What does "skipped" mean in "Caroline skipped the better part of childhood"? I have checked the Longman dictionary definition of skip : not do something [transitive] informal to not do something that you usually do or that you should do (SYN miss) I still can't understand the meaning of the word 'skip' in this sentence: Caroline skipped the better part of childhood. I need the contextual meaning. <Q> As the dictionary states "not to do something", in the case of childhood could be "not to live something" in the sense of getting advantage of that stage of her life. <S> If you indicate your first language, someone could give you a better idea of how to understand that word in the context. <A> Caroline skipped the better part of childhood. <S> You have the meaning of skipped, and this might just be a Brit English thing but "the better part of" often means " the largest part of " the better part of PHRASE <S> Almost all of; most of. <S> ‘it is the better part of a mile’ <S> So this means that Caroline missed most of her childhood. <S> I just did a quick search and found this book http://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9781101984307 <S> Caroline skipped the better part of childhood , never cared about sneaking off to go swimming when she was supposed to be hanging out the laundry. <S> She never begged for seconds of Grandma’s banana pudding or lied about brushing teeth. <S> It would seem, however, that the chance to see her future husband is the one thing to give Caroline some gumption because before Annie can grab hold of Caroline’s arm or sweater or any part of her, Caroline has pressed her palms on top of the fence, jumped, plopped her hind end on the flat rocks, lifted her legs, and dropped down on the other side. <S> If this is the text you mean, Caroline was always rather grown up, she didn't do the other childish things other children did, she went straight from baby to boring sensible adult, apart from 1 small item, seeing this boy or man. <A> Figuratively, it means to not do something, to "leap over it", so to speak. <S> If your car has automatic transmission, you can skip this section on how to use the gear shifter. <S> As a young child, she already knew how to read, so she skipped first grade and was placed directly in the second grade. <S> She skipped breakfast because she was late for work. <S> So Caroline "skipped" something about childhood that the author considers the best thing about childhood. <S> She "hopped over" that part and went directly on to whatever part of childhood is not as good as the best part.
| In my opinion, in that specific sentence, "skipped" refers to the fact that Caroline, could not or did not want to, live/enjoy the better part of her childhood. Literally, to "skip" is to hop from leg to leg, or to hop over something.
|
she kicked me right in the teeth. Is there a pun in this phrase? dialogue of an NPC in the game. I ran forward into the crowd, yelling for them to stop, but… I… I tripped and fell in the mud. I looked up and saw the face of a kindly grandmother. I reached for her hand and… she kicked me right in the teeth . players reaction options. 1.That's horrible 2.You got beat up by an old woman? if you choose 2, response is: You may think this is funny now, but it was devastating at the time. picture comes from a PC game. Is there a pun here? (the idiom "a kick in the teeth") Or simply mean a real kick in the face? <Q> NO, there is not a pun <S> However in your example it actually says " she kicked me right in the teeth ". <S> This makes it very specific, and actually implies that it was a literal kick in the teeth. <S> This is further evidenced by the detailed description - the person was lying on the floor and reached up to someone else to help them, but they kicked them in the teeth, which would be logistically possible in that position. <S> If it wasn't for this additional context I might have wondered if it was a bad translation of the idiom "a kick in the teeth", but as it is I believe it is meant literally . <A> The word <S> right <S> there means "directly, not to any degree indirectly" or "precisely" or "exactly". <S> He stepped right in a pile of dog-shit. <S> The train arrived right on time. <S> You can put the letter right on that table there beside you. <S> Tell me where it hurts. <S> Here? <S> --No. <S> Here? <S> --No. <S> Here? <S> --Ouch! <S> Yes, right there. <S> So, she kicked me right in the teeth <S> literally means that gave him or her a kick directly in the mouth. <S> I assume you are asking about a "pun" because of the phrase <S> You may think this is funny now... . <S> mockery in player response #2, <S> You got beat up by an old woman? <S> The phrase to get beat(en) up means to be struck multiple times, again and again. <S> Bullies beat people up, for example. <S> The game's question #2 does not accurately reflect what happened in that regard, and it mocks the victim by implying that he or she was overcome and defeated in a fight by an old woman who was presumably physically weak. <S> That is why the game replies "You may think this is funny now...". <S> A person who mocks an injured victim in that manner would probably be laughing derisively. <S> At the very least they see humor in the situation. <S> The victim does not find it funny. <A> After reading other answers, I have to say this is certainly literal , but not for the reason people are claiming. <S> The idiom is: a kick in the teeth <S> Note that the word kick is a noun in this context. <S> When switched from a noun to an active verb, the sentence suddenly becomes more visceral, more real, and thus takes on the literal meaning: She kicked me in the teeth. <S> He hit the nail on the head --> <S> He hit the nail <S> right on the head. <S> Her response was a kick in the teeth -- <S> > <S> Her response was a kick <S> straight in the teeth. <S> The above phrases retain their idiomatic meaning even with the addition of the emphasis words in the middle. <S> It is the grammatical change that shifts the tone from idiomatic to literal in this case.
| I do not see any sort of pun but a reversal of the kindly grandmother stereotype and As has already been explained, " a kick in the teeth " is a fairly common expression which figuratively means someone has betrayed you. In general, adding words like "right" for emphasis to these types of idioms describing physical actions does not change the meaning, it simply makes it stronger.
|
What's the actual difference between "fire" and "flame"? What's the actual difference between " fire " and " flame "? Based on Cambridge dictionary: Flame is a stream of hot, burning gas from something on fire: Fire (material that is in) the state of burning that produces flames that send out heat and light, and might produce smoke: It seems that the "fire" refers to the state while "flame" refers to the result of this state. But in fact, they cannot be used interchangeably? because when I'm thinking about it, I don't necessarily find an difference between them, it's allegedly the same thing, therefore I don't understand why we say " cool flame " rather than "cool fire". <Q> You have answered your own question: a flame does not require a fire; The flame of a candle does not appear from a fire. <S> A fire need not have flames: a fire can be a pile of glowing embers. <S> A Flame is the visible portion of the gases of combustion. <S> A flame does not have a finite shape. <S> A fire's area can be defined. <S> Fire (uncountable) is the generic term for the act of burning. <S> Flame (uncountable) is the collective noun for the a quantity of flames. <A> Usually: A fire can be thought of as containing one or more flames. <S> A flame originates from a point. <S> A fire originates from an area. <S> If there's a lot of fuel and it will all be burned if no one intervenes, you have a fire . <S> A single flame might be separate from a fire and could dissipate in a short amount of time. <S> Things are said to be on fire , and flames are said to come from or rise from things. <S> My house is on fire. <S> Flames are coming out of my window (entire house may not be on fire). <S> Flame can also uncountably be used to refer to the actual flames of a fire, rather than fire + whatever is burning. <S> Aflame is synonymous with on fire though. <A> For the most part, the Cambridge definition is correct when talking about things that are literally burning. <S> Every few years a massive fire breaks out in the open areas around my city. <S> Although they are miles away, the flames grow so large that we can see them clearly from my house. <S> Figuratively , the two are more or less synonymous. <S> Flame is somewhat more poetic than fire , and may sound better when writing about strong emotions <S> : He was shy and never spoke to her, but every day a secret flame burned in his heart each time she passed near. <S> Since it's inelegant to use the same word more than once in a sentence, writers often switch back and forth between the two, albeit sometimes to excess: <S> "I am a servant of the Secret Fire , wielder of the flame of Anor. <S> You cannot pass. <S> The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. <S> Go back to the Shadow! <S> You cannot pass." <S> -- J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Fellowship of the Ring" <S> The point is that if Tolkien had instead written, I am a servant of the Secret Flame , wielder of the fire of Anor ..." <S> no one would have noticed any significant difference. <S> It just sounds a little better the other way around. <A> But in fact, they cannot be used interchangeably? <S> In fact, they can't - at least in some cases: The house was on fire <S> (= <S> the house was in the state of burning). <S> The flames were growing higher and higher (= the streams of hotburning gas were growing higher and higher). <S> I don't really see your problem with the Cambridge definition. <S> Try to use the one instead of the other - it doesn't work, does it? <A> A real fire ("real" as distinct from one that is about to burn out and turn to ash, or one that is only smoldering and has not yet really started) has multiple flames. <S> The candle flame was blown out by a sudden draft. <S> The flame of his match went out in the pouring rain as he tried to start the camp fire. <S> The camp fire had spread beyond the ring and its flames were licking at a nearby hammock.
| A fire is the whole process of something that is burning.
|
A subject is taught by a specific teacher I want to say that Phonetics which is taught by Ms. Rose is my favourite subject ( I mean that I am not interested in this subject if it is taught by anyone else). Can I say that Phonetics by Ms. Rose is my favourite subject ? Are there any other expressions to express my idea? <Q> There are a number of ways that you could say this, including: Phonetics, when it is taught by Ms. Rose, is my favourite subject. <S> Phonetics is my favourite subject, but only if it is being taught by Ms. Rose. <S> You can use your sentence but you need to change it to: Phonetics which is taught by Ms. Rose, is my favourite subject. <S> Note the comma in the middle of the sentence. <S> This makes 'Phonetice which is taught by Ms. Rose' the subject of the sentence. <S> However, no matter how you say this it may sound to the hearer as if you had said: Phonetics, which is taught by Ms. Rose, is my favourite subject. <S> Note the second new comma. <S> This effectively means that Phonetics is your favourite subject, and Ms. Rose just happens to be the teacher. <S> This is not what you want to communicate. <S> As a consequence it is best not to use this sentence at all. <S> You cannot say: Phonetics by Ms. Rose is my favourite subject. <S> 'By' does not imply or connote 'teach'. <A> To hell with phonetics, unless Ms Rose is teaching it, and then I'm all ears. <A> You can simply say Phonetics with <S> Ms. Rose is my favourite subject.
| If Mrs Rose is teaching it, then Phonetics is my favourite subject.
|
to storm at somebody vs. to rage at somebody Although to storm at somebody and to rage at somebody have similar meaning, I was wondering if there is any difference between them in terms of usage in daily life? Could you give some example situations for their usage? <Q> Neither word is particularly common in spoken speech when used this way, so it's tough to be very definitive. <S> Rage is most often used as a noun and storm is usually used in a more literal context. <S> They could be used as you describe in a literary or eloquent context, and there is a difference between them. <S> Normally a person will storm around , indicating that they are moving around, possibly pacing, visibly angry but likely not saying anything. <S> Or they may storm through the door in an attack-like manner (for example, a SWAT team). <S> Usually storm is part of a motion. <S> One is expressing rage, and there is no motion implied. <S> One also hears of raging against something ("rage against the machine"). <S> Usually this is an angrier version of complaining or verbally fighting against. <S> I suppose it could refer to physical fighting as well. <A> I somewhat doubt thay any answer to this question is going to be more than individual experience. <S> But, in my experience, "storm" as a synonym for "rage" is literary or figurative rather than colloquial. <S> I do not think I ever sat in a bar and heard someone use "storm" in a figurative sense. <S> Of course, my wife says I simply do not hang out with the right sort of people. <S> Maybe I should find a higher class of bar. <A> In my personal experience using both of these sayings, to storm at someone would generally be figurative action " <S> He was storming up the rear end <S> " another more commonly used but similar saying would be " <S> He came charging at me". <S> A general consensus of raging is someone who is angry and lets fly at someone else <S> "He was just standing there raging at him, presumably because he had just run over his beer". <S> So I guess if you where to use them both in a sentence it would be " <S> She came storming up to me and started raging at me because I accidentally left the toilet seat up (again)" (I promise that example is not from personal experience) <A> Perhaps these examples will help, because they are common in verbal and literary usage: <S> “I had to break up with my last boyfriend, because when he got behind the wheel of a car he turned into a monster filled with road rage .” <S> “The Rebel troops stormed from the rear of the guard to defeat the British invaders.”
| To rage is to be angry, often to yell.
|
Looking for the English equivalent of "to cross a hairline bridge" In my native language, we have this idiom - "to cross a hairline bridge", meaning, one has successfully avoided getting in trouble or a dangerous situation miraculously. Is there an idiom or expression in English that means the same thing? He was driving at 200 mph on the road when a truck coming from the opposite direction lost control and turned over, coming towards him. At the last moment, he managed to steer the wheel, thus saving his life. he certainly crossed a hairline bridge. <Q> https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+close+shave <S> https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+close+call <A> "He managed to steer the wheel, thus saving his life. <S> He certainly avoided disaster by the skin of his teeth ." <S> (From The Phrase Finder.) Narrowly; barely. <S> Usually used in regard to a narrow escape from a disaster. <A> The following might be a literal translation: <S> "He walked a tightrope." <S> If you want to imply that he skillfully managed to achieve an unlikely outcome: " <S> He threaded the needle." <S> If you want to emphasize the role of luck, instead of his skill: "He got lucky." <S> If you want to emphasize the miraculous aspect: "God was with him."
| The English expressions a narrow shave (or a close shave ) and a close call both refer to a narrow escape from danger.
|
Synonym for "nobody's perfect" I want a synonym for "nobody's perfect" in a more idiomatic way. Maybe some rare old phrase to mean that every side has good and bad. I'm talking about a meaning that will convey that in every faction, religion, group or whatever there are both bad and good people. Not that a person has good and bad within him. <Q> You may want to use " <S> Every rose has its thorn" : <S> There is rarely a good or positive thing, event, or circumstance that is not accompanied by something negative or unpleasant <S> As an example: <S> Mike: My bride is lovely and gracious, but I'm discovering that she has a terrible temper. <S> Bill: There's no rose without a thorn. <S> Here is another one: A: "I can't believe the amount of taxes I have to pay on my lottery winnings!" <S> B: <S> "No rose without a thorn, eh?" <S> For something that has both bad and good sides, you may want to use <S> Another phrase can be "mixed blessing" : something that is good in some ways and bad in other ways <S> ( Meriam-Webster ) an event, situation, etc, having both advantages and disadvantages <S> ( collinsdictionary ) <S> For something that has both positive and negative effects, you may want to use "double-edged sword" : If you say that something is a double-edged sword or a two-edged sword, you mean that it has negative effects as well as positive effects. <A> I've got two similar expressions for you. <S> They both describe the nature of human imperfection this way: no matter how good you are at something, you still have flaws. <S> even Homer nods <S> (the legendary Greek writer Homer is considered one of the most important and influential authors in the history of European literature): <S> Not even the most vigilant and expert are immune to error. <S> Although originally a Japanese expression, the phrase <S> even monkeys fall from trees <S> (monkeys are supposed to be experts when it comes to tree climbing) seems to have become very popular in the English-speaking world: <S> It suggests that even the most skilled, can make a mistake in something they should be a master of. <S> Or, to put it simply, "Anyone can make a mistake." <A> ... <S> in every faction, religion, group or whatever there are both bad and good people. <S> There's always a few bad apples.
| "There are two sides to every coin" which means you can't have the good part of something without its bad.
|
Is there a word "Pisser" in English gambling? I have happened to see a Japanese anime, which is about a natural born gambler, (with English subtitles) And they (The honcho group and other "workers") are gambling dices. From 22:51 ～ The honcho explains the general rule of the dice throwing gambling. From 24:27 ～ The honcho explains about the "pisser" which is if the thrower's dices are pushed out of the cup, it is called "pisser". Although there are several references to "bust" used here and there (in the English subtitles) "pisser" is categorized as something special. My first question is, Is there any "pisser" related word associated with gambling in English? (As far as my research led me, I have not been able to find a one that directly connects with gambling.) And the second question is, Is there anything in the English gambling world that resembles like that in the movie? <Q> I think in this anime, pisser, which is in quotation marks, might be a macho-related remark in Japanese, related to a man pissing outside the toilet bowl. <S> However, that is a guess. <S> As far as I know, pisser is not a gambling term. <S> That said, it does work in the anime. <A> Pisser is not a normal English gambling term. <S> It sounds like they made up the term specifically for that game. <A> In my opinion, Lambie's intuition is correct. <S> If we look at the dialogue, which is translated into good English, we hear the following A: <S> And then, triple 1s: Snake eyes win five times the original wager. <S> B: <S> Five times!? <S> A <S> : Don't worry about it. <S> They don't come up that often. <S> And then there's the “pisser”. <S> If a die rolls out of the bowl , we treat it as a bust. <S> Even if the dealer rolls a pisser <S> he loses. <S> And if you roll a pisser you're not allowed to reroll. <S> splashes out of the (lavatory) bowl , just like a die thrown in a bowl might rebound and fall out. <S> In Oxford Dictionaries , a pisser is slang for A person who urinates. <S> 1.1 <S> A toilet. <S> 1.2 <S> [in singular] An annoying or disappointing event or circumstance.
| The term “pisser” probably refers to what is called urine backsplash , this occurs when someone (usually a man) urinating either misaims the toilet or their urine stream
|
Some questions about "It has never been easier" http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/it-has-never-been-easier I know the phrase of the title means that the thing is now easy.But,can this writing structure be used for other adjectives?For example I have never been busier.=I'm now busy. She has never been more beautiful.= She is now beautiful. After the car crash, going to school has never been tougher.=it is now tough. Is the above understanding right? Next,when we want to use the sentences like this,is the structure "present tense+comparative" needed? Finally, what is the difference between the following sentences? A.It has never been easier. B.It has been easier. C.It is easier than before. D.It is easy now. <Q> So, it is possible that it has been easy in the past, but it is now even easier than it was than. <S> You other three examples follow the same path, e.g. I have been busy in the past, but I have never been as busy as I am now. <S> I always thought that she was beautiful, but she is now more beautiful than ever before. <S> Going to school had its tough times, but it is now tougher than at anytime in the past. <S> The general structure is have (past tense) + never + been + comparative . <S> This is one formulaic way of making this kind of statement but, as the examples shown above demonstrate, there are usually other ways of saying the same thing. <S> If you put your last four sentences into increasing order of difficulty, you would have something like this: <S> A.It has never been easier. <S> ....... <S> Easiest B.It is easy now. <S> ........................ <S> Easy, but not easiest <S> C.It is easier than before. <S> .......... <S> Less difficult/becoming easier <S> D.It has been easier. <S> ................. <S> Starting to become more difficult <A> Your understanding does not hit the bulls-eye on the target but comes quite close. <S> She has never been more beautiful <S> is taken as a compliment and its meaning is understood to be " <S> She is (quite) beautiful now" but the precise meaning is "at no time in the past <S> was she more beautiful than she is now". <S> It has never been easier <S> is the same. <S> It is understood to mean "It is (quite) easy now" but the precise meaning is "At no time in the past has it been easier". <S> I dwell on the difference between the meaning-in-context, the meaning that it is understood to have, versus the precise meaning, because someone could speak ironically about a difficult undertaking and say: It has never been easier. <S> and mean thereby that it has always been difficult, both in the past and even now. <S> It has been easier <S> literally means " <S> In the past this undertaking has been easier than it is now"; it is understood to be understatement for "This undertaking is somewhat difficult now". <A> Typical uses: to have never been [comparative adjective] <S> I have never been busier. <S> Meaning: never been busier [than now] <S> She has never been more beautiful. <S> Meaning: never been more beautiful [than now] After the car crash, going to school has never been tougher. <S> Meaning: never been tougher [than now] Please note: all your examples are correct. <S> And they all contain an implicit comparative that I have shown in square brackets. <S> As for the sentences below, they all are slightly different depending on what you want to say or need to say in the present about the past or about the past : A.It has never been easier. <S> Meaning: This is the easiest time. <S> [spoken in the present time for you] <S> B.It has been easier. <S> Meaning: It has been easier [spoken in the present, implied "than now"]. <S> C.It is easier than before. <S> [regular comparative] D.It is easy now. <S> Meaning: It was not easy before. <S> [Well, this one is obvious: present time versus past time, a time that is over or finished] Bear in mind that here the present perfect merely tells us something began in the past and continues to be true at the time of speaking. <S> It does not tell us anything about when in the past specifically anything happened.
| 'It has never been easier' means more than 'It is now easy', it means 'It is easier now than it has ever been'.
|
What is the meaning of the word "have" in this context? What does the word " have " in this context mean? (I know the meanings of this word but this sentence really sound difficult to me how to understand it correctly. I saw a lot definitions for this word on Cambridge so I don't really know to which meaning the writer means). What to Do Have your child complete the problems on each page. Point out that they can check their answers by adding the answer to the second number. If that answer matches the first number, they know the answer is correct. For example 6 − 2 = 4/4 + 2 = 6. Some of the pages have a quilt pattern on them. After your child has completed the problems, have him or her color the quilt according to the directions at the bottom of the page. <Q> To have somebody do something is a causative <S> and it means "to get (or cause) <S> somebody to do something". <S> It indicates that a person (which refers to parents in your sentence) who has the control over someone (which refers to the child in your sentence) can cause him/her (the child) to do something (to color the quilt) . <A> (e. g. to ask, to suggest - in context with a child; to persuade, to force etc. <S> - in another context). <S> The expression uses bare infinitive (in the place of ' do ' in the template). <S> Here's a more detailed explanation of grammar behind it: https://www.gymglish.com/en/english-grammar/to-have-somebody-do-something <A> As has been said, this is the "causative have". <S> It is more common in US English than British - <S> the entry in the (US) Merriam-Webster has it: <S> "7 a : to cause or command to do something —used with the infinitive without to. <S> have the children stay"
| To have somebody do something (here: 'have him or her color the quilt') means to cause/get somebody to do something
|
Help to understand the usage of "after" in "Nothing you need to get a chain saw after yet" Wareheim said so far the wind has only knocked down branches and limbs small enough to be carried. "Nothing you need to get a chain saw after yet," he said by phone. As I understand, the sentence is saying that: Nothing you need to get a chain saw after the hurricane is gone yet . But I'm not sure if my understanding is correct? The full source . <Q> get after 2. <S> To pursue something that is a problem or menace: If you don't get after those termites, your house will be destroyed. <S> (TFD) <S> You get after [someone/something] (with something) . <S> Wareheim's usage strikes me as a (US) Southernism, and the article does state that the man has a home in North Carolina. <S> The usual construction would be Nothing you need to get after with a chainsaw <S> yet. <S> (complete sentence) → [There is] nothing you need to get after with a chainsaw yet. <S> In other words, there is nothing yet that needs to be handled, cleared, or destroyed with a chainsaw. <A> So far [ yet , before some more severe destruction] there's nothing to go <S> [get] after with a chain saw. <S> P. S. <S> Anyway, after points here at the source of trouble needing a chain saw to be applied. <S> Go after means 'to try to find' (e.g. to go after gold), to aim at something needing application of that instrument here. <S> As the other answer shows, the original get after expression has an even more direct meaning addressing something troublesome (with that instrument here). <A> <A> We can get after something that needs tending or requires our action. <S> That is, we see that the thing gets done. <S> We tend to the matter. <S> I need to get after the backed-up laundry now that the washing machine has been repaired. <S> We can also get someone after something: <S> We need to get the dog-catcher after these packs of stray dogs. <S> And, in an extended, somewhat joking sense, we can get something after something: <S> I need to get the rake after those dead leaves. <S> That is, I need to rake those leaves. <S> The rake, being an inanimate object, cannot be given an assignment or a task to complete as the dog-catcher can. <S> And we can get after something with something. <S> You need to get after those tall weeds with a sickle. <S> A lawn mower won't do. <A> I think it looks like an unusual usage of the word after . <S> It looks like it could simply be substituted with a for . <S> Nothing you need to get a chainsaw for yet. <S> In other words:After the winds as of yet, theres nothing you can't take care of without a chainsaw.
| Another way of wording that sentence: So far there has been nothing that needed a chainsaw used on it before it could be removed. To me, this seems like an unusual usage of phrasal verb get after : After is being used in the sense of “applied to”.
|
Can we use present perfect with a specific time? For example, if I say "Today I have washed the dishes" or "Yesterday I have walked the dog", it comes off as wrong. This is why I understand that present perfect doesn't go with specific times. Past simple should be used. But then, how come "I have washed the dishes today" does sound right? Thank you. <Q> You can use present perfect with "today", because "today" hasn't finished yet, so it isn't regarded as past time. <S> Yesterday is past time, so it requires past simple. <A> "Today I have washed the dishes" is fine whether you have "today" at the start or the end. <S> It can also be used to indicate an indefinite time: I have visited Japan (at some unspecified time in my life). <S> As you perceive, yesterday is another day and is disconnected enough from the present that you would say "I walked the dog yesterday", although you could say "I have walked the dog this week", or "I have visited Peru this year". <S> Present perfect <A> I formulate the rule so: "The time phrase in clause employing the present perfect cannot exclude the present". <S> "Yesterday" doesn't work with present perfect. " <S> Last week" doesn't work either. <S> Both of those phrases exclude the present. <S> "This morning" only works if it is still in the AM. <S> When it is afternoon, "this morning" excludes the present, so use past with "this morning" when the time of the speaking is PM. <S> I have seen him this morning. <S> (only if it is still AM) <S> I saw him this morning. <S> (when it is PM) <S> "3PM" only works with the present perfect at precisely 3PM. <S> On the stroke of 3PM it would be grammatical to say: There! <S> I've taken my medicine at 3PM just as I was supposed to do. <S> Once it is no longer 3PM (e.g. 3:01PM), use the past: I took my medicine at 3PM just as I was supposed to do. <S> You could say (if you still live in London): <S> I have woken up at 5AM every day since I moved to London. <S> The relevant time phrase is since I moved to London . <S> This would be ungrammatical: I have woken up at 5AM every day when I lived in London. <S> ungrammatical
| We use the present perfect for an action that began in the past and continues into the present (including a present period of time - today, this morning/afternoon/week/month/year/decade etc), or whose effects continue into the present (it is still today).
|
Name for a person who is awareness about an issue/subject For example there is "observer" for somebody who professionaly follows a subject.What about awareness? (I mean a word in the meaning of imaginary word "awareness+er") <Q> An afficionado is a person who likes, knows about, and appreciates a usually fervently pursued interest or activity. <S> An amateur is one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession. <S> An expert is a person who has special skill or knowledge relating to a particular subject. <S> And a maven is one who is experienced or knowledgeable. <S> In my opinion the word "maven" is less usual in formal writing than the others. <S> If you follow those links you will find some sample uses of these words. <A> "Observer" is not at all a normal word used to describe someone who professionally follows a subject. <S> Normally this would be an "expert." <S> However, specific fields often have jargon to describe their professionals. <S> For example: watchdog, commentator, analyst. <S> Your question about awareness is less clear. <S> Do you mean someone who follows a subject but not at a professional level? <S> Again it depends on what the subject is. <S> Some candidates are: fan, follower, enthusiast, watcher. <A> Possibly you mean to say that someone is informed as in making an informed decision <S> The Wall Street Journal has a column called The Informed Reader which covers trending topics to keep the reader up to speed on happenings.
| An enthusiast is one who is ardently attached to a cause, object, or pursuit, or one who tends to become ardently absorbed in an interest.
|
Have a good command of something – is "command" countable or uncountable? I am confused, the following examples are from the Oxford dictionary , all from the same entry (2). Why in some cases it is "a command" and in some it is treated as uncountable? ‘he had a brilliant command of English’ ‘For much of the season, he has struggled with command of his fastball.’ "They come with a very basic command of English, " she said.’ ¨ He has good command over English, Punjabi and Hindi languages.’ <Q> I don't have an authoritative analysis but it might help to think of it like this: 'command' is uncountable. <S> That's true for all of your sentences. <S> It's certain adjectives that pull in the 'a'. <S> Notice that your sentences only include ' <S> a' when 'command' has an adjective: "a brilliant command", "a basic command". <S> Not all adjectives require the article ("good command"), although "a good command" could also be correct. <S> The point is that you should be looking at the adjective for the origin of the 'a', not the noun. <S> In this case, 'a' is making no assertions about the countability of the noun, or indeed of the adjective. <S> So what is the relationship between 'a' and the adjective? <S> As a quantifier, it functions not as "one", but rather as a synonym for "some" (possibly as a determiner). <S> It signifies existence. <S> It contrasts with "none at all"; not with two or three. ' <S> a' here implies the opposite of: <S> He had no brilliant command of English <S> They come with <S> not even a basic command of English <S> In " a sense of direction", direction is uncountable, but it means " some sense of direction" as opposed to " no sense of direction". <S> Similarly, "she has a charismatic personality" and "he has a unique style". <S> I'm sure there are exceptions, but hopefully this intuition helps. <A> The use of the indefinite article as in the examples you list is possible with many uncountable nouns, and so is not peculiar to command . <S> This is the best reference I can find at the moment, <S> although the subject is somewhat addressed here and here . <S> Essentially, when an uncountable noun is limited in some way, it becomes a countable subset of the concept <S> the noun represents: a healthy respect , a doomed love , a heavy fog , a dark coffee , an unquenchable thirst . <S> This is what is happening in all your examples (except perhaps the last). <S> Although command of English may be uncountable generally, a very basic command or a brilliant command are countable (or at least can be) because they exist in comparison to other (modified) commands . <S> For instance, compare <S> We saw fog outside. <S> with Outside, a fog rolled in. <S> In the first sentence, fog is an abstraction (or at least a general concept); in the second, the specific fog in the location is being referred to. <S> And in both sentences, the use of the article could be reversed without really changing the underlying meaning. <S> What would change would be a slight nuance that may, or may not, be important, given the context. <S> In the second sentence, using the article makes the fog in question slightly more concrete (so to speak): maybe the fog was expected, or maybe (if this were part of a narrative) <S> the presence of this fog at this time is important to the story. <S> I point this out because of your last example, which does not use the article, but, in my opinion, would be correct either way. <S> As written, good modifies the abstract concept of command , but if the article were used, the command referred to would no longer be abstract, but a subset, or a particularized type of command . <S> There would be the (subtle) implication that this good command is being compared to either <S> a worse command or a better command . <A> I received his command. <S> Singular noun meaning "order" We received our commands. <S> Plural noun. <S> Orders <S> The captain commanded the army unit. <S> Verb. <S> To lead. <S> She has great command of the Finnish language. <S> Mass noun meaning "skill"
| In my opinion, uncountable nouns are a very fuzzy concept and the borders between uncountable, countable, and mass nouns are not clear cut.
|
Stubbed my toe... which preposition? How to say table was the thing I kicked into using stub? Is it one of these? A . I stubbed my toe by the table? B . I stubbed my toe onto the table? <Q> by is used to show the person or thing that does something. <S> You can't really use by with a table in this sentence, because it's you that's doing something (kicking the table). <S> You could use by about a table if, for example, it fell on you: <S> He was killed by a table that fell from the roof garden of the hotel. <S> onto is used to show movement into or on a particular place. <S> for example: He climbed onto the stage <S> One of the meanings of on is to show what causes pain or injury as a result of being touched, for example <S> I hit my head on the shelf as I was standing up on <S> is therefore the correct preposition to use in your sentence. <A> On I stubbed my toe on the table <S> But I’m assuming it was the table leg? <S> So if you want to be more specific: <A> According to Wordreference and the Collins English dictionary <S> you can also use "against": <S> I stubbed my toe against the step. <S> I stubbed my toes against a table leg. <S> As commented by other users, this expression is regional: although it would be understood, it wouldn't sound natural in the American Midwest, nor would it in the UK. <S> But in some parts of America it would. <S> In light of this, I would recommend to use <S> I stubbed my toe on the table which seems to be accepted everywhere.
| I stubbed my toe on the table leg
|
What does "hold spectacle" mean here? Seized by the System - Author: Mu Heng In the western sky, a shooting star blazed a blood-red arc across the heavens, sending the numerous couples beneath who held spectacle to its descent into bouts of enthusiastic prayer and wish-making. Those couples expected the star would fall? <Q> In a descriptive sense, the star did fall—across the sky. <S> Typically, shooting stars are associated with blessings and well-wishes. <S> A variation of this (one that is more transitive) would be something like: <S> She was in awe at what she was held spectacle to. <S> Of course, it need not be positive: <S> She was aghast at the horror of what she was held spectacle to. <S> From Merriam-Webster's definition of spectacle <S> : 1 <S> a : something exhibited to view as unusual, notable, or entertaining especially : an eye-catching or dramatic public display <A> You've missed out the important context: <S> The Qixi Festival happened on a summer night. <S> In the western sky, a shooting star blazed a blood-red arc across the heavens,... <S> The Qixi festival is an annual event in China in which young couples go out to look at the stars, as it celebrates two lovers who were separated, and became immortalised as the stars Vega and Altair, on either side of the milky way. <S> It is a day when girls make ardent prayers to find a lover and couples hope that they will have a happy life together. <S> This is why there were numerous couples looking at the stars. <S> The appearance of a shooting star would be a good time to make your wishes and prayers. <A> It just means "see the scene". <S> You have asked if it means "expected". <S> I think you just confused spectacle and speculate , and thought they expected a star falling.
| It's a somewhat uncommon expression, but to say that they held spectacle to its descent means that they observed the spectacle of its descent.
|
Can an animal like dog or cat "row" with its paws on the ground when playing or doing smth else? Or what is the name of the movement of the cat or dog's paws after they went to the toilet on the ground? Or, for example, when a dog is burying a bone, are they rowing (on the lawn or ground)? Thanks. <Q> The animal is said to paw the ground when it scrapes it with its paws (or with its hooves, as the case may be). <S> See paw , verb. <S> There's no special verb that means "to dig a hole with the paws". <S> An animal that digs a tunnel is said to burrow . <A> No, not rowing . <S> You can describe their actions as scratching, scraping, scuffing or clawing , depending on the context, although one often speaks of dogs covering their excrement with dirt or kicking dirt over their excrement . <S> https://pets.thenest.com/dogs-scratch-ground-after-defecating-3549.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claw <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/scratch <A> The closest English word for the Slavic рити/рыть should be "dig" and for заривати <S> /зарывать <S> it's "bury". <S> So a dog may choose to <S> dig up a bone it buried yesterday if it feels hungry. <S> And likewise, both dogs and cats will frequently bury their poop to <S> show their submissiveness . <S> Rowing (гребти/грести) describes the act of propelling a boat with a paddle and cannot be applied to solid substances.
| When a dog is digging a hole to bury a bone, the animal is said to dig .
|
They feel a lack of purpose Is the following sentence correct? After returement, some people feel lonely, and also they feel a lack of purpose in life. Does the use of ‘a lack’ after ‘feel’ correct? And if not, how could I write the sentence correctly to have the same meaning? Thanks in advance! <Q> It's not wrong but you might also rephrase it as: After retirement, some people feel lonely and some might experience a lack of purpose in life. <A> To feel a lack of purpose is 100% idiomatic. <A> This sentence is valid. <S> From what I can glean from your question, your confusion stems from "feeling a lack", with a lack being a void or negation or absence. <S> How can one feel an absence? <S> However, one can feel (or perceive) a lack. <S> For example, "feeling cold" means to feel a lack of heat, in the same way that "feeling hot" means to feel an excess of heat. <S> Or to use an example from your sentence, "feeling lonely" is also feeling a lack, specifically a lack of companionship or community. <S> although KeykoYume's suggestion would also work.
| If you would like to rewrite the sentence, I would suggest: After returement, some people feel lonely and without a purpose in life.
|
What does "go blue" mean here? I was watching Emmys when I heard the phrase "go blue" from Darren Criss who won the award for the lead actor in a limited series. He said: Congratulations to all of you. Thank you to the television academy. Go blue . You can find his speech here and this phrase at 1:29. I googled go blue and I found this : This is in reference to a 'blue movie', a euphemistic term for a pornographic film. going a bit blue then would mean that the programme/character in question is normally 'clean' but has begun to include more adult themes. and this one: to turn blue from being cold or not breathing But I think none of them makes sense in this context. So what does "go blue" mean here? <Q> "Go Blue" is similar to "Go Wildcats", where the second word refers to a school or sports team. <S> In this particular case, blue is one of the colors of the University of Michigan, which is where Criss went to school . <S> If you went to one of their sports games, you might hear the song <S> Let's Go Blue . <A> The phrase Go <S> X is a generic cheer of support for or solidarity with X in a competition, or more broadly used to express encouragement or admiration. <S> Let's go Red Sox! <S> I went to high school in White Bear Lake. <S> Go Bears! <S> Go on, girl! <S> (nowadays, more commonly You go, girl! ) <S> Context is highly important as there are hundreds and hundreds of things <S> blue could refer to; it could be cheering on police (in parallel with firefighter red), it could be cheering on the US Democratic Party (since the 2000 election; Republicans became identified with red at the same time for the same reason ), it could be cheering on the Los Angeles Dodgers <S> ( Dodger blue has even become an X11 color). <A> Go Blue = <S> Go Michigan. <S> He was referring to the Michigan football team .
| Darren Criss is a graduate of the University of Michigan, whose colors are maize and blue but whose football team is cheered on simply as the "Blue," so that is as likely the intended meaning as any other, having no other context to go on.
|
Is 'guts' singular or plural? Is 'guts' singular or plural? Like, which is correct: "Guts are required for this" or "Guts is required for this"? <Q> It could be singular or plural depending on the context. " <S> If "guts" means "the entrails of an animal, removed by a butcher" or "personal courage or determination" <S> then it is plural - "Guts are required for this". <S> IF "gut" is a mass noun meaning "Fibre made from the intestines of animals, used especially for violin or racket strings or for surgical use." <S> then like all mass nouns it is singular - "Gut is required for this." <S> Reference for meanings of "gut(s)" : https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gut <S> #s 1.2, 3, and 4. <A> “Guts” is used widely used informally especially in British English to mean fortitude, courage or determination: guts [plural] <S> informal the courage and determination you need to do something difficult or unpleasant <S> It takes guts to start a new business on your own. <S> have the guts (to do something) <S> No one had the guts to tell Paul what a mistake he was making. <S> Guts (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) <S> The plural designation is also shown in the entries in Merriam-Webster, Collins, and Oxford Learner's dictionaries. <A> The cited use of guts is exactly paralleled by brains . <S> We tend to think of the "idiomatic" senses (courage / intelligence) as only applying to the plural form, because we never use He has gut / brain to mean He's brave / clever. <S> But noting that many if not most native speakers would prefer <S> Guts / brains is something he's never been short of, rather than ... <S> are something... <S> , I think it's reasonable to say that semantically , we think of the idiomatic plural usage as representing a singular quality / attribute. <S> It's almost meaningless to ask which version is "right", and Anglophones in general have a long history of ignoring pedants anyway <S> (consider the data is vs the data are :). <S> But unquestionably I personally would favour semantics over syntax in OP's case. <S> EDIT: <S> Thanks to @Ronald <S> Sole for the link to McMillan Dictionary <S> ... , wherein their example usage <S> That’s <S> what you need to be a referee – guts clearly uses a singular reference ( that is what you need , <S> not those are what you need). <S> It may not be directly relevant to OP's exact example, but when searching for relevant pronouncements on the usage, I came across this delightfully ambiguous example ... <S> These animals have brains <S> Semantics: <S> A Reader (2004) - Page 420 ... <S> which could be literal - each of the animals actually does have at least some kind organ containing neurons. <S> But it could also be figurative - some or all of them are [unusually] smart . <S> And exactly the same ambiguity would apply with guts in that example (digestive organ / bravery).
| Gut" and "guts" have several different meanings which could be used in the OP's sentence.
|
Using are there or is there – when quantity is uncertain Using are there or is there – when quantity is uncertain Scenario 1 Let’s just say Tom doesn’t know there are 4 apples in the box Tom: is there any apple in the box? Peter: There are 4 apples in the box. *wouldn’t Tom sentence be wrong since he used “is”. But at the same time he doesn’t know how many apples are in the box when he asked. So there is no way he knows whether he should ask the question starting is or are. If we change the scenario a little bit Let’s just say the box has 1 apple Tom: are there any apples in the box? Peter: There is 1 apple in the box. Same theory apply as above. My question if I ask a question and I am not certain of the quantity do I use i s there or are there . In addition if using "is there" and "are there" are both correct. what is the difference between is there any apple in the box? and are there any apples in the box? <Q> When making a statement where you know whether the number of items is singular or plural, you would say either: There is an apple in the box <S> or <S> There are apples in the box <S> When you are asking a question , you still need to phrase it correctly, but as you don't know how many items may be involved you can only phrase it based on the number you might expect . <S> For example, you might ask: <S> Are there any apples in the box? <S> But you might get the reply: <S> There is just one. <S> The respondent is not correcting you on your grammar , only on the number of apples! <S> Likewise you could ask: <S> Is there an apple in the box? <S> and get the reply... <S> Actually, there are two! <S> Just because you didn't know how many apples were in the box does not mean that you phrased your question incorrectly. <S> The respondent will phrase their answer accordingly. <A> Both are perfectly legitimate ways of asking if there are apples in the box. <S> Generally speaking, you'd hear someone say, "Are there apples in the box? <S> " if you do not particularly care about how many there are. <S> "Is there an apple in the box?" is quite specific, asking if there is one. <S> This could be asking if there is exactly one apple or it could be asking if there is at least one apple. <S> The exact meaning is subject to interpretation, but usually it's the latter. <S> However, both are equally viable ways of asking. <A> You don't have to know anything about the number of apples remaining to ask the question. <S> But the version of the question you choose reveals your thoughts on the matter. <S> If you ask Are there any apples left? <S> and your roommate or spouse says merely "Yes", you might say Good. <S> I think I'll have one of them. <S> because your question assumed that there may be more than one remaining, and the answer you received to your question implied there were. <S> If there's only one left, you would expect to be told <S> There's one left. <S> If you ask Is there an apple left? <S> you're implying that you don't expect there to be more than one, that there might be just one remaining. <S> You expect to be told <S> Yes, there's one left. <S> Yes, there are several left. <S> No, they're all gone.
| All you can do is phrase your question according to what you expect , with "is" or "are" depending on whether you expect there to be a single apple, or more than one.
|
Being washed two weeks ago Is "being" okay in the following? What difference does it make if it is removed? (Being) washed two weeks ago, the car still looks spotlessly clean. <Q> It's not wrong to use "being", but as WendyG says, most native speakers would probably choose "having been". <S> It makes more sense to describe washing as a relative action, especially (as stangdon points out) if it was washed in the past. <S> Having been given a fresh coat of paint, the house looks practically new. <S> If instead you were to describe it as a current quality of of the car, "being" would be fine: <S> Being recently washed and waxed, the car practically sparkles in the sunlight. <S> Some sort of participle phrase is required, but it doesn't have to be in the present participle "-ing" form. <S> The past participle phrase "washed two weeks ago" is fine. <S> Recently washed and waxed , the car looks brand new. <S> The main problem with your example sentence is the logic doesn't quite work with this grammar. <S> Because you use "still", it sounds like you want to draw attention to an extraordinary situation. <S> In that case you would say something like: <S> Although washed two weeks ago, the car still looks spotlessly clean. <S> Despite having been washed two weeks ago, the car still looks spotlessly clean. <A> In that particular sentence, where the main clause has "the car still looks clean", Being washed is ungrammatical. <S> You can more readily hear that is ungrammatical when you reverse the order of the clauses: <S> The car still looks clean, being washed two weeks ago. <S> No <S> The car, being washed two weeks ago, still looks clean. <S> No Consider: Being given a sedative two hours ago, the patient is still asleep. <S> No <S> This is OK: <S> Washed two weeks ago <S> , the car still looks clean. <S> grammatical <S> Given a sedative two hours ago, the patient is still asleep. <S> grammatical <S> The car, washed two weeks ago, still looks clean. <S> grammatical <S> The patient, given a sedative two hours ago, is still asleep. <S> grammatical <A> (Being) washed two weeks ago, the car still looks spotlessly clean. <S> There need to use a participle phrase here and it is pretty awkward in that sentence.
| Should be, to be expressed smoothly and idiomatically: - As it was washed two weeks ago - Since it was washed two week ago Since and as show a condition or state.
|
What is the meaning of "wrought" in this sentence and can it be replaced by "worked"? I understand wrought as a word with two meanings--as the archaic past tense and past participle of work and as an adjective in its own right. However, I can't quite understand its meaning in this sentence from a book . Whether they were staunch supporters of Pan-Americanism or not, scholars tended to envision the nature of the U.S. hegemony in South America as something to be wrought in the terrain of culture. In this regard, their views sustained and accompanied the transition from Big Stick diplomacy to the Good Neighbor Policy. Does it function as the part participle of work ? What exactly does it mean here? Judging from the context, my guess is "brought about", but can't be sure which among work 's myriad definitions this usage invokes. <Q> The dictionary defines "wrought" as the, "archaic past and past participle of work ." <S> Nowadays it is used mostly as the past participle, to describe a particular kind of metalwork, e.g. " wrought iron decorative fencing" Because it conveys the image of large, sweaty men pounding hot metal into shape with large hammers, "wrought" suggests significant effort and craftsmanship , where "work" just suggests, well, work . <S> Example: <S> It was a hard-wrought truce achieved only after many days of intense negotiation between the warring factions. <S> In the example you provide: yes, you can substitute "work", but it would not have the same figurative meaning. <S> That being said, the use of wrought is odd here, given the subject matter. <S> Forged might have been more idiomatic, since we often talk figuratively about forging things like alliances, trade deals, treaties, etc. <S> I can't say for certain since it's unclear what the author means by "the terrain of culture". <A> I would interpret "wrought" in the quoted context as "made" or "brought into being": wrought <S> adjective brought into being; made: She’s modest about what she has wrought. <S> Wrought <A> The verb is wreak, and the commonly used past tense is wrought, the original past tense of work. <S> To wreak havoc or to have wrought havoc or harm or injury, etc. <S> That is how it is generally used. <S> wreak, wrought as the past tense of worked <S> Mr. Salvatore is a Spanish speaker(from Argentina) and no one "caught this". <S> There is a mistake in the introduction about his colleagues "at Buenos Aires". <S> I believe he has misused the term. <S> And I don't think he meant "wrought" , which simply does not make sense here. <S> "One doesn't envision the nature of U.S. hegemony as something to be wrought in the terrain of culture". <S> U.S. hegemony may be inflicted on people,it is not "wrought on the terrain of culture". <S> And this is not about winning hearts and minds. <S> It's about U.S. cultural and other imperialism. <S> It does make sense to say: U.S. hegemony is something that plays out in the terrain of culture. <S> The verb wreak needs an object, and if it is used as a past participle, it comes near the noun. <S> U.S. hegemony in South America as something to be wrought in the terrain of culture. <S> It is not even grammatical. <S> I doubt he meant to "inflict" U.S. hegemony which is what wreak means. <S> Because wrought here would mean inflicted on people. <S> And if he meant that, he would have needed an object. <S> Bear in mind that in books like this, some things just slip through the editor's fingers. <S> It's understandable when two languages are involved and no one went over every word with a fine-toothed comb.
| Wrought is an archaic past tense form of the verb 'to work' (as in 'wrought iron', for instance).
|
What do 'snapped forward' 'bounded off' mean in context? I don't understand what do 'snapped forward' 'bounded off' mean in context? The breath whistled out of Jock Danby's throat, and he stopped in mid-charge as though hit in the chest with a double charge of buck-shot. His head and arms snapped forward , nerveless as a straw-man, and he flew backwards, crashing into the unbaked brick wall of the hut and beginning to slide down onto his knees. Zouga bounded off the tabletop. His left arm was numb to the fingertips from the unexpected blow, but he was light on his feet as a dancer, and the quick rush of cold anger armed and strengthened him. I can not understand exactly what it means. I feel difficulty with these verbs with propositions like 'bind off' and 'snap forward'. Could you explain they meanings in context and other examples? <Q> Both of these may be found in the dictionary: snap (v): 1.2 [with complement or adverbial] Move or alter with a brisk movement and typically a sharp sound. <S> bound (v): 1.1 (of an object) <S> rebound from a surface. <S> If someone is struck in the chest, it's not unusual for their arms to "snap forward" as their torso moves backwards. <S> In this case Zouga struck the tabletop but bounced off with little damage from the impact. <A> Something hit the character and caused his arms and head to snap back. <S> [arms, head, legs,] + snap: an involuntary sharp movement of the head or arms etc. <S> Like (for the head) when you are in a car crash. <S> snap forward or back[ward]. <S> bound off of table : to jump off it, to get off the table in one movement bound out of a room : to leave a room quickly with long strides; to run out of it. <A> "Snap" is a sudden movement. " <S> Forward" means that the movement was to (his) front. <S> The implication is that the rest of him was stopped in its movement by something, but his extremities kept on going. <S> "Bounded" means "jumped" or "leapt". <S> "Off" is a preposition meaning "away from on". <S> He was on the table and he jumped so that he was no longer on it. <S> " <S> Bounded" has a connotation of jumping with enthusiasm (like a dog chasing something), and it sounds a bit like "bounce"; this fits with "light on his feet as a dancer".
| So "to snap forward" means to move sharply or suddenly, in the "forward" direction. "Bound off" is another way to say "rebound" or "bounce" off of something.
|
"He blew it on packing" - what does "blow" mean here? "He blew it on packing" What does "blow" mean here? I tried to locate a dictionary that would make sense in this context, but I failed. It is a sentence a character in a TV show said, meaning that her husband did not really pack what was needed. Could you please explain the meaning and most importantly, point me to the right dictionary entry? EDIT : I guess I cannot use that with a verb, so "on" is used here to express what exactly he blew? I have always seen that only with nouns (as in, He blew his chance , or He blew the game ). <Q> to blow it <S> (idiomatic) - to fail at something; to mess up; to make a mistake. <S> In your context, the husband utterly failed to pack (the things he would need for his trip / holiday). <S> (from comment by FumbleFingers ) <A> To "blow" something is slang that simply means "to fail". <S> The exact nuance will depend on context: <S> Ralph was upset because he was sure he blew the interview, but then later that day they called to say he got the job. <S> I tried to set the world record for 1000-meter skipping, but I blew it when I accidentally hopped instead of skipped in the last 100 meters. <S> My kids tried to make my wife breakfast for Mother's Day <S> but they kind of blew it when they fried the toast and toasted the eggs. <S> But she ate it anyway. <S> There are many ways to use this in a sentence, and for the most part the exact phrasing doesn't matter. <S> " <S> However, it's not the best phrasing because it sounds like the unrelated idiomatic expression to blow (one's money) on [something] which means "to waste all one's money on". <S> He made a fortune but blew it all on expensive cars and ex-wives. <S> It's unnecessarily confusing, because in context it makes no sense to spend money on "packing". <S> Additional note <S> : This should not be confused with the idiomatic expression to blow [someone] away (or for a loop , or out of their seats , or various similar expressions) which means "to impressively succeed". <S> The audience weren't sure of her when she got up on stage, but once she opened her mouth and started to sing, she blew them away with her talent. <S> Also not to be confused with to blow away meaning "to completely destroy": <S> Han Solo: <S> Our position is correct, except, no Alderaan. <S> Luke Skywalker: <S> What do you mean? <S> Where is it? <S> Han Solo: That's what I'm trying to tell you, kid. <S> It ain't there. <S> It's been totally blown away . <S> Exhaustive list <S> if idioms that use "blow" <A> You might need to find a dictionary of modern American slang and idiom. " <S> He blew it on packing" simply means that "He packed very badly."
| He blew it on packing" is just an alternate way to say, "He blew the packing."
|
Loops as synonyms to handles or straps From the sitcom Seinfeld , they were describing a bra in the sentence "You got the cups in the front, two loops in the back" . It seems that in this context "loops" means "straps". Is that correct? What are other uses of "loops" with the same meaning? General straps like bag handles? Is it a plural noun and can it be used in the singular form (without the ending "s")? I don't know if these sources break copyrights, so I don't know how long they will last, but searching for the whole sentence we can find transcripts and videos to that episode, like: Transcript: http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheSniffingAccountant.htm Video (go to the point 2:30): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3AMRHXMfjs EDIT: Added a picture of the sitcom scene. Frank was hanging the bra while he would analyze and describe it. <Q> Yes, the straps of the brassiere form loops . <S> A "loop" is a particular circular shape, while a strap is a piece of cloth used to attach or hold down something. <S> They are not synonyms. <S> As in any language, English humor is often based on how certain words sound in context. <S> "Loop" is a singular noun. <S> You can have a single loop , or multiple loops . <S> It is also a verb, in that something can loop around something else, like a string when tying a knot . <S> Many other things form loops : bag handles, neckties, some earrings, certain types of pasta or cereal, etc. <S> You can say that the orbit of the Moon forms loops around the Earth, and the Earth forms <S> loops around the Sun. <S> A happy dog can run loops around its owner. <S> Airplanes can do an acrobatic maneuver called a loop-de-loop . <S> And so on. <S> (Edit) in response to Lambie's objection: <S> The scene isn't funny because "men are clueless". <S> Seinfeld 's humor was rarely that straightforward -- in the episodes where they did talk about how men know little about women, that was the premise of the running joke, not the punchline. <S> My interpretation is that George's father uses "loops" as a kind of dismissive oversimplification, because his ego was hurt from being wrong about what bras are made of. <S> The overall scene is funny because of the absurdity of the family getting so argumentative over bras . <S> Note that Larry David, who co-wrote and co-produced Seinfeld , was the inspiration for the character of George Costanza. <S> Judging from the kind of humor in his other shows, it's entirely likely that scenes like this happened frequently in his family. <A> The definition in Cambridge dictionary is " the curved shape made when something long and thin, such as a piece of string, bends until one part of it nearly touches or crosses another part of it ". <S> This definition describes physical loops, but the term is also used with an extended mathematical meaning of "a closed path". <S> See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_(topology) and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_(computing) as specific examples. <S> Also consider this SE question about electricity. <S> With this in mind, a bra can indeed be seen as having two loops in the back. <S> It is an unusual description, and it may be funny (especially for people who are familiar with the mathematical meaning) in a non-mathematical context. <S> Shopping bag handles also form loops (with the bag), but they are not loops in and of themselves. <A> "You got the cups in the front, two loops in the back". <S> I do not want to view the video, <S> so I don't know which character is talking. <S> BUT: it is a man. <S> Ok,I see the other answer says George's father. <S> He is clueless. <S> :) <S> Anyway, that is a misuse, and funny too,of the word loop. <S> Bra straps are not loops. <S> They go from the top of the front over the shoulders ending at the top of back of the bra on a woman's back. <S> It's actually very funny. <S> A "typical man" not knowing how to describe a bra. <S> There are loops in the previous answer's image. <S> :) <S> Bras have straps, or, they are strapless bras.
| The loops are formed by the straps and the caps. "Loop" is a funny-sounding word, plus, since George's father is dismissively describing the shape of the bra rather than the function , it adds to the overall absurdity of the situation. And yes, loop is also used in singular. Loop, straps and handles are not synonymous.
|
What do we call glasses with thick lenses What do we call glasses with thick lenses that people use when they are very near-sighted? Here is a picture of what I mean: <Q> I found "Coke-bottle glasses". <S> Here is a link to an entry from Urban Dictionary, and here's an excerpt from the Coca-Cola Company: <S> In different regions of the world, eyeglasses with very thick lenses in the frame are called "Coke bottle" glasses -- named after the thick bottoms of Coca-Cola contour bottles. <S> ( Coke bottle eyeglass ) <A> Coke-bottle glasses and beer bottle glasses are both American-English expressions. <S> However, if the OP is writing a story set in the British Isles, I would suggest thick glasses , and for a more informal expression, jam-jar glasses . <S> People with high prescriptions and complicated vision problems – especially those who have worn their glasses for a very long time – may well remember “jam-jar” or “coke-bottle” glasses as an object of embarrassment from their schooldays. <S> Practical, yes – but fashionable? <S> Check Google Books for more examples of usage. <S> But being short-sighted has its more serious problems. <S> Whoever heard of an airline pilot wearing jam jar glasses ? <S> As I jumped out of the car I was met by a man wearing jam jar spectacles , a lab coat and carrying a clipboard. <S> “So, which one is mine?” <S> I asked the egghead. <S> “ ( source ) <S> She should really be asking forgiveness for those hideous jam jar glasses she wears @Michael Harvey in the comments, notes that pebble glasses used to be common in British English. <S> Collins Dictionary says spectacles with round thick lenses with a high degree of magnification Pebble, also known as Brazilian pebble and rock crystal are transparent colourless quartz crystals and were once used to make lenses for glasses. <A> In the UK I have heard the version 'milk-bottle lenses', similar to the previous two answers but referring to the reusable milk bottles that were previously commonly delivered in the morning. <S> Here's a recent headline from the Daily Mail using that version. <A> In Finland, such eye-wear is colloquially known as 'bottle-bottom-glasses' <A> In South India, they're 'soda bottle' glasses. <S> Soda refers to soda water, not pop <A> There are many great answers here already which are variations on the same theme. <S> I just feel I should say that as a native British English speaker living in England all my life of 43 years the most common and frequently used term I have heard is bottle-bottom glasses . <S> I have <S> never heard "Coke bottle glasses", which sounds like an Americanised version of the same expression to me. <S> But obviously the imagery conjured by all of the answers to this question is similar, and in creative writing they would surely all be instantly recognised and understood. <S> Not to be dogmatic, but if you are looking for the most familiar expression, my personal opinion is to go with bottle-bottom glasses or glasses with bottle-bottom lenses . <S> To make it even more colloqiual, perhaps substitute "glasses" with " specs ". <S> But really, if you are looking to be creative, any of these could be great. <S> I particularly like " jam-jar glasses " which I haven't heard before but makes me laugh because jam jars are much wider than most bottles so it conjurs up the idea of huge oversized lenses.
| I would just call them "thick glasses", but I vaguely remember something with the word "bottle".
|
What is the meaning of "advance the ball"? This is the news headline I see on Fox News. Tom Fitton: Kavanaugh-Ford hearing didn't advance the ball What is the original meaning of "advance the ball" in sports? And what is its analogic meaning in this Kavanaugh-Ford hearing news? <Q> For example in (American) football, the aim is to carry the ball forward into the opponents "end zone". <S> In each play, the team attempts to advance the ball as far as possible. <S> Metaphorically then, "advance the ball" means "make progress towards some ultimate goal", in the specific example, it means that the hearing didn't change the opinions of people, neither for or against Kavanaugh. <A> In American football, the goal is to advance down the field with the ball to score a touchdown. <S> However, on some plays you can't advance and get stopped by the defense. <S> Listening to the rest of Fitton's sentence, the analogy he's making is that the Democrats would "score a touchdown" by getting Kavanaugh's nomination to fail, but the hearing did nothing to bolster support for that, so they're stuck in place. <A> Advance the ball here means: <S> determine who is telling the truth: <S> Kavanaugh or Ford. <S> One of them is lying. <S> Truth being the goal. <S> The aim of the hearing with them was to see if one could find out who is telling the truth: Him or her. <S> In any kind of football, one seeks to advance the ball. <S> Get ahead of the other team so one can score.
| In many ball sports, the aim of the game is to get the ball past your opponents and into a "goal" of some kind.
|
Help to understand this sentence from the book Harry Potter Only the photographs on the mantelpiece really showed how much time had passed. Ten years ago , there had been lots of pictures of what looked like a large pink beach ball wearing different-colored bonnets -- but Dudley Dursley was no longer a baby, and now the photographs showed a large blond boy riding his first bicycle, on a carousel at the fair, playing a computer game with his father, being hugged and kissed by his mother. The room held no sign at all that another boy lived in the house, too. This is from the book Harry Potter. Couple of things I don't understand: How come Ten years ago can work with past perfect tense? As I know, ' ago ' denotes simple past tense. Is " what looked like a large pink beach ball " referring to Dudley Dursley? I can't image one could look like a large pink beach ball at all! <Q> When Rowling is describing the "large" boy, she is trying to invoke images of pudgy, round features – hence the comparison to an inflated beach ball. <S> Since the book is talking about photographs with bonnets, we assume that, as a baby, he had a large, round head. <S> As for 'ago', there's no reason the simple past tense couldn't have been used: <S> Ten years ago, there were lots of pictures of what looked like a large pink beach ball ... <S> Either version makes it clear there used to be pictures of Dudley as a baby. <S> Perhaps Rowling wanted to use "had been" instead, to emphasize that there are still pictures of Dudley hanging in the house. <S> Either way, I doubt she wrestled with the issue, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she gave it no thought at all, and just whisked out the sentence as it had first been conjured in her mind. <S> Judging by the sheer number of questions posted to ELL on this topic , the concept of past perfect vs. the simple past seems one of the most vexing for learners to grasp, and for natives to explain . <A> ago is not exclusively used with the simple past tense. <S> ELL user Matt Cline has provided us with an excellent example in his answer to this post : <S> There's nothing special about "ago" in particular. <S> "Ago" just clarifies that the action took place in the past. <S> For example, the present perfect is equally incorrect in this sentence: <S> The museum acquired a rock from a volcano that has erupted in 1991. <S> "Ago" is not used here, but the present perfect is still incorrect, because the eruption took place in the past. <S> As for the beach ball comparison, there is a Harry Potter Wikia article dedicated to this very subject , which states: Dudley Dursley was compared to a beach ball when he was a young baby, due to his rotundness. <A> Sentence: <S> Ten years ago , there had been lots of pictures of what looked like a large pink beach ball wearing different-colored bonnets -- but Dudley Dursley was no longer a baby,[etc.] <S> "Ten years ago" means at a point in time ten years ago . <S> So anything before that can be in the past perfect tense . <S> The sentences conveys two points in time. <S> The time before and leading up to the ten years ago, and the past tense that comes after that when writing from a present point of view. <S> Yes, Dudley Dursley looked a like a big pink beach ball. <S> Here is an example I have made up for you: <S> Ten years ago, she had been working very hard. <S> But now, she was no longer working as she was tired. <S> So she quit her job and became an athlete. <S> It was fun while it lasted. <S> In the sentence above, "had been working" <S> goes up to the point where she was no longer working. <S> When you narrate in the past tense, as in these two examples, you use the simple past and/or continuous tense. <S> There may be things that precede the point in time signaled by those tenses. <S> This can pretty much parallel telling you a story in the present tense: <S> Telling you this now,I would say: Five days ago, she was working very hard. <S> Now, she is not working and she is finally enjoying herself . <S> Narrating that in the past : Five days ago, she had been working very hard. <S> Then, she was not working and was finally enjoying myself.
| The example in question takes place sometime in the past, but Dudley's baby photos were hung on the mantelpiece 10 years before that, hence the usage of the present perfect.
|
Is this the correct phrasing? "I wasted some moments of my ever last passing." Does this phrase make sense to describe the passing away of life every moment? I wasted some moments of my ever last passing. If not, what would be the correct phrase to mean passing away of life every moment? <Q> “I wasted some moments of my ever last passing” Here, 'my ever last passing' makes little sense. <S> Thus, the alternatives are: "I wasted (some) moments of everyday life as it passed me by." <A> You might want to check out the verb fritter . <S> The website Vocabulary.com says: A person who fritters chooses to spend their energy on things that are wasteful. <S> You can fritter money, time, or energy, but once you've "frittered it away," you can't get it back! <S> Some definitions include: to waste (money, time, etc.) <S> bit by bit on petty things (Collins) to reduce or squander little by little (AH) to occupy oneself idly or without clear purpose; to tinker with an unimportant part of a project; to dally, sometimes as a form of procrastination (Wiktionary) M-W also mentions that it word is often used with away . <S> So, one could say: Life is short – and I frittered mine away. <A> I wasted some moments of my ever last passing. <S> "my ever last passing. <S> " is not a phrase used in english. <S> You might feel your life ebbing away... <S> ebb - (noun): like the movement of the tide out to sea.- <S> (verb): (of an emotion or quality) to gradually decrease. <S> I wasted some moments as I felt my life [slowly] ebb away. <S> (At the moment of death) or I wasted some moments as I felt my life [slowly] ebb away, day by day. <S> (To describe a much longer period of time, possibly a number of years - a regret.) <S> Alternatively, like Hamlet: "To shuffle off this mortal coil. <S> " <S> Mortal coil is a poetic term for the troubles of daily life and the strife and suffering of the world. <S> It is used in the sense of a burden to be carried or abandoned. <S> To " shuffle off this mortal coil " is to die, as exemplified in the "T o be, or not to be " soliloquy in Shakespeare's Hamlet. <S> I wasted some moments as I [gradually] shuffled off my mortal coil.
| The phrase you may be looking for is ' passing me by ', which means that something has happened without you taking notice.
|
Is there a standard or recommended handwriting style for students? I'm learning English as a foreign language and I'm trying to improve my handwriting style. My native language (Persian) is not written through Latin alphabets and I'm not familiar with shaping the letters. When I searched for handwriting styles I only came across complicated cursive calligraphy. I like cursive writing but I guess it's recommended to avoid it since it is harder to read or for some other reason I'm not aware of. I'm thinking more of a block letter writing style but I don't want to stand out with a weird handwriting or something that native people would call not normal and frown upon. And I'm looking to learn how to shape the words like native people which could result in increasing my writing speed. I read that cursive writing is not taught anymore in the schools of native speakers, Is that right? Is there a style of writing that is encouraged or is believed to be the ideal and best way of writing and is recommended for English students to learn? (Which probably explains where and in which direction start shaping the letter or other details) If yes, could you also mention what was the reasoning behind this selection? <Q> I'm a native speaker, but I still remember learning how to write. <S> From the very beginning, I was taught how to print (i.e. non cursive writing). <S> Cursive, on the other hand, was very briefly taught in fourth grade (when everyone was 9 or 10 years old). <S> My school didn't require us to write in cursive except when we were learning it. <S> As a result, I don't use cursive except for signing my name. <S> It's very, very, very rare that I have to read anything written in cursive <S> so I'm not very good at reading it either. <S> I went to public school. <S> Catholic schools are notorious for really requiring students to learn and use cursive. <S> The students in my class that used cursive almost always originally went to Catholic school. <S> From what I've read online, think that cursive is being pushed out of the curriculum for some schools so they have time for things that are more important, but this will heavily depend on the school. <S> See Cursive handwriting is disappearing from public schools for more info. <S> They no longer teach cursive at the school I went to, in fact. <S> One thing in particular <S> I remember doing when I was little was practicing writing on worksheets like these: Source <S> There are different ways letters can be written, and this shows one valid way. <S> Here is one for cursive letters. <S> If you have a laminated sheet you can use dry erase markers on the same sheet over and over again. <S> Some worksheets have sentences for you to trace. <S> Then we practiced on blank sheets (see for example the "handwriting paper" here ). <S> The last step is to switch to regular lined paper, imagining the middle dotted line being invisible. <A> So, you should use whichever is easier for the teacher to read. <A> Like others I remember learning to write, and being told that it was "wrong" to write <S> the letter 'o' clockwise (the reason is that you use the same motion for 'o', 'c', 'a' and other letters, <S> so you write them all anticlockwise.) <S> However I was taught "joined up" from the start. <S> Most schools in England will teach children to write "joined up". <S> While there is variation between teachers the writing style tends to be a version of the "italic" styles, based on a motion of strong slightly forward-slanting downstrokes and lighter diagonal upstrokes. <S> Letters (but not captials) in a word are joined, but this is not "cursive" as it would have been taught in American schools. <S> A common course is the " Nelson Handwriting Course " from Oxford. <S> Note this is aimed at primary school pupils, not adults. <S> Icelandic calligrapher <S> Gunnlaugur SE Briem has pages on Italic for adults.
| Your two basic choices are block letter and cursive , but a requirement for students' handwriting is that it be legible .
|
Meaning of "I had a dream it would end this way" I’m watching a show, Community, and I have a question about a line of it. Please watch it: Community . The guy says “I had a dream it would end this way”. What does it mean? Does “a dream” mean a dream in the night? or a hope? And why did he use “would” here? <Q> The usual saying is <S> I had a feeling <S> it would end this way. <S> To use " dream " is just a variation. <S> It means he had a strong feeling that whatever happened was going to happen. <A> According to the Cambridge dictionary , dream as two meanings: SLEEP : a series of events or images that happen in your mind when you are sleeping HOPE : something that you want to happen very much <S> but that is not very likely <S> What happens next in the clip is certainly not something that Troy, the speaker, would "want to happen very much", so the HOPE <S> option is not likely. <S> If the script writers stuck to the dictionary definition, the SLEEP option is the only possibility. <S> Merriam-Webster does not offer any other useful possibilities. <S> As Peter suggested, it may be a misquote of a standard expression, and the script writers are using the word dream incorrectly. <S> The word would is used because, at some time in the past, Troy dreamed <S> It will end this way <S> When he later reported what he dreamt, he backshifted the tense, so will became would . <S> I had a dream [that] it would end this way <A> It's meaning is quite plain: <S> He tells us that he once had a dream that it (his life) would end in the way that was about to happen (being shot by a band of Stormtroopers). <S> (Or a dream during sleep that was expressed as a hope!) <S> Why did the writer of the show have the character say this? <S> That is for us to understand or speculate about. <S> What I get is the idea that in the past he imagined himself dying in glory, fighting for good against evil. <S> Would is a modal used to mark tense: the future of the past, as it's called here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs#/12 <S> (See Usage of Specific Verbs > <S> Will and Would.) <S> To say, as in another answer, that it is an example of backshifting, seems to me a stretch, at best, or incorrect. <S> He is not reporting speech indirectly. <S> That would require something like <S> I once said that I had a dream ... ". <S> Consider: <S> *The house looked ugly then, but it would get a new coat of paint a few years later. <S> * <S> That is a declaration, not involving what anyone once said, (or thought, if we want to conceptualize knew in the instant sentence an act of "inner speech" that is being reported). <S> The reason for using would is the same. <S> It was something that occurred in the past that was about the future at that time.
| It is a premonition that something will happen in the future. Dream is likely used to mean fantasy, whether he is meant to say it was literally a dream that occurred during sleep, a hope, or a hope expressed through a dream during sleep.
|
What is the word for "Meant to be understood by someone special"? What is the word for "meant to be understood by only someone"? Like, "Everyone could see his WhatsApp status, but only she could understand" I want to know if there's a word for the thingamajig "only one could understand it" <Q> The word you may be looking for is insider <S> You wouldn't understand, it's an inside joke. <S> If there's a secret that only a few people know, the ones that do know are " insiders ". <A> This code can be literal (using a code-book or an encryption algorithm) or metaphorical (using words or making references to experiences that have a personal meaning to both the speaker and the intended recipient of the message). <S> Another metaphor that is sometimes used is a dog whistle . <S> A literal dog whistle makes a noise that is very high-pitched and is outside the range of human hearing, but within the range that dogs can hear. <S> A metaphorical dog whistle uses vocabulary or references that only a small, targeted number of people will understand. <S> Generally, a dog whistle is meant for an entire demographic group (usually people with a shared set of beliefs), not just a single person. <A> Jargon can be good choice. <S> jargon - special words and phrases that are used by particular groups of people, especially in their work <A> Esoteric is probably what you're looking for. <S> It's defined by Lexico as: <S> Esoteric: <S> Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. <S> Example: Esoteric philosophical debates.
| A coded message is understandable only by someone who knows the code.
|
A fan that idolizes someone because he is hot at that momment and many people idolize him I want a single word to describe a person who became a fan of somebody just because that one is very famous at that time and many people admire him, but not because she loves him. <Q> <A> A groupie is attracted to the lifestyle and fame, more than recognizing or appreciating talent. <S> Groupie is specifically a (female) fan who tries to get backstage, or follows a music act while they are on tour, but the term is applied broadly as an insult to any similar star-chasing behavior. <S> A poser (poseur) goes along with the crowd to fit in. <A> Not necessarily an exact fit, but you might refer to them as a fair-weather fan: 1 : loyal only during a time of success // <S> a fair-weather friend definition from <S> merriam-webster.com
| There isn't really a word for this exact definition, but there are similar words you can use: A leech – someone who uses someone else's influence for their owngain A vessel – someone who has no opinions of their own and just followswhat is popular A drone – same as vessel A bandwagon fan – usually used in sports, but means someone who onlysupports a sports team because they are succeeding
|
Is 'promise going fast and not stopping' gramatically incorrect? They started off. In keeping his self made promise going fast and not stopping , the hare took off and ran at top speed until he came to a broad river. promise going fast and not stopping =promise (which was) to go fast and not stop =promise (which was) going fast and not stopping =promise going fast and not stop Or In keeping his self made promise as he went fast and not stopped, the hare took off. = In keeping his self made promise going fast and not stopping, the hare took off. The original text (which is the source of the problem of the exam - textbook) was They started off. In keeping his self made promise to go fast and not stop, the hare took off and ran at top speed until he came to a broad river. But if analyzing this part in these two ways (above), I think 'going fast and not stop' is also correct.Is 'promise going fast and not stopping' gramatically incorrect? <Q> <A> You say: ... promise which was going fast and not stopping which is (possibly) grammatical, if awkward English. <S> However, while there may be other places where you can drop the "which was", in this sentence you can not. <S> You may be thinking of adjective phrases that start with present participles, such as: <S> the man (who was) eating by the statue. <S> which can be shortened to: the man eating by the statue. <S> "Eating by the statue" modifies the noun "man", but "going fast and not stopping" is not an adjective phrase modifying "promise". <S> It is the object of what is promised. <S> Verbs like "promise", "decide", "hope", "plan", "intend", and various others, when immediately followed by another verb, all require the infinitive form of that verb: <S> I decided to go to the library after school. <S> I plan to buy eggs on the way home. <S> I promise to try as hard as I can. <S> This pattern is the same even if the verb is used as a noun: <S> I made a decision to go to the library after school. <S> I forgot my plan to buy eggs on the way home. <S> I failed (in) <S> my promise to try as hard as I could. <S> As Peter mentions in his answer, there are other ways to phrase these sentences, but they tend to be awkward and wordy. <S> I failed (in/with) <S> my promise of trying as hard as I could. <S> I failed (in/with) <S> my promise that I would try as hard as I could. <S> Back to your example sentence, the original text is correct and perfectly natural: <S> In keeping his self-made promise to go fast and not (to) stop , ... An incomplete list of which verbs are followed by an infinitive and which by a gerund <A> In keeping his self-made promise to go fast and not stop, the hare took off and ran at top speed until he came to a broad river. <S> That is a perfectly well formed sentence in English. <S> A promise to do something is very idiomatic. " <S> To" is used to show a purpose or goal. <S> Question"Is "promise going fast and not stopping" <S> grammatically correct? <S> No, it is incorrect. <S> Correct is: The hare promised himself to go fast and not stop.
| Your example might be better written In keeping with his self made promise of going fast and not stopping but going fast and not stopping is correct and understandable.
|
In "led them", does 'them' include the leader himself? But the others wouldn't let Professor Quirrell keep Harry to himself. It took almost ten minutes to get away from them all. At last, Hagrid managed to make himself heard over the babble. "Must get on -- lots ter buy. Come on, Harry." Doris Crockford shook Harry's hand one last time, and Hagrid led them through the bar and out into a small, walled courtyard, where there was nothing but a trash can and a few weeds. I think ' them ' in this context only includes Hagrid and Harry because no others have been mentioned in later context, but I might be wrong. If this is the case, why didn't it put: " led him "(Harry) instead. Or is it idiomatic to include the leader himself in such contexts? <Q> In this case, "them" does refer to both Hagrid and Harry. <S> "Lead" does not necessarily exclude the leader, as it can refer to a general course of action: <S> lead (v): <S> 1.1 [with object and adverbial of direction] Show (someone or something) the way to a destination by going in front of or beside them. <S> For example, in the context of this story it would have been perfectly natural to have written: As they negotiated the dark and twisty turns of Diagon Alley, Harry stepped close to Hagrid and whispered, "Where are you leading us , Hagrid?" <S> (Edit) <S> Note that it would have been fine to write <S> Where are you leading me , Hagrid? <S> but the tone would have been significantly more mysterious , if not outright ominous . <S> The collective "us" or "them" implies that, wherever they are going, they're going there together , but the singular "me" or "him" implies that, when they get to where they are going, Harry will have to face it alone . <A> So, it may be that Hagrid is leading Harry and one or more others. <S> Alternatively, it may be that the author meant to say something "Hagrid took the lead through the bar and out into ... <S> " The idiom of "take the lead" certainly assumes that the leader was on the trip. <A> I disagree with the other answers here. <S> As a British English speaker (and a mathematician, so I'm familiar with weird logical ideas!) <S> the notion that a person (i.e. Hagrid) can "lead himself" doesn't make any sense in English. <S> The definition of "lead" in https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lead is Cause (a person or animal) to go with one ... <S> You can't "cause yourself to go with yourself". <S> In Peter's answer, the idea that someone can make a fire to "keep himself (and other people) warm" is perfectly OK, but that is not analogous to "leading himself." <S> To take a different example, if Harry had asked Hagrid "Why are you talking to us?" <S> the word "us" can only mean that Hagrid was talking to Harry and some other people - not that Hagrid was talking to himself! <S> Common sense would suggest that the crowd of people wanting to see Harry would naturally want to follow, wherever Hagrid was taking him. <S> But the plot of the story is focussed on Harry and Hagrid, and what happens to the crowd of followers isn't important once they stop interacting with Harry - <S> so Rowling just "forgets" about them. <S> Describing what they did later would be "too much information", and only serve to slow the storytelling down. <A> In your example them means both Harry and Hagrid, the sentence has an implicit <S> both led them (both) through the bar in the same way <S> The fire he made, kept them (both) warm. <S> which includes the person who made the fire. <A> For me, whether the leader is included or not conveys the amount of authority or relevant knowledge. <S> If a scout master leads his scouts (i.e. others) through the forest, it implies the scouts are clueless and helpless without his leadership. <S> If a someone leads a team of researchers (i.e. is part of the team), it implies that all members are more or less equally competent, but the leader is directing their efforts. <A> As others have pointed out, it's obvious (but only) from the subsequent context (not published above) that 'led' in this instance refers only to Hagrid and Harry, <S> so yes, Hagrid 'led himself'.
| "Led them" and Harry's questions about "leading us" can only mean "Hagrid was leading Harry and some other people" IMO. I do not know the context, but "A led B" does not normally mean that A led himself.
|
Why is it "He has appeared in several films" instead of "He appeared"? I have seen this sentence in an English book. My brother is an actor. He has appeared in several films. I can't find out that why we use present perfect here. Can someone explain it, please? I thought we should have written this sentence like this: He appeared in several films. <Q> Present Perfect is about (a number of) completed actions within a period in the past, up to the moment of speaking. <S> It emphasized the fact of completion . <S> In other words, ' his brother has the experience of appearing in several films (by now) '. <S> Past <S> Simple (which is also possible here) is more typical for mentioning events which can be tied to some points in the past, especially if corresponding dates are specified (Present Perfect doesn't allow for that). <A> As the British Council web site explains , The present perfect tense has a number of uses: <S> We use it to talk about experience. <S> We also use the present perfect to talk about things that are unfinished – unfinished states and unfinished time periods. <S> A third use of the present perfect is to show the present result of a past action. <S> Your case is used with use 2. <S> It means the actor who was mentioned in your sentence has appeared in several films since he started his career and he will appear in more films in the future. <S> His career haven't ended yet and will continue in the time after the book mentioned. <A> He has appeared in several movies. <S> He has acted in movies in the past but we don't know for sure when that happened. <S> The time is not specified. <S> She has been to the theatre before. <S> - we don't know when He has worked there for a long time. <S> Past tense simple is used to talk about past events when the time has been specified. <S> He appeared in several movies last year. <S> It is still a past action <S> but you know when it happened, the time is specified here. <S> She went to the theatre yesterday. <S> He worked there last year. <S> He worked there in 1987. <A> An addition to the other comments: the present perfect can also be used to express achievement. <S> He has appeared in several films, he has won several prizes, etc.
| Present perfect simple is used to talk about past events when the time is not specified .
|
Confused by a passage Consider this sentence: It was a subject, however, in which she often indulged with her fair friend, from whom she received every possible encouragement to continue to think of him; and his impression on her fancy was not suffered therefore to weaken. I am very much confused by the emphasized part, I can kind of gather what it is supposed to mean from context, but I am nowhere near properly understanding it. The source is Northanger Abbey (1803). <Q> It was a subject, however, in which she often indulged with her fair friend, from whom she received every possible encouragement to continue to think of him; and his impression on her fancy was not suffered therefore to weaken. <S> Ok, so this is early 19th century language. <S> Today, we would say: <S> the fact he liked her (impression on her fancy) therefore was not allowed to (today: did not) weaken. <S> The old meaning of suffer was allow or permit. <S> Perhaps best known to English speakers from the Bible phrase <S> : Suffer the little children to come unto me.... <S> [Mathew 19:4] Today, fancy, the verb, is still used a lot in BrE: Do you fancy a drink? <S> AmE: <S> Would you like to have a drink. <S> Also, for example: "He fancies her." <S> That means "He likes her." <S> in the sense of:he wants to date her or go out with her. <S> The noun is less used today but was very much in use in the 19th century to mean. <S> In the passage, therefore, her fancy means: her liking him or her fondness for him. <S> Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1828 has imagination for fancy, of course, but it also means: fondness, liking, caprice, humor, and others, all of which stand in contrast to reason . <S> In other words, a fancy is something that does not derive from reason; it may arise in the imagination but the word cannot be reduced to the word imagination only. <S> The dictionary was published some 30 years after the novel cited in the question. <S> So the definition is relevant. <S> A Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. <S> I <A> and his impression on her fancy was not suffered therefore to weaken. <S> In short words: what she thought of him didn't change at all ; what she thought of him didn't go down at all (as suggested by @J.R.); <S> what she thought of him wasn't allowed to weaken (to suffer has an archaic meaning : to tolerate or allow someone to do something); the extent to which she liked him was not diminished (as suggested by @Lambie). <S> The book you quoted is pretty old (from 1803), so I'd not be surprised if there're other sentences or terms nowadays archaic or no more used. <A> “his impression on her fancy” means the impression she has of him in her imagination. <S> “was not suffered therefore to weaken” means that instead of weakening the impression she has of him, it increases it. <S> So, in simpler terms: Since he is often the subject of her and her friend, and because her friend encourages her to think a lot about him, the impression she has of him in her imagination increases.
| The sentence means that what she thought of him or her opinion of him or his impression on her imagination (' his impression on her fancy '), from whom she received encouragements, didn't decrease at all, didn't diminish (' was not suffered therefore to weaken ').
|
"It was Bob and Tom" – why not “They were”? What is the rule of concordance/agreement in the following sentence? It was Magnus and Claudia I have come across the type of agreement as in the example sentence above quite a few times. Could anyone explain why the instance goes as It was and not as They were and is the latter usage possible and if yes, in which case? <Q> I heard a knock and opened the door. <S> It was Magnus and Claudia. <S> This would also be idiomatic: <S> I heard a knock and opened the door. <S> Standing there were Magnus and Claudia. <S> But this would not be idiomatic: <S> I heard a knock and opened the door. <S> They were Magnus and Claudia. <S> NO <S> This would be OK: <S> I heard a knock and opened the door. <S> It was two people bundled up against the cold with scarves around their faces so that only their eyes were visible. <S> They were Magnus and Claudia. <S> P.S. <S> For the sixth-grader: Knock knock! <S> -- <S> Who's there? <S> It's us. <S> -- <S> Who's 'us'? <S> Magnus and Claudia. <A> In a comment, you mentioned how you need to explain this to a sixth grader. <S> With that in mind, I’ll offer this: <S> In language, sometimes two are treated as one. <S> Here are some examples: I had a sandwich for lunch today. <S> It was ham and cheese. <S> My favorite concert was the one I attended in 1983. <S> It was Hall and Oates. <S> In those examples, the phrases “ham and cheese” and “Hall and Oates” are treated as a singular unit. <S> The phrase “ham and cheese” could just as well be “ham on pumpernickel” and the concert band could have been “Metallica” or “the London Philharmonic Orchestra". <S> Lexically, I’m merely describing the sandwich and the music group. <S> However: I had two sandwiches for lunch today. <S> They were ham and cheese, and peanut butter and jelly. <S> I have two favorite music groups; they are Hall & Oates and Simon & Garfunkel. <S> This time, there are two sandwiches, and two music groups, so we need to switch from the singular was to the plural were . <S> So, back to Magnus and Claudia: The phone rang. <S> It was Magnus and Claudia. <S> but: I invited two friends to the party; they are Magnus and Claudia. <A> You use “was” because the subject of the sentence is “it”. <S> (The same goes for “they”, in reverse: the so-called “singular they” still takes plural verb agreement.) <S> The subject is “it” for reasons explained in Tᴚoɯɐuo‘s answer. <S> “Magnus and Claudia” is a plural noun phrase, but it is not the subject of the sentence, and the subject does not have to agree in plurality with a predicative noun phrase.
| Although English sometimes has agreement based on the sense of a noun phrase, when “it” is the subject of a sentence you pretty much have to use formal agreement (singular). "It was" refers to the existential situation, the present fact.
|
How do we say the name of a people plurally? I am writing an essay and I came across an event to describe in which I have to name the whole population of Spain doing something. Do I say"the Spanishes" or "the Spanish"? <Q> However, you would say "Italians", Hungarians, Latvians, Kenyans. <S> I'm not sure there is a rule for which form you say for which nationalities, although you might detect a pattern in the examples I have just written. <S> In most contexts you may find that it is preferable to use a form like "the Spanish people"; it can sound less harsh in a sentence. <A> There's a long list of national nicknames, historical and otherwise: Spaniards : <S> Spanish people Danes : Danish people <S> Yankees : <S> American people Canucks : Canadian people Aussies : Australian people Poles : Polish people <S> Swedes : <S> Swedish people And so forth. <S> None of the above are considered offensive at this point in history. <S> There is, to be sure, a much longer list with national nicknames that are regarded as offensive, which is why I'm not including it here. <A> What you're looking for is a Demonym . <S> The Oxford Dictionaries defines demonym as: <S> A noun used to denote the natives or inhabitants of a particular country, state, city, etc. <S> There are both official and informal ones as well as offensive ones. <S> (For example, while you can call people from the USA Yanks , the official name is Americans .) <S> Wikipedia generally lists the demonym for each country in the general facts sidebar. <S> For Spain , one person is a Spaniard and collectively, they're the Spanish.
| You would say "the Spanish" - similarly for British, Irish, French, Chinese.
|
Grammar behind "Whatever what is is is what I want." Here is the poem: Prayer, by Galway Kinnell Whatever happens. Whatever what is is is what I want. Only that. But that. I came across this poem as an interesting example of English grammar and how it is actually possible to have three "is" in a row. Can anyone explain the poem's syntax , especially the sentence: Whatever what is is is what I want. <Q> Whatever happens. <S> Whatever what is is is what I want. <S> Only that. <S> But that. <S> Whatever "what is" is, is what I want. <S> (Second cup of coffee to the rescue.) <S> Although is appears three times in a row, it is copular only once, in is what I want. <S> In "What is", is means exists . <S> And the second is <S> (Whatever what is is ) means happens to be . <S> Whatever that which exists happens to be is what I want. <A> Grammatically, this can be summed up neatly by some ungrammatical use of parentheses: (Whatever (what is) is) is what I want. <S> Each phrase in parentheses is a noun phrase and can be substituted by any other noun, e.g., <S> (Whatever (infinity) is) is what I want. <S> Another way to disambiguate is to rephrase with a demonstrative: <S> (Whatever (what is) is), that is what I want. <S> The author of the poem italicizes what is in the original to indicate that it should be regarded as a noun phrase. <S> It could just as well have been quoted: Whatever "what is" is is what I want. <S> Or to rephrase with the subject of the main clause in parentheses: <S> (Whatever "what is" is) is what I want. <S> Hope <S> this helps. <A> Whatever <S> what is is is what I want. <S> Let's replace some parts of the sentence with equivalent parts of speech <S> Chicken is what I want. <S> But say I didn't know what "Chicken" is. <S> "Whatever 'chicken' is" then becomes the noun describing the item you want. <S> Whatever 'chicken' is, is what I want. <S> But in this case, the mystery item is not identified as 'chicken', <S> but instead it is called 'what is' <S> Whatever 'what is' is, is what I want. <S> Put altogether it makes a lovely garden path sentence . <A> Whatever what is, is is what I want. <S> That sentence is not in the poem. <S> The actual sentence, which the question quoted correctly in context, was Whatever <S> what is is is what I want. <S> Without the division into lines of poetry, but retaining the italics:"Whatever what is is is what I want. <S> " <S> I believe the intended effect of putting words <S> what is in italics in this poem is similar to the effect that could have been achieved by putting quotes around the words "what is": it allows this two-word phrase to be treated as a noun. <S> Unlike the effect of italics or quotes in this paragraph, however,the noun in question is not the phrase itself, but rather is the thing described by those words. <S> I might unpack the elements of that sentence in the poem as follows: That which exists and occurs in this universe <S> is what is. <S> Whatever that is, that is what I want. <S> I hope you agree that the two words <S> what is were a much more fitting way to express the same thing I tried to express in the first eleven words in the previous paragraph. <A> I believe this can be understood by adding some missing punctuation. <S> what is, is <S> This is roughly expressing the idea that things are what they are. <S> In other words, que sera, sera or whatever will be, will be . <S> What is is may also be a restatement of happens from the first line. <S> So: Whatever happens. <S> Only that. <S> But that. <S> If this interpretation is correct, then I believe the author is trying to express that they want to have the ability to accept things as they happen. <S> This is somewhat reminiscent of the Serenity Prayer (Wikipedia), which starts as follows: <S> God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, <S> And wisdom to know the difference.
| Whatever (what is, is) is what I want. This is a rather unusual sentence structure, but it is grammatical.
|
Does a native speaker say "recharge oneself"? If I feel I'm lacking some kind of skills and I'm desperate to learn something, can I say "I need to recharge myself"? <Q> "Recharge my batteries" is perhaps more common than "Recharge myself." <S> The Oxford dictionary gives "recharge" with no object , -i.e. <S> "I need to recharge," not "I need to recharge myself", as well as "recharge my batteries." <S> However, the meaning is "I am mentally or physically exhausted and need to take some time out to recover," not "I am lacking some skills and need to learn them." <A> Recharge myself is not a phrase I've ever encountered, but it's a nifty metaphor. <S> However, I would take it to mean "do things to get myself more motivated and energetic": <S> I need to take a vacation to recharge myself. <S> When we speak of fundamental training or re-training to acquire new skills or roles the current catchphrase is re-invent myself : <S> I need to re-invent myself as a teacher. <A> And if the skills you do have are not as relevant now as they once were, there is the phrase to retool , that is, to acquire a different set of skills than the ones you have now. <S> She knows all there is to know about Microsoft Windows but because the market is shifting away from desktop applications to mobile apps, she really needs to retool. <S> P.S. <S> This manufacturing term has been "co-opted" for general use in AmE. <S> It is used figuratively in a wide variety of contexts from golf swings to school course offerings to football team rosters to the set of legal skills a law firm has to offer to software and tech skills, as in my example. <A> It's a phrase not very likely to be said by a native speaker. <S> It sounds like a direct translation of a non english analogy. <S> I need to rest, to have a rest, take a break, get my energy back, to chill out, are far mor common. <S> Charge is from latin and is mostly the same in all latin languages, it vaguely means to load. <S> If you are lacking in skills and you need to learn something, you would say: I need to learn, to study, to do a crash course, to refresh my knowledge on. <A> As other answers have pointed out, "recharge myself" IS a phrase, but it means something else. <S> " <S> That implies that you already KNOW the skills, and you just need to relearn them, or expand on them. <S> To learn NEW skills, especially if you are "desperate" like you said, you could say that you need a " crash course. " <S> Which would be a quick way to learn skills, albeit more of an overview of them. <A> "I've got to recharge myself" = <S> "I've got to go recharge myself" = <S> "I've got to recharge" = <S> "I've got to recharge my batteries"... <S> Meaning: <S> Eat, sleep rest; as in rejuvenating oneself. <S> Being desperate to learn something is quite different than that; though resting is part of the process of learning. " <S> Recharging oneself", could be physical and/or mental. <S> If you wanted to express "desperation" to learn; it's ok, but not the best. <S> Many people equate "desperation" with weakness; though not so much when your expressing a desire to learn. <S> A more positive way to express this may be to say, "I am very interested in learning more about...". <A> I'm desperate to learn something, can I say "I need to recharge myself"? <S> You charge a battery with what it's supposed to be charged with (chemical energy), not something new. <S> That's because the prefix re- means "again". <S> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/re- a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition , or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: <S> Thus, as mentioned in an earlier answer, you recharge yourself with something that you need again: enthusiasm, determination, love, etc. <S> @StoneyB's answer of using "reinvent" is correct in that when you learn something new to change the course of your life, you are "inventing (creating) yourself again " (since you invented your current self at a younger age).
| To say what you are asking for (in a way that sounds like the phrase you used), that you want to gain skills that you are lacking, you may want the phrase " refresh my skills " or that you " need a refresher. "Recharge myself" is a good phrase, but it has the wrong meaning.
|
A word for "all the great attributes or achievements of you and/or your family" When Arabs talk about how great a person is, relative to others, they talk about the person's family (birth or descent, or nasab ) and the person's or his family's achievements or attributes ( hasab ). So, someone who belongs to a great family with bright doctors and judges, for example, is said to be of noble descent. I'm struggling though to find an English word for hasab , i.e. for "the achievements or attributes of the individual and/or his family or ancestors". The word can be used to shorten such a long question as: What qualities or great achievements do you or a family member have or had? One could answer: "I have a PhD, my father is a successful politician, and my great-great-grandmother was the first person to establish an orphanage in my town". Hasab is derived from another word meaning calculation or counting . The idea was that Arabs, a long time ago, would compete against each other in terms of whose hasab was greater than others, and the competition involved each one of the competing group counting or listing all the things they prided themselves on. Today, the pair hasab and nasab is most likely to be seen or uttered when a man asks for a woman's hand in marriage. The family of the woman would investigate or even ask the man directly about his hasab and nasab . Some people would translate hasab as status . I think this translation may capture the essence of the Arabic word, but it misses the whole story. <Q> The best approximation I can think of is You and your family's legacy. <S> It's often only used at the end of someone's life, when considering a future after they are deceased, though. <S> This refers to the reputation, wealth, example, and anything else you got from your family's prior achievements, but does not refer to your achievements. <S> If anything it implies that a lot is to be expected from you. <S> In the case of a marriage or trying to impress someone generally, I think you will need to use two concepts His accomplishments and family heritage. <S> Or possibly His and his family's notoriety and reputation. <A> Another possibility is pedigree : <S> [Merriam-Webster] <S> 1 : <S> a register recording a line of ancestors // <S> The pedigree traces the family back to the 18th century. <S> 2a : <S> an ancestral line : LINEAGE // <S> That horse has an impressive pedigree . <S> b : the origin and the history of something <S> // <S> Democracy's pedigree stretches back to ancient Greece. <S> broadly : BACKGROUND, HISTORY <S> 3a : a distinguished ancestry <S> // <S> actions spoke louder than pedigrees in the trenches — <S> Dixon Wecter <S> b : the recorded purity of breed of an individual or strain // <S> vouch for a horse's pedigree <S> Although I am more used to hearing it in the context of animals, I am certainly not unaware of its use with respect to people and "what they bring to the table" in terms of family achievement and social class. <A> Laurels <S> This is normally heard of in the context of someone who has already accomplished much, but not content to bask in the glory of his past achievements ("rest on his laurels"). <S> It comes from the ancient practice of honoring heroes with a crown of foliage from a laurel tree. <S> Definition 3b: [Merriam-Webster] 1 : an evergreen shrub or tree (Laurus nobilis of the family Lauraceae, the laurel family) of southern Europe with small yellow flowers, fruits <S> that are ovoid blackish berries, and evergreen foliage once used by the ancient Greeks to crown victors in the Pythian games — called also bay, sweet bay 2 : a tree or shrub that resembles the true laurel especially : mountain laurel <S> 3a : a crown of laurel awarded as an honor b : a recognition of achievement : honor —usually used in plural <A> We also speak of a family's standing and an individual's standing in the community. <S> It refers to status and reputation, especially as built or earned over a decent length of time, which could be over several or even many generations for a family.
| Another idea is Your family's heritage.
|
"In the city" meaning "not at home" Consider the following sentence: Sorry for not being at home when they came. I had to be in the city . The person who says it lives in some city and on that day he/she is still in the same city but has to run errands, not stay at home. Is "in the city" used correctly in this particular context? Does it convey the idea? <Q> In my part of the world (Australia), this is fine to say. <S> "In the city" usually refers to being in the central business district where the shops and businesses are. <S> It is similar to the term "going down town". <A> Even if it's a big city, we might say (in American English), <S> Sorry for not being at home when they came. <S> I had to be in town. <S> Or Sorry for not being at home when they came. <S> I had to go/head into town. <A> Your example phrase in the city is not usually used if one lives in the city. <S> Usually, one might say <S> I was running around the city. <S> since the city would be considered a separate and different area.
| If someone says "I'm going in to the city" it usually implies they are going to this central area to do some shopping or work, even if they technically live within the boundaries of that city.
|
What is the difference between "I still use" vs "I am still using" in this sentence? What's the difference between : It's 2018 already and I still use an iPhone 5S. vs It's 2018 already and I am still using an iPhone 5S. Does the use of the word 'using' mean I am thinking of upgrading really soon, or is there any other significant difference? <Q> With the "It's 2018" clause, <S> both mean more or less the same thing (as Neil says). <S> But without that clause to clarify, the implication would be quite different. <S> I still use this phone <S> would be something you say to emphasise the fact that generally-speaking, you still use the phone. <S> If someone suggested you throw the phone away, for instance, you could say "I still use it", or if you wanted (as in your original example) to emphasise that despite it being old (or perhaps broken in some way) you still use it. <S> I'm still using this phone , on the other hand, more emphasises the fact that you are currently in the act of using the phone — not just that you use it from time to time. <S> For instance, if someone has lent you their phone, and they ask for it back, you could say "I'm still using it" to indicate that you haven't yet finished with it, but you'll probably finish shortly. <A> One is simple present tense while the other is present continuous. <S> Use simple present whenever you want to indicate something you do frequently. <S> Every friday, I go to the mall. <S> Use <S> present continuous whenever you want to indicate something you do in this very moment. <S> See ya later, I am going to the mall. <S> In this case, you could use either, frankly. <S> They both seem to imply that you're ready for an upgrade, but neither moreso than the other. <A> As you may know, the simple present tense is used for natural, repeating , or habitual activities. <S> The present continuous is used for current and ongoing activities, things that are in progress . <S> In this case, do you habitually use your phone every day? <S> Or are you using it continuously? <S> It's kind of the same thing, don't you think? <S> It's just two slightly different perspectives of the same general activity. <S> So when talking about your 6-year old phone, it doesn't really matter which you say. <S> Nor does it imply any special intention to replace the phone. <S> Both are just statements of fact. <S> I expect this is the same with most other activities in a similar context, but you should be aware of the nuance in case <S> it does make a difference: <A> For me (a British English speaker), the first sentence: <S> It's 2018 already <S> and I still use an iPhone 5S <S> doesn't sound quite right, when compared to the I am still using sentence. <S> I believe this is because: <S> The simple present tense is used for activities which happen all the time, with no likelihood of stopping. <S> The implied meaning of this sentence is that my phone is so old <S> I should upgrade, and <S> I might very well upgrade soon. <S> Therefore there is a mismatch between the semantics of the simple present, and the pragmatics of the sentence. <S> This mismatch is enough to make the sentence sound slightly off, despite being grammatically well-formed. <S> I'd be interested to hear whether other British English speakers, and speakers of other varieties of English, agree with me. <A> I still use <S> could indicate that you still find a use for the old hardware. <S> It's not necessarily that you only use the old hardware, just that you sometimes have occasion to use it. <S> "I still use Windows 98 when I want to play old games". <S> It could imply that this is your primary or only smartphone.
| As others have said, there's not a huge difference between the two, but there is a subtle distinction that could be drawn. I am still using could indicate that this is a more ongoing, even permanent, situation.
|
In what cases do we have to use "hold true"? That analysis still holds true today. ↑ I've seen that sentence from an article, and I have a question.In my opinion, just saying "that analysis is still true today" can be also correct gramatically. Can you tell me the difference between hold true and be true ? <Q> It's probably most useful to think of holds true as a single phrase rather than considering holds as a modifier of true . <S> Holds true <S> has the sense of is applicable . <S> We take the an analysis of a past situation and find that it is applicable to the situation today, it holds true today. <S> Using is true <S> doesn't work quite so well <S> : it is not the correctness of the analysis itself that is interesting, it <S> the use of the analysis in a different situation from that in which it was conceived. <S> It is the combination of existing analysis and new situation we are considering. <S> Holds true <S> has this sense of applying something in a new context. <A> The intransitive verb hold means to remain steadfast, to not weaken. <S> Do you think that glued repair will hold? <S> It is just as firmly true as it ever was. <S> To be true does not refer to the passage of time in any way. <S> However, the adverb still does refer to the passage of time. <S> So, it is still true = <S> it holds true . <A> That analysis is still true today. <S> That analysis still holds true today. <S> If something holds or holds true/good (less common in AmE), that still exists or is still true, valid or applicable. <S> So if you remove the word "still" that sounds superfluous before hold in the second sentence , there's no difference in meaning between the two sentences presented.
| To hold true means that the truth has not weakened with time.
|
Is this particular sentence passive voice? Is the following sentence passive voice? Many of my students will write something similar to the following: "The circuit breaker needs to be replaced in the morning." Does the phrase "to be replaced" make this sentence passive voice? Thank you. <Q> Yes, it is passive voice- though it is not the simplest of passive voice sentences. <S> Let's work up to it by looking at a simpler sentence: I write answers - active voice <S> answers are written [by me] - passive voice <S> We convert this sentence to passive voice as follows: move the object to the front change the verb to a past participle <S> write->written add the be verb in the appropriate case ( are ). <S> Now start with a more complex sentence, using the auxiliary verb <S> need <S> I need to replace the circuit breaker in the morning - active voice The circuit breaker needs to be replaced [by me] in the morning - passive voice <S> Here the process contains nearly the same steps: move the object to the front change the verb to a past participle <S> replace->replaced <S> the be <S> verb is already there, and it must be kept as an infinitive change the auxiliary verb to the appropriate case. <A> "To be replaced" is a passive infinitive. <S> The sentence that you gave as an example is a perfectly grammatical sentence and quite idiomatic. <S> Why do you think it a problem if your students write such a sentence? <A> Yes, the passive nature of the sentence can be seen by looking at what will (hopefully) be true in the afternoon: "The circuit breaker was replaced in the morning". <S> That's passive voice. <S> The original is just saying that that needs to happen. <S> The active voice version would be something along the line of "The electrician needs to replace the circuit breaker in the morning". <S> There's a lot of criticism of passive voice, but in many cases it is the best phrasing. <S> It obscures the subject (who's doing the action), but in this case that's justifiable, as it's not important who replaces the circuit breaker, what's important is that somebody does it. <A> I guess it will sound picky to some people, but the subject of that sentence is "circuit breaker", and the verb is "needs". <S> The grammatical verb form of "needs" is the 3rd person singular, present tense, active voice. <S> An example of a passive voice sentence on the same topic would be: "A new circuit breaker is needed." <S> or "The circuit breaker will be replaced in the morning."
| While "to need" doesn't have a very "vigorous" meaning, the verb in the sentence is, grammatically speaking, not in the passive voice.
|
Phrase that means: "it's very [someone] style"? Example sentence: She suggested we go to an underground rock bar. That __ her. I few options I can think of: "... very becoming of her" and "... was very her." Are these valid options? Or there's a better one? (I'm looking for something colloquial.) <Q> I can't really understand what "becoming of her" means here, but to me it sounds closer to she was acting appropriately, or correctly. <S> This is not what you intend. <S> It was very her <S> could possibly work in a very colloquial way, non-standard way. <S> But I think the more common way is with <S> so . <S> I wasn't sure of the best definition for this usage, but this one seems to fit: <S> so <S> not standard used before a noun or before "not" to emphasize what is being said: Don't wear that <S> - it's so last year (= <S> it was fashionable last year but not now). <S> I'm sorry, but she is so not a size 10 <S> (= <S> she is very much larger than a size 10). <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> It's colloquial. <S> It's way to emphasize that the action is a characteristic or style of the person in your case. <S> Example: <S> She suggested we go to an underground rock bar. <S> That's <S> so her. <S> Possible variation: <S> That's so like her. <A> "Very becoming of her" doesn't sound like a very "valid" choice here, rather than that a possible choice could be: <S> how fitting of her which would go <S> She suggested we go to an underground rock bar. <S> how fitting of her. <S> if "That" is needed it could also go <S> She suggested we go to an underground rock bar. <S> That's very fitting of her. <A> You can also use the name of the person you're speaking of: <S> That's very Alice. <S> That's so Alice. <S> or a pronoun: <S> That's so (like) her. <S> or just That's Alice. <S> The meaning is that what you have just mentioned is a quintessential example of Alice, typical of the sort of things she says or does.
| Similarly, that was very her of her is also possible.
|
What is the word for your nationality if you are from Singapore? Which of these is grammatically correct in response to "What is your nationality?" ; “Singapore” or “Singaporean” ? <Q> According to the wikipedia page for Singapore , the proper demonym in this case is "Singaporean". <S> Admittedly, you see plenty of patterns emerge for demonyms <S> but there is no guaranteed rule, which means you simply must check if you're unsure. <S> Just know that the proper term for what you're looking for is "demonym." <A> Singaporean is a nationality. <S> Singapore is a country. <S> It wouldn't be grammatically incorrect to answer "Singapore", but it wouldn't fit the question as well as "Singaporean". <A> <A> It's both. <S> Both "Singapore" and "Singaporean" are incomplete sentences, that is, they lack a verb. <S> (Incomplete sentences are widely used in English; using them is not an error.) <S> To make them complete, we would add a subject and a verb to know for sure what's coming on there: <S> I am from Singapore. <S> I am Singaporean. <S> Both are perfectly fine responses, and in this case, you are just making them incomplete by throwing away unnecessary information. <A> A single word can't be grammatically incorrect. <S> The correct answer to the question though, would be any of the following: <S> My nationality is Singaporean. <S> I am from Singapore. <S> I am Singaporean.
| The correct response in the example case would be both technically, "Singaporean" and "Singapore" are both correct but preferably and more understandably, "Singaporean" would be the most common one for use.
|
What is the tense called: "I have got a book" What's the name of the tense of the above-mentioned example:present simple or present perfect, or perhaps something else in modern grammar? Or simply "present"? Thanks in advance. I have got a book. <Q> There are two possible analyses of this sentence. <S> The first is to consider "have" to be an auxiliary verb and "got" to be the past participle of "get", forming the present perfect. <S> This tense is used to describe present states resulting from past actions. <S> This would mean that the book was received in the past and I am in the state resulting from receiving it. <S> Some criticise this analysis, noting that participle form "having got a book" differs in meaning from "I have got a book". <S> The latter doesn't really describe a past event, but simple possession. <S> The alternative is to treat "have got" as an idiom, meaning simple possession and essentially identical in meaning to "I have a book". <S> As an idiom, its meaning is restricted and "having got a book" is not part of the idiomatic usage. <S> This is further complicated by dialectic differences. <S> The former is talking about a past event, the latter is describing possession. <S> In UK English "gotten" is not used <S> so there is no structural difference between the idiom and present perfect. <S> Some speakers will criticise the use of "I've got" to mean "I have" for redundancy, and in careful writing you can avoid "I've got" in most situations, either replacing it with "I have" or "I've received". <A> This is one of the most frequently made mistakes made by English speaking people. <S> In this case, have and got mean the same thing; therefore have got is redundant. <S> The correct sentence would be: I have a book. <A> "I have got" is a present perfect constuction in the present tense. <S> In this context it is equivalent to simply "I have". <S> Indeed: I have got a book can be rendered equally as <S> I have a book
| In US English, the present perfect would be formed as "I've gotten a book" and the idiom meaning possession would be "I've got a book".
|
Help to understand: "Ron and Hermione joined Neville, Seamus, and Dean the West Ham fan up in the top row." Ron and Hermione joined Neville, Seamus, and Dean the West Ham fan up in the top row. ... ... I don't know how to parse the sentence correctly, hence I'm not sure what it means. -- Excerpted from Harry Potter. <Q> A person named Ron and a person named Hermione moved to the location of a group. <S> This group was composed of a person named Neville, a person named Seamus and a person named Dean (who was a fan of something called West Ham). <S> The group was located in the row [of chairs or standing spaces] that was highest of all rows. <A> "the West Ham fan" is an appositive describing Dean. <S> Appositives are usually surrounded by commas. <S> Neville, Seamus, and Dean were in the top (highest/farthest back) row. <S> Ron and Hermione went to go sit/stand with them. <S> The sentence would be more clear if it read: <S> Ron and Hermione joined Neville, Seamus, and Dean, the West Ham fan, up in the top row. <A> the West Ham fan is a noun-phrase standing in apposition with "Dean". <S> The apposition is usually set off with commas: <S> He phoned Jones, the doctor on call, to notify him of the emergency.
| West Ham is a soccer team in England, and Dean is a fan of them.
|
Does "fastener" include "screw"? The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fastener" as follows: 1. A device, such as a clip, pin, or clasp, that attaches something firmly to something else. 2. A device, such as a seat belt, that secures a person or object. I am not sure whether a screw is included in a fastener. Is there another word that covers a screw? <Q> A screw definitely falls under the "fastener" umbrella. <S> From Wikipedia : <S> Fastenal first sold mostly fasteners such as screws, threaded rods, and nuts , which are used in construction and manufacturing. <S> Note <S> : Fastenal is a North American distributing company that happens to have the verb fasten as part of its company name. <A> Yes, screws are included in the definition of fasteners: <S> Source : <S> Slideplayers.com <S> (Slide 2) <A> However, when I think of a fastener, I don't think of a screw. <S> Here's what the OALD has on the matter: fastener noun (also fastening) a device, such as a button or a zip / zipper, used to close a piece of clothing; <S> a device used to close a window, suitcase, etc. <S> tightly • buttons, zippers and other fasteners <S> These were all more likely to be a fastener in my mind than a screw. <S> To me, these are everyday items. <S> However, it seems like the item that comes to mind will depend on the industry in which the fastener is used. <S> For example, the kind of fastener you think of might differ if you're working on arts and craft, or shopping at IKEA or Screwfix . <S> My point is this: you can call a screw a fastener, but it might be good to clarify. <S> If the context clearly indicates that you are talking about screws, or if screws were mentioned previously, then I don't think there should be a problem using "fasteners". <S> If this is not the case, then you might want to say something like Use fasteners, like screws , to secure the....
| I agree that a screw is a kind of fastener.
|
Is there an antonym for the adjective "edifying"? Is there an antonym for the adjective “edifying”? The reason being, I've been trying to find a suitable translation for the Italian word "diseducativo", but so far have found none. Dictionaries give the following translation of the word "diseducativo": morally corrupting, negatively influencing; contributing to bad upbringing, educationally harmful . I know the immediate opposite of "edifying" should be "unedifying", but according to all definitions this last simply means, not having the result of improving morality, intellect, etc. However, the word "diseducativo" evokes something worse than that. It actually counters the edifying process. It is used to refer to someone or something, like a role model or a tv show that has a bad influence on moral beliefs. Not simply "not edifying", but rather "counter-edifying"; a word that doesn't exist though. The word "diseducativo" can also be mistaken for the opposite of the English word "educative" (or its more used synonym "educational") which is the rare word "antieducational", opposing the provision of knowledge . The thing is, for some reason, the word "diseducativo" is not simply related to knowledge or instruction, but, as I mentioned above, to moral beliefs and upbringing. Now, let me also add this funny thing I came across in my research. On Vocabulary.com I found the related verb " to instill " (normally positive beliefs and values on someone). And the explanation says: " Parents work hard to develop, or instill, positive beliefs and values in their children. Interestingly, there's no corresponding word for when parents pass down their bad habits ." <Q> Corrupting or (stronger) depraved/depraving seem to carry the sense you need. <S> This is an obscene book that would deprave anyone who has to read it. <S> A "depraved book" is implicitly one which depraves its readers. <A> If we are primarily discussing the moral effect, debasing is the first thing that comes to mind. <S> It could apply to intellectual effects, but the primary sense is moral. <S> Of course, "edify" is primarily about morality as well, but the idea is that as you learn, you become more moral. <S> Actually corrupting is also a great synonym on the moral side. <S> It's not normally possible to take education (knowledge) from someone unless you mislead them. <A> If 'edifying' had a temporary effect, and you didn't care about the moral implications, I would have suggested 'stupefying', but then I saw that ' disedifying ' is a word, and it means the same as 'diseducativo': damaging ones morals.
| It is possible to use "depraved" as the adjective.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.