source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Did you give the ACC exam last year? Words that could replace 'give' Did you give the ACC exam last year? Here, the word "give" sounds absurd. Is there some word(s) for replacement for give or maybe some word which is specially meant to be used for exam ? Can you suggest a couple of such words? <Q> If you study for an exam, then sit down and answer the questions, then you are taking the exam. <S> I’ve also heard “ sit an exam”. <S> If you write down exam questions, then hand them out to your students, then you are giving the exam. <S> If you watch over students taking an exam, you are proctoring the exam. <A> If by "give" you mean "handed out the exam and watched while the students took it" then it's perfectly idiomatic. <S> Our History teacher gave us a pop quiz this morning, but I think I did OK. <S> Otherwise you can say administer a test, although this is more formal, and more common with standardized, official tests (such as whatever the ACC is). <S> You would not normally write a test you administer , but only oversee the testing process. <S> Someone who administers a test might manage the group of people who proctor that test. <A> For the context of a teacher writing an exam for their students to sit, the word "set" seems to work fine. <S> I set my students a test on World History. <S> Our maths teacher set us a hard test. <S> (This might be British English specific, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be understood any way.)
| Proctor similarly means to administer a test, although it usually is applied to the authorities in the room while the test is being taken.
|
The shop has opened today vs the shop opened today What is the difference between those: The shop has opened today The shop opened today The shop has been opened today The shop was opened today <Q> Without context, it's hard to know exactly what the speaker/author means. <S> So, without context, here's how I would interpret it. <S> The shop has opened today <S> Someone that works at the shop has opened it for the day, more than likely at its opening hour. <S> (Maybe the shop's hours are 8am-7pm and the worker came in so it would be open for business at 8) <S> The shop opened today <S> The shop is either brand new or has been closed for a while (renovations or something), but is now open. <S> The shop has been opened today <S> Could be either 1 or 2. <S> The shop was opened today <S> Could be interpreted as either 1 or 2. <A> I'm not sure if this is the explanation you're looking for <S> but I'll explain the tenses. <S> The focus is on the present result. <S> Present perfect tense is possible because today hasn't finished yet. <S> The shop opened today: past simple is used because you consider the opening of the shop as something that happened in the past and the focus is on the past. <S> For example the shop opened at 9 in the morning and you speak about it at 3 in the afternoon. <S> The other two examples are passive, meaning the shop has been/was opened by someone. <A> Generally we say The shop is open or closed today . <S> But the shop has been opened for the first time today . <S> The exhibition will be officially opened by the Prime Minister Tomorrow . <S> The shop was open in the morning <S> but it was closed in the evening . <S> It is not clear inwhich sense you are asking <S> I here with attach a link to <S> make things clear. <S> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/opened
| The shop has opened today means the shop is now open.
|
What does "rogue killers" mean? US President Donald Trump has recently described the murder of a journalist in Saudi embassy in Turkey as being committed by "rogue killers". I first came across rogue in the context of rogue planets , which seem to be orbiting no mother star. I've looked up the word rogue in multiple dictionaries and yet I couldn't confirm what he meant by rogue killers, that's when I thought, "maybe a bit of etymology could help decode the word." One etymology theory links the noun rogue with roger “a beggar pretending to be a poor student”, but that doesn't explain why a a rogue elephant or planet came to mean living apart, separate, unusual and/or dangerous. Does rogue killer mean a dishonest killer, an uncontrolled killer (perhaps rogue killer robots?) or something else? <Q> The astronomical use of "rogue" is somewhat based on the original dictionary meaning: rogue (n): 2. <S> An elephant or other large wild animal living apart from the herd and having savage or destructive tendencies. <S> 2.1 <S> A person or thing that behaves in an aberrant or unpredictable way, typically with damaging or dangerous effects. <S> A "rogue killer" is someone who works alone and who kills in an unpredictable way or for obscure reasons. <S> Trump calls Khashoggi's killers "rogue" to suggest they were not acting under any official orders (presumably from the Saudi royal family). <S> A "rogue planet" is one that is similarly unattached to any sun or solar system, although obviously without any sinister or dangerous agenda. <A> Here, rogue refers to the phrase going rogue . <S> See https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/were-going-rogue <S> The expression today is more likely to be used to indicate that someone is displaying some degree of independence or failing to follow an expected script. <S> Rogue planets are planets where we don't expect. <S> Every planet should orbit a star, right? <S> Killer robots are going rogue when they don't follow their programming. <S> So here, I'm guessing <S> Trump is saying the killers were not sent by the Saudi government, but they acted independently. <A> Rogue means acting independently, on their own initiative, not responsible to authority. <S> He means the killers were rogues; not that they were killers of rogues. <S> The US is politically friendly with Saudi Arabia, Trump had a cordial visit with the Saudi administration, and there's a lot of high-dollar business between the two countries. <S> If it turned out that the Saudi government was behind the murder of a man within one of their own embassies, it would be politically impossible to continue this level of coziness. <S> It would be effectively a case of state-sponsored terrorism, probably an act of war. <S> Trump does not want to put Saudi Arabia on a list of sponsors of terrorism. <S> So it would be far more convenient if the act were "rogue". <S> Of course none of this is known to the public; it hasn't been concretely proven that this fellow was even killed. <S> All we know is that he's disappeared. <S> So I think what Trump is saying is, "If it turns out he's dead, we expect Saudi Arabia to deny that they are at fault, and we are prepared to believe that, and continue our full relationship with them." <A> Regardless of what the in depth definition of what the term 'rouge killers' means, effectively his use of the term is meant to shield the Saudi government from human rights violations. <S> If Khashoggi was ordered to be killed at the behest of the leaders of Saudi Arabia, then they should be punished for this obvious violation of human rights and planned murder of a permanent American resident and respected journalist. <S> The Global Magnitsky Act extends the sanctions stipulated by the original Magnitsky Act to human rights violators outside of Russia. <S> Unlike the first law, this second law does not require the president to impose any sanctions. <S> Instead, the global version gives the president the legal authority to institute a travel ban and asset freeze on human rights violators in any country, while leaving the president with the discretion to determine whether to do so. <S> But to make it more difficult for the president to ignore the law, Congress included in the Global Magnitsky Act a requirement that the president respond within four months to requests from the heads of certain congressional committees for the executive branch to determine whether particular individuals engaged in human rights violations. <S> This week’s letter, initiated by Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), triggers this requirement for the president to respond. <S> So if the murder was carried out by 'rogue killers' <S> then it shifts the blame away from the government and would allow Trump to give them a pass for this murder. <S> The term 'rogue killers' in his usage of the phrase is meant to imply the killers were acting outside of the control of the Saudi government. <A> "to go rogue" means one or more of a group of people who operate outside the relevant existing institutions. <S> When a government agent "goes rogue", they are no longer operating on their official orders. <S> Therefore a "rogue killer" would be someone who is killing outside of government orders. <S> However, it is ambiguous, even for native English speakers. <S> I spent the last few days thinking it meant that the journalist was being called a "rogue" and that he was being hunted down and killed for being a rogue. <S> I was picturing in my head a Saudi prince saying "this man is a rogue and we must kill him", that would make his killers "rogue killers". <S> But although it is grammatically possible and not incorrect, that is not how it is being used. <A> Killers that are "on a frolic of their own". <S> Not acting "within arms length" and without the explicit complicity of their handlers. <S> ..not officially anyway. <S> Plausible deniability and all that. <S> You can kill meddlesome priests and not be rogue, requiring some sort of atonement, pilgrimage etc. <S> for the misunderstanding. <S> There is a thin line between over zealous and rogue, and it really boils down to them being thrown under the bus or not (disavowed) if it is good for the team.
| When something is described as "rogue", it normally implies it acts under its own volition, without constraint from some governing body or authority.
|
The right word for left-handers How to call left-handed people who were not forced to change to writing right-handed? Unrelearnt left-handers? Is there any optimal name? <Q> There is no word in common use that means "a left-handed person who was not forced to change to his right hand for writing". <S> or He is naturally left-handed. <A> Handedness so-called is not really binary. <S> You can write left-handed but use a knife and fork right-handed (and chopsticks left-handed). <S> If thrown a ball you might naturally use your left hand to catch it even if you do not write with your left hand. <S> Which hand you use for intimate personal hygiene is another matter too. <S> It follows that the category 'left-handed people' is not well-defined, and that it is probably not a good idea to look for a word to describe such an ill-defined group. <S> Left-handedness, whatever it might mean, has been used as grounds to persecute people, even small children. <S> Take care. <A> As far as I know in the USA, impelled right-handedness is falling out of favor and may be seen as an archaic practice, especially in secular education. <S> Therefore there is no common term to describe left-hand people that's specifically related to not being forced to change their dominance. <S> I am left-handed. <S> I've been commonly described as a "lefty". <S> "Southpaw" is also a term that can be used for lefties that is named after the boxing stance used by left hand dominant boxers.
| You could say: He writes left-handed.
|
Can "Tirade" be used for a *non-angry* lengthy, boring speech/text? When looking for a word for a lengthy, tedious, boring, text*, I had the feeling that tirade could be the right one. However I looked it up in on-line dictionaries and all of the the ones I consulted say that it's supposed to refer to an angry speech/text. I'm not yet convinced though, I think I heard it used for what I'm looking for, in a humorous manner (and maybe the dictionaries I looked up only reported the canonical meaning). So, can you native speakers confirm, or confute, my impression? * I have already, unsatisfactorily, read Idiom to describe a text (or speech) which is too long . <Q> If you want a word that is non-angry , long, and boring, then tirade is not it. <S> The dictionaries aren't wrong. <S> Perhaps you're thinking of the third sense of Merriam-Webster's definition of monologue : <S> 3 <S> : a long speech monopolizing conversation // <S> I stifled a yawn as she continued her monologue about her vacation experiences. <S> This has the advantage of being applicable to both speech and text. <S> Or, there's the verb drone : <S> b : <S> to talk in a persistently dull or monotonous tone // <S> droning on and on about his health <S> However, this one is applicable only to speech. <A> If you are talking about a written document, a somewhat obscure term is screed : <S> screed <S> (n): a long piece of writing, especially one that is boring or expresses an unreasonably strong opinion: A recent example of its use: Brown joined the company in 2017, not long before a screed against Google’s <S> diversity efforts written by engineer James Damore went viral. <S> If not actually angry , a "tirade" should be at least loud and energetic and usually refers to oratory . <S> If the speech was long but dull I would instead use something like monologue , or say the speaker droned on for some length of time. <S> It can be boring (or at least tedious and repetitive), but since that's not included in the definition, you'd have to explicitly add that information. <S> I managed to get through the text of her speech, which was mostly an interminable tirade against the evils of gluten . <S> A "harangue" is similarly energetic, and usually is meant to make the listener feel guilty for some misdeed. <S> As with "tirade", if it's boring, you'd have to say so. <S> After we got home, covered in filth, our father launched a tedious harangue at us about how foolish we were to play around the storm drains after a heavy rain. <S> As if we didn't already know. <A> Tirade strongly suggests a long loud speach full of angry or unbalanced criticisms and complaints. <S> In contrast a harangue suggests a long tedious and pushy persuasive speach, but not necessarily an openly angry speaker. <A> A lengthy, tedious, and boring text lacks the energy to catalyse any excitement and I would always associate a tirade with a long angry provocative speech whether oral or written. <S> The closest synonym would be a rant which seems to me interchangeable as a less "fancy" word choice. <S> The word tome (for a text only) is more appropriate for the length and tedium but isn't nearly cruel enough if you are using the word as a weapon. <S> If you are doing a review of the tome I would recommend launching into a tirade given what you have just been subjected to for hours on end :-)
| A tirade is given in anger.
|
Political division: department or departamento? In some countries of Latinoamerica the political divisions of territory are called "Departamento". Is it correct to translate it as Department? I think it could sound odd. For example, "Departamento de Lima" should be translated as Lima Department, Lima Departamento or Departamento Lima? <Q> The usual English translation seems to be Region . <S> For example, Wikipedia has an article on the Lima Region , within which are 10 provinces. <S> And the CIA Factbook says that Peru's administrative divisions are, "25 regions (regiones, singular - region) and 1 province* (provincia); Amazonas, Ancash, Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Callao, Cusco, Huancavelica, Huanuco, Ica, Junin, La Libertad, Lambayeque, Lima, Lima <S> *, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Moquegua, Pasco, Piura, Puno, San Martin, Tacna, Tumbes, Ucayali" <S> (The CIA seems to have lost track of the exact count, or counted the Lima Province as a region, where Wiki says that it is a province not part of the Lima Region or any other Region) <S> Edit <S> Further information from the Wikipedia article on the administrative divisions of Peru : <S> Peru was divided into 24 departments (departamentos; singular: departamento) until the creation of the regions in 2002. <S> These regions are governed by Regional Governments. <S> Many people still use the old departamentos term when referring to the current regions of Peru, although it is now obsolete. <S> The departments were identical to today's regions, with the exception of two new regions (Callao and Lima). <S> So it appears that the historical departmentos were translated as "departments". <S> But the current division into regiones are called "regions" in English. <S> If you want to talk about the historical departamento <S> I'd call it either "Lima Department", or "The Department of Lima" in English. <A> In general the technical terms in one country for administrative districts do not translate into those of other countries, even if they speak the same language. <S> US counties are nothing like English counties, for example. <S> Sometimes there is an official or semi-official translation into English. <S> In Egypt, for example, there are administrative districts commonly translated as 'governorates' even though that is not a word used elsewhere in the English language. <S> In France there are 'departments' (with an accent over the first e that I cannot reproduce), a term introduced during the French revolution and which may well have influenced revolutionaries in Latin America in the early 19th century. <S> My suggestion is that first you should research how these terms are usually translated, and, secondly, if there does not appear to be a usual translation, define your own. <S> Personally I would go for the French word. <A> Another alternative would be to refer to these divisions as cantons after giving the Spanish term. <S> It can be used as a generic term for a political or administrative subdivision. <S> The English word department is a " false friend ". <A> The other answers are correct and it would be accurate to translate to the equivalent region , province , state , prefecture , commonwealth , or territory , depending on how authority is divided. <S> In some cases simply area , section , or zone would be appropriate. <S> So The Department of Lima would not be unusual, although you might have to explain exactly what this means, for example how large of an area it represents, whether it has a local government, etc..
| However, it is common for English to use whatever most directly matches the word or phrase in the original language.
|
Is "too few" equivalent to "not enough"? Kindly, consider the image below: Can I say for the glass in the middle: "too few water" instead of "not enough water"? Are they equivalent in meaning? <Q> "few" is used with a countable noun: <S> "There are too few apples in the box". <S> This is equivalent to "not enough apples". <S> "Water" is not countable, so you cannot say "too few water". <S> You could use "little": <S> There is too little water in the glass". <S> This is equivalent to "not enough" <A> Few is used with countable nouns. <S> However, "too few glasses of water" is correct since the number of glasses can be counted. <S> Needless to say, the meaning changes from the original intention. <A> Many native speakers use enough for both countable and uncountable nouns. <S> ... not enough water. <S> ... not enough volunteers. <S> But too few is used only with countable nouns. <S> ... too few volunteers. <A> As others said, "too little" is more appropriate because you use "little" for uncountable nouns. <S> An extra point, though: In my opinion, "too little" is a bit stronger than "not enough". <S> For example, "not enough" could be slightly less than enough (say 70-90% as a ballpark), but "too little" (or "too few" where appropriate) may mean even less than that <S> (the second glass in your image.)
| Since water cannot be counted in itself, "too few water" is wrong.
|
“I like bananas” vs “I like a banana” In English grammar, ‘generic reference’ is used when you make a reference to all the members of a class of people or things . So I can say " A lizard is like a dinosaur in appearance" and " Lizards are like dinosaurs in appearance" as well. But I often see "I like bananas " in English. Can I change it to "I like a banana "? <Q> The like in, "A lizard is like a dinosaur in appearance..." means similar . <S> The like in, "I like bananas. <S> " expresses a preference. <S> In general you cannot say, "I like a banana. <S> " That is, you could add a specification to express that you like to eat a banana in a particular situation, e.g. "I like a banana in the morning." <S> ;-) <A> I like a banana. <S> Give me a banana, I'll eat it. <S> I like bananas. <S> Give me a banana, I'll eat it. <S> I like banana. <S> I like banana flavor. <S> Banana ice cream, banana pudding, banana bread, whatever. <A> I like tea. <S> As I write this I have a cup of tea at my elbow. <S> Someone enters. <S> She says "tea, at this time of night?' <S> I reply "I like a nice cup of tea". <S> The possible alternative reply "I like a cup of tea" does not do justice to the question. <S> The insertion of the indefinite article changes, actually, it increases the emphasis of what is being said. <S> There is a similar difference in meaning between "I like beer" and "I like my beer". <S> The latter phrase implies that drinking beer is a regular and enjoyable part of the speaker's life, whereas the former phrase merely includes beer alongside all the other things that the speaker might like.
| You cannot say, "I like a banana." to express that you want a banana as that should be, "I would like a banana." nor to express that you resemble a banana as that would be, "I look like a banana."
|
Is it OK to say: in a response to? Suppose I am writing an email and I need a customer to send some information. I want to tell him to reply my email and send the data. Please send us the required information in a response to this email . Is the phrase " in a response to this email " valid? Does it make sense the way I intended to? <Q> You asked: Is the phrase "in a response to this email" valid? <S> Does it make sense the way I intended to? <S> Personally, I’d be in favor of restructuring the sentence: <S> Please respond to this email to send us the required information. <S> If you really wanted to begin your sentence the way you did, you could consider using the preposition by instead of using in : <S> Please send us the required information by responding to this email. <A> ** "Please send us the required information in a response to this email." <S> You probably want to say instead: <S> "Please attach the required information in a reply to this email." <S> Or simply: "Please attach the required information in your reply." <S> The words attach and reply <S> are the dominant words used for e-mail software <S> , so using the same vocabulary makes it clearer what you want your reader to do. <A> It makes sense, but it's a bit redundant: anything anyone does as a result of a request is, by definition, a response to that request. <S> If you want to emphasize that you want the information in an email clearly marked by the email software as being part of the email chain, I recommend "Please reply to this email with the required information".
| The answer to both questions is yes – but that doesn’t mean you’ve communicated the information in the best way possible.
|
The difference between "allow" and "enable" Please, clarify me the difference between the verbs to allow and to enable .What are the peculiarities in their meanings especially in formal and technical context?As example, I have such context Thereby it will enable/allow to change the date of planned work in case of serious complaints from other teams related to business necessity. But I would appreciate more broad explanation of meaning distinctions, beyond the context I've given.Thank you for assistance! <Q> Semantically, permit would convey exactly the same meaning as allow / enable here, but personally I don't like this "intransitive" usage (where it's unspecified who is enabled / allowed / permitted to do something). <S> It's a relatively recent usage, as show by this NGram... <S> As pointed out above, I see no possibility of <S> any of those three verbs conveying any different meaning. <S> Idiomatically, allow is probably more common in such contexts, but that doesn't mean the alternatives are in any sense "incorrect" - providing it's used <S> transitively <S> (with an "object" such as us, you, one,... <S> But whereas the "intransitive" version with allow merely "grates" on my ear, I'd be more inclined to say that such usages really are "syntactically invalid" with enable / permit . <S> So if you insist on not specifying who is allowed/permitted/enabled to do something, you should probably stick with allow (but I at least will always tend to assume "non-native speaker" when I see/hear that usage). <S> Offhand <S> I can't think of many contexts where there's any significant difference in meaning between to allow / permit <S> / enable <S> [someone to do something], but perhaps one might argue that being enabled <S> more strongly implies having an (internally-based) <S> ability/capacity to do something , whereas being allowed <S> / permitted more strongly alludes to not being prevented from doing something by (externally-based) constraints . <S> Thus one might favour... <S> His well-developed muscles enabled him to lift very heavy dumbbell weights over His well-developed muscles allowed him to lift very heavy dumbbell weights ... <S> but in practice I don't think many people would make that distinction. <S> On the other hand, only allow / permit can really be used where the intended sense is very clearly that of being given permission / having (existing, rule-based) constraints lifted , as in... <S> The teacher allowed the children to leave school early on the last day of term (Where permitted would also work, but enabled normally 1 <S> wouldn't.) <S> 1 <S> As an example of an "unusual" context where enabled could work for that last example... <S> The teacher enabled the children to leave school early on the last day of term by arranging for the school bus to leave at 3 o'clock instead of its normal 4 o'clock departure time . <A> The usual distinction between allow and enable <S> is that allow means "to not prohibit something, to let it happen, to remove any constraint that would prevent something from happening" and enable means "to make something possible". <S> When describing a feature of some tool, allow is often used to mean "make something possible because it is now much easier to do, thanks to this feature", its prior difficulty having been a constraint that made it not really possible to do, at least not without an unlikely amount of effort being devoted to the task. <A> But you are not doing anything. <S> If you enable X , you are actively doing something so that X can happen.
| If you allow X , you are A) not preventing X from happening and/or B) typically implying you approve it.
|
"What was best" vs "what was the best"? Do both have the same meaning? Or they are subtly different? Example sentence: What was (the) best? To go left or right, up or down? Here it says that both are exactly the same. But I wonder if that's really the case. <Q> In your context, the best relates to {something}, whereas best relates to a course of action. <S> Plastic, wood, or metal container? <S> What was the best choice for this purpose? <S> Plastic, wood, or metal container? <S> What was best to choose for this purpose? <A> In many sentences it will not matter if "best" or "the best" is used. <S> To my ear, "best" on its own tends to sound better, but that may be due to the way my family spoke as I was growing up. <S> However, sometimes grammar demands one or the other. <S> What was the best present you received? <S> This just doesn't work without the "the". <S> It will be best if we just forget about it. <S> Opposite of the first example. <S> Adding "the" doesn't work, although one could substitute the prepositional phrase, "for the best". <S> The phrase requires "the". <A> The confusion arises because the word best can be used as any of several different parts of speech. <S> On the linked page, best is used as an adverb,modifying the verb knew .In <S> that context, the phrase <S> the best can also be used as if it were an adverb. <S> The meaning is approximately the same in that case. <S> In the following sentence, however, best is an adjective:"What <S> was best?" <S> If we insert the word the , we get a noun phrase, the best .You could certainly declare that after comparing a number of things, you found that a particular one of those things was the best. <S> That is to say, it was better than any of the others. <S> So if you knew someone who had tried going up, going down, going left, and going right, you could ask them for their evaluation of the relative benefits of each of those actions: "Which was the best?"(Note that I would say which rather than what .) <S> Assuming that the passage in the question is about the thinking of someone who is faced with choosing a course of action to take, not evaluating the outcome of an action already taken, I would use best as an adjective. <S> What was best? <S> To go left or right, up or down?
| Either is acceptable, and the practical meaning is the same, but their referents, implicit not explicit, are different.
|
How do "verdant" and "lush" differ? Definition of verdant by Cambridge Dictionary : covered with healthy green plants or grass Definition of lush by Cambridge Dictionary : A lush area has a lot of green, healthy plants, grass, and trees So what is the difference if I say verdant valleys vs lush green valleys? <Q> "Verdant" comes from the Latin viridis which means "green". <S> You can describe a piece of land or ground as "verdant" if it is green from the vegetation (ie grass) growing on it. <S> But "lush" describes the quality of the vegetation itself - that it is luxurious, abundant, flourishing. <S> This ngram is interesting - <S> it seems that in the past it was more common to describe a valley as "verdant", but in more recent times there is a trend to describe a valley as "lush". <S> However these are very small numbers, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on it. <S> I would say that either of your suggested options are fine and convey the same meaning. <S> "Verdant" might not be as widely used or known, but, also "lush" has taken on a secondary, more informal use in modern British English. <S> Saying "lush green valleys" though makes it very clear you are describing the grass and vegetation. <A> Two significant differences are that: 'verdant' and 'lush' are perceived to come from different languages, 'verdant' from Latin and 'lush' from French, and this has an effect on who uses them, and when. <S> 'lush' has the essence of moist, and notice how you have teamed it 'with 'green' in your examples while 'verdant' stands alone. <A> In the US I don't recall ever hearing the word verdant, though I've read it. <S> Lush is more common in my experience, but according to this ngram <S> they are heading towards exchanging places.
| Verdant describes the land ; whereas lush describes the quality of the vegetation growing on the land.
|
Which preposition is correct?- I will be back by/on Monday Which is correct out of the following & why? I will be back on Monday. I will be back by Monday. <Q> Both are correct but they mean different things. <S> but it could be Saturday or Sunday or any other day previous to Monday. <S> To be back on Monday means on that day and not before or after. <S> As to why it's because that's what the prepositions signify. <A> However, there is a slight difference in meaning and usage. <S> In this sentence: I will be back on Monday. <S> you mean you will come back exactly on Monday, not before. <S> In this sentence: I will be back by Monday. <S> you mean that you will come back on or before Monday. <A> Both are correct. <S> "I will be back on Monday" means "Monday is the day I will come back"; "I will be back by Monday" means "I will come back no later than Monday". <S> On 8 Indicating the day or part of a day during which an event takes place. <S> ‘reported on September 26’ ‘on a very hot evening in July’ <S> On (Oxford Dictionaries) <S> By 4 Indicating a deadline or the end of a particular time period. <S> ‘I've got to do this report by Monday’ ‘by now <S> Kelly needed extensive physiotherapy’ By (Oxford Dictionaries)
| To be back by Monday means not later than Monday As far as I know, both of them are correct.
|
How to use the word "regal"? Definition of regal by Cambridge Dictionary : very special and suitable for a king or queen Definition of royal by Cambridge Dictionary : belonging or connected to a king or queen or a member of their family "Such propaganda was significant at the time, since papal reform would soon be trying to damage regal imagery." Essentially, regal is another adjective of royal . What is the difference if I use "royal" instead? And it seems like it is more restricted to use regal compared to royal . So in what circumstance is the word regal appropriate and suitable? <Q> royal means belonging to or about royalty , not all royalty refers to queens and kings. <S> It refers to all those who have titles making them a member of the royalty such as members of a royal family, dukes, duchesses, earls, etc. <S> Also known as nobles: noblemen and noblewomen [too many to list here]. <S> Whereas regal is relating to the king or queen, from the Latin rex for king. <S> [queen is regina]. <S> regal imagery is that for kings and queens or imagery that appears grandiose like that of a king or queen. <S> He had a regal appearance w. <S> [He looked like a king ] <S> He had a royal appearance . <S> [He looked l ike a nobleman, a member of the royalty] <A> An example from Oxford Dictionary is <S> He held himself with a regal bearing, and strode forth without hesitation. <S> Royal describes the identity of a person or thing. <S> An example from Oxford Dictionary is <S> The Queen is not the only member of the royal family to have personal flags. <S> Note that being a king does not means he always behaves regally. <S> After a rough night out he might be far from regal, but is still royal. <A> Q: What is the difference if I use "royal" instead? <S> A <S> : There's no difference. <S> As wiktionari tells us, the word regal is a doublet of royal. <S> See its etymology: From Middle English regal, borrowed from Old French regal (“regal, royal”), from Latin rēgālis (“royal, kingly”), from rex (“king”); also regere (“to rule”).
| Regal is descriptive of something that is like or suitable for royalty.
|
What "storing records unviolated to have multiple downstream benefits." means in this context? What do "unviolated to have multiple downstream benefits" mean in this context? Healthcare, education, and entertainment are the sectors with the highest potential for Blockchain in India. For example Blockchain can help create a distributed-ledger solution that is future-forward, secure, and scalable, for effective deployment of government programmes and drug distribution. In education, Blockchain could become useful in storing educational records unviolated to have multiple downstream benefits . source: http://lovelymobile.news/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Blockchain_Playbook_Final.pdf I have never imagined "unviolated" means "as received" or "intact" in this context.I thought "unviolated" should be related to laws, restrictions, etc.Also, I didn't know the usage of "downstream", which mean "something that happens later in a process or series of events".I thought "downstream" should be related to river or stream.Moreover, the expressions like "downstream benefit" are bit difficult to understand for me, non-native speaker. The expressions like "you can get benefits as time passes" are easy to understand for me. <Q> First: storing educational records unviolated. <S> This simply means that educational records are stored in the 'as received' condition, so without any post-processing. <S> Of course, in reality, some processing is always required simply to allow certain kinds of data to be stored, but presumably they are not referring to such. <S> Second: to have multiple downstream benefits. <S> Because they have stored the files in an 'as-received' condition, rather than in a summarised form for example, the raw data is available for processing at any point down the river of time. <S> This is important, because some data cannot be processed very well at the time of storage. <S> Later, with better processing available, the old data becomes a valuable resource, in ways that could not be conceived when it was stored. <A> ... <S> Blockchain could become useful in storing educational records unviolated to have multiple downstream benefits. <S> If we parse to have multiple downstream benefits as complementing unviolated , and take the infinitive clause there as a statement of purpose, the full clause could be paraphrased: Blockchain could become useful in storing educational records unviolated so that they may have multiple downstream benefits. <S> There, unviolated would mean "intact, in their original form, that is, not summarized or aggregated such that the data would lose their granularity". <S> I do not know for certain what "future-forward" means. <S> It's a neologism. <S> I suppose it means "forward-looking". <A> let me paraphrase it according to my perception: <S> In education, Blockchain could become useful in storing educational records intact so that we can get multiple prospective benefits. <S> It's necessary to mention that I used the preceding answers <S> but I tried to add some facilitative features.
| In education, Blockchain could become useful in storing educational records unviolated to have multiple downstream benefits.
|
What does "That was like three seconds" mean? I was watching the movie "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind" when I heard the phrase "That was like three seconds" from Kate Winslet. You can find this phrase at 01:14:25. She and Jim Carrey were kidding and playing. She held a pillow tightly over his face, then he pretended to be dead (suffocated) in order to frighten her. She was very scared, but when she found out that it was just a joke, she said: Oh, my God. That was terrible. That was like three seconds . What did she mean? I searched the web, but none of the meanings that I found for "second" or "three seconds" makes sense in this context. <Q> It just means that the duration was approximately three seconds long. <S> She is either referring to how long she held down the pillow or to how long he was pretending to be dead, but I can't find the clip online to confirm. <A> Here is a cartoon from The New Yorker magazine, 1928. <S> The use of “like” for “about” or as a discourse marker goes way back. <S> It was also common usage by Beatniks. <S> Somehow, it's been around a long time. <S> It is used by young people a lot even today. <S> Its origin is not really working class. <S> It is used in informal speech. <S> It would be frowned on in any formal setting. <S> Beatnik usage (1950's): Beatniks were generally middle-class drop outs. <S> Not from the working ("uneducated") classes. <S> Definition: <S> Like: a word used to add emphasis. " <S> He was, like, mad!" – Beatnik slang <S> Use of "like" as a discourse marker in a 1928 cartoon : <A> "Like" here is functioning as a particle rather than an adverb - she is not comparing anything to "three seconds", but saying that she was only holding him down for three seconds, which shouldn't have been enough time to smother him. <A> For example, a similar use of this kind of phrase is often used by the speaker as a sarcastic, or ironic, reply to something that subverted his/her expectations (much like how a straightman responds to the punchline to a joke). <S> Picture two individuals: Tom and Tim. <S> Tom asks Tim to go out and get him a coffee, expecting Tim will be gone for 10+ minutes. <S> Tim leaves only to come back less than 5 minutes later with Tom's coffee. <S> Tom, surprised, exclaims, "Dude! <S> That was, like, three seconds!" <S> [Tom is surprised how quick Tim was to deliver a coffee] <S> Alternatively: Tom asks Tim to make a pot of coffee in the next room. <S> Tim leaves to the room to make coffee while Tom waits. <S> However, Tom remembers (less than a minute later) he left his phone in that room as well and enters to ask Tim to pass it to him. <S> However, upon entering the room, Tom sees that Tim had completely destroyed the room with spilled coffee grounds, creating a mess that seems impossible to make given the short amount of time passed. <S> Tom blurts out, "Dude, it's been, like, three seconds." <S> [Tom is in utter disbelief how Tim managed to make such a mess in a short amount of time] <A> That was like x seconds (or any other amount of time) <S> can mean it took approximately this amount of time. <S> As several other answers already point out in this case it is probably used with a different intention, to indicate that the time passed was very short. <S> An alternate example: <S> That relationship lasted like 2 minutes <S> However, it is also possible to indicate that the time passed was very long: <S> It took the ref like an hour to notice the injury <S> And yes, of course this is all relative, 3 seconds is very short for 'not breathing' <S> but it can also be a used to hint that something takes a long time. <S> When my mom types, there are like 3 seconds between keystrokes
| I believe that, in the scene, Kate's phrase was a Hyperbole wherein her saying, "That was, like, three seconds," isn't a literal statement to Jim's 'quick death' but rather her exaggerated, and sarcastic, response to how quickly he 'died'.
|
Which meaning of the word 'flay' has been applied in "flay him to within an inch of his life"? ... He(Uncle Vernon) shooed the shocked Masons back into the dining room, promised Harry he would flay him to within an inch of his life when the Masons had left, and handed him a mop. ... I think " flay him to within an inch of his life " is figurative. But I'm not sure about what sense of ' flay ' has been used from the following dictionary-suggesting definitions: When someone flays an animal or person, they remove their skin, usually when they are dead. If you flay someone, you criticize them severely for their beliefs, policies, or actions. What does this phrase convey exactly? -- Excerpted from Harry Potter. <Q> You're missing another meaning of flay : 1.2 Whip or beat (someone) so harshly as to remove their skin. <S> ‘he flayed them viciously with a branch’ (ODO) <S> He was going to beat Harry "to within an inch of his life". <S> It's an exaggeration. <S> He was threatening to severely beat or whip Harry. <S> Yes, as I understand the word shoo, it is impolite. <S> He might have been annoyed, or the writer wanted to convey that Vernon was annoyed (or some similar feeling). <A> To "shoo" someone comes from the actual word used during the action, similarly to "shushing" someone. <S> If you "shh" or "shush" <S> someone you gesture them to be quiet. <S> To "shoo" someone is to gesture to them to go away or get out of your way. <S> It is not especially rude though simply because it would most often be used to for example "shoo the birds off the lawn" or "shoo the children out of the study". <S> You would "shoo" something that is in a place it is not supposed to be and that usually knows its not supposed to be there but has been allowed to take liberties as long as they are not bothering anyone. <S> "Shoo" is usually used when you catch someone doing something they shouldn't be doing even though they are causing no harm and instead of reprimanding them you "shoo" them away. <A> I bet you $5 that Uncle Vernon was substituting the word "flay" instead of "flog" for effect. <S> Flaying is hard to do without killing. <S> "Flog him to within an inch of his life" makes sense: it was the subject of this 2006 post at another idiomatic expression website: <S> I am more familiar with the phrase 'flogged TO within an inch of his life' which makes it a little clearer, I think. <S> https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/51/messages/568.html
| To "flay" someone is to use a light blunt object such as a cane or a whip to cause laceration damage to the person as opposed to the impact damage a heavy blunt object would cause.
|
What it "village halfwit"? I tried to understand "village halfwit", but was not able to know the exact meaning.I think it seems to be some people cannot work or something.Could you explain the meaning for me? <Q> 'Wit' essentially means 'intelligence', and as such can be found in common expressions like 'you need to keep your wits about you'. <S> 'Halfwit' is therefore someone with low intelligence. <S> 'Village' - with small populations a certain amount of inbreeding can take place, not infrequently producing 'halfwits' if the social record is to be believed. <A> The common term is village idiot : someone who is well known in their community for their stupidity and ignorant behaviour Colins <S> The village idiot in strict terms is a person locally known for ignorance or stupidity, but is also a common term for a stereotypically silly or nonsensical person or stock character. <S> The term is also used as a stereotype of the mentally disabled. <S> It has also been applied as an epithet for an unrealistically optimistic or naive individual. <S> The village idiot was long considered an acceptable social role, a unique individual who was dependent yet contributed to the social fabric of his community. <S> Wikipedia <S> Halfwit is simply a synonym for idiot . <A> This has already been fairly well answered in terms of a definition, but I feel it could be explained better as to its usage, both past and present. <S> The more common term is " Village Idiot ". <S> Your example is just a variation, or perhaps a softer term than "idiot". <S> In the early 20th century, the term "idiot" was actually officially used in psychiatry and was not just a pejorative term. <S> It was one of a number of designations that denoted an IQ range: <S> IQ of 0–25 = <S> Idiot IQ of 26-50 = <S> Imbecile IQ of 51-70 = <S> Moron <S> All of the above have long since ceased to be used by professionals and nowadays are all considered to be pejorative terms <S> that imply someone has low intelligence. <S> The term "village idiot" stems back to that same era of psychiatry in the UK. <S> It would be applied to people with lower intelligence or a condition which today would be understood and dealt with much more sensitively. <S> The term was a "label" that would be given to someone in a neighbourhood or village known or thought to be an "idiot". <S> Villages in the UK were, and in some cases still are, the smallest communities where everybody is more likely to know one another's business, and that is why such a term was more likely to originate from them. <S> "Village idiot" today is used in a number of different ways, all pejorative. <S> It normally implies that a person is stupid, and known to be so within a certain community. <S> For example, if someone was described as "the village idiot" at work, it may imply that everybody at the place of work knows them as such. <S> "Half-wit" as used in your example has never been a psychiatry term and is always pejorative. <S> It literally means that a person has "half" the wit, or intelligence of a normal person. <S> For an example of how the term "village idiot" has been used in humour, look no further than this Monty Python sketch from 1970. <A> While I largely agree with Trevor's explanation, the stupidity concept has nothing with to do with inbreeding villagers. <S> Normally, villagers are assumed to be simple folk. <S> So, when you say 'village half-wit' it likely refers to a half-wit who happens to be a villager. <A> You're close. <S> The "village half-wit" or "village idiot" is someone whose sole purpose is to sit around saying and doing dimwitted things. <S> In a village full of people who are identified mainly by their jobs, there's... Jerry.
| Village halfwit - someone who acts in a stupid manner
|
How to describe a person who understands jokes, but wouldn't naturally make jokes? ...and at the same time, she absolutely possesses no sense of humor ! I mean she understands jokes and always laughs at them but unlike other students in this class, she is simply unable to make her own jokes. Making jokes is something rather unnatural for her. That's why I am saying that she is a lovely girl with a pure child's heart. Can "possesses no sense of humor" here be replaced with something better fitting the described situation (that is, being able to understand jokes, yet not being a fan of making jokes) <Q> I don't think there is a single word to describe this. <S> I like Juhasz' suggestion of "not funny", but it may be unclear exactly what you mean. <S> Instead we would say she is "bad at telling jokes" or even "terrible at telling jokes". <S> I have a friend who is just terrible at telling jokes . <S> She knows a lot of jokes, but always forgets or messes up the punchline. <S> In fact she's so bad at it <S> , it's actually pretty funny. <S> The situation you describe is somewhat more generic, and might be better described using by one of the synonyms of "shy" like reserved, reticent, withdrawn, close-mouthed , or hesitant . <S> I'm sure she knows a lot of jokes, but she's too reserved to ever tell them in public. <S> I tell her I think she shouldn't be so serious all the time and maybe try telling a joke once in a while. <S> Or perhaps some variation on genuine, thoughtful, authentic, natural, earnest or even naive or ingenuous . <S> She's so genuine <S> and so nice <S> that she can't even see the humor in jokes that make fun of other people. <S> Still, it's not clear why someone who is "pure" would be unable to tell a joke. <S> She might not want to tell jokes that hurt other people, but there's nothing hurtful about something like these silly kids' jokes: <S> Q: What did the paper say to the pencil? <S> A <S> : Write on! <S> Q: Why was the broom late? <S> A: It over swept! <S> Q: What did one toilet say to the other? <S> A: You look a bit flushed. <A> A person who understands and laughs at jokes has a sense of humor. <S> A person who makes jokes is funny - well, a person who makes good jokes is funny. <S> A person who is funny must have a good sense of humor, but a person with a sense of humor may not be funny. <A> Since you're willing to say "pure child's heart" the following would be in much the same register: <S> She's a serious creature who never jokes (though she laughs at them and doesn't lack a sense of humor).
| If, as you say, she doesn't tell jokes because of her personality, try serious, somber, humorless, sincere, or no-nonsense .
|
"contribute to" and "lead to" I'd like to know whether "contribute to" and "lead to" are synonymous expressions in the following: a. Hard work alone does not necessarily contribute to / lead to success. Does any contradiction arise in the following? b. Hard work contributes to success, but hard work alone does not necessarily lead to success. c. Hard work contributes to success, but hard work alone does not necessarily contribute to success. I know the repetition of the phrase "contribute to success" in sentence c is somewhat unusual, but I'm concerned only about whether the statement presents a contradiction. I'd appreciate your help. <Q> Contribute inherently means other factors as well. <S> Because of that, the modifier alone makes the sentence clumsy. <S> Hard work does not necessarily contribute to success. <S> Hard work alone does not necessarily lead to success. <S> Both of those sentences are written correctly, and both mean very similar things. <S> In the first sentence, you are saying that just because someone works hard does not mean they will be successful (which is obviously true). <S> In the second sentence, you are saying that JUST working hard, by itself, does not necessarily lead to success - that there are other factors (which is obviously also true). <S> Your sentence b above is good. <S> Sentence c above implies that success is guaranteed, but hard work may or may not have been a part of it. <A> In your context, "contribute to" and "lead to" are only partial synonyms. <S> If hard work "contributes to " success, that hard work has only limited influence and there can be (several) obstacles to prevent success. <S> So in the case of "hard work" and "success", the better verb is "contributes to", because we already have the experience - many times, only hard work is not enough. <S> Experience, motivation, support, even luck, are also key ingredients to success. <A> a. Hard work alone does not necessarily contribute to / lead to success. <S> Hard work alone does not necessarily lead to success. <S> - Means there may be other factors that are necessary for success. <S> Hard work alone does not necessarily contribute to success. <S> - alone doesn't make sense here <S> Hard work does not necessarily contribute to success. <S> - This means that there is no definitive causal (partial or otherwise) connection between hard work and success. <S> I could be the sole factor, it could be one of several factors, it may also be completely irrelevant - usually this is unlikely. <S> (Though success by inheritance may be one example <S> -conceptually, your hard work or lack <S> thereof had no impact on the inheritance) <S> b. Hard work contributes to success, but hard work alone does not necessarily lead to success. <S> This is a perfectly good sentence. <S> It explicitly declares hard work is a factor, but not a sufficient condition, of success. <S> (This still leaves a little room that X other conditions lead to success before hard work and its collaborative factors, but infers that Hard work is predominate, or most likely/important, factor.) <S> c. Hard work contributes to success, but hard work alone does not necessarily contribute to success. <S> Direct contradiction. <S> A does B, but maybe A does not do B. Now to say: Hard work is required for success, but hard work alone does not lead to success. <S> -This means that Hard work is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of success. <S> This statement would mean you cannot achieve success without hard work regardless of other conditions. <S> Of these the most true to life, for most people is the second one (b.).
| If hard work "leads to " success, that hard work has very strong influence and there are no (many) obstacles to prevent success.
|
Word that means follower of religion Is there a general word that means follower of religion ? I'm looking for an analog to the words demonym and ethnonym , but that relates to religion/faith instead of geography and ethnicity. The closest I've found is the word theonym at the Wikipedia page on -onym endings . However, that isn't quite it. <Q> I'd actually move further afield, and use other words. <S> Adherent (noun): a person who follows or upholds a leader, cause, etc.; supporter; follower. <S> is one that is frequently used in a religious context, especially when you're trying to suggest that you could be talking about someone of any religion (or follower of a faith, principle or cause.) <A> Words ending "nym" are words that describe types of words . <S> Examples of demonyms are "Briton" or "American". <S> "Demonym" is a recent coinage. <S> It was invented in the 1980s. <S> If you want a word that describes words like "Christian" or "Muslim" you are out of luck. <S> No single word exists. <S> While we often talk about religions, we don't often talk about the words that name religions, so no single word has been developed for this category of words. <S> Just describe: We don't need to say "The xxxonym of Islam is Muslim" because we can say: The word used for a follower of Islam is Muslim. <S> "Christian", "Muslim" and "Bahá’í" are the words used for followers of Christianity, Islam and the Bahá’í faith, respectively. <S> Or, for example: Adherents of the Bahá’í Faith prefer to be known as Bahá’ís <S> not Bahá’ísts. <A> You can usually refer to such a person as a practitioner . <S> E.g. <S> He is a practitioner of Christianity. <S> or She is a practitioner of Hinduism. <A> How about religionym ? <S> I throw this out there as a possible answer, though I think there could be something that better differentiates between name of religion and name of adherent. <S> I've found it used in some academic publications, such as: Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination. <S> Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism . <S> Routledge: London. <S> Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=WP2CAgAAQBAJ <S> It's even defined in Table 2 of:Kader, N. (2016). <S> A Critical Analysis of Anti-Islamisation and Anti-immigration Discourse: <S> The Case of the English Defence League and Britain First. <S> International Journal for Innovation Education and Research , 4(5). <S> Retrieved from http://ijier.net/index.php/ijier/article/view/538 <A> The words demonym and ethnonym are both fairly recent words, but they are based on classical Greek roots. <S> The -onym suffix indicates the name or word for something. <S> Demonym derives from demos , meaning community or region, and ethnonym derives from ethnos , meaning nation or tribe. <S> Or the Greek word thréskos, which means to be pious or religiously devout, could be used to form threskonym for this purpose.
| There's not a direct correlary to "religion" but the word pístis means faith or belief, so you could coin the term pistonym .
|
"in class", "in the lesson", "during the class" or "during the lesson"? I usually speak very loudly in class. I usually speak very loudly in the lesson. I usually speak very loudly during the class. I usually speak very loudly during the lesson. I don't see much of difference in these four sentences. What's the best out of these four options (in case there is no other better than these four) to describe the fact that I usually speak loudly when I am in the middle of the process of studying at school. Dictionary doesn't help much in choosing the best phrase here. <Q> I disagree that the sentences are equivalent. <S> The first sentence omits the definite article. <S> That implies that the behaviour, namely speaking loudly, is habitual whenever "I" is in a class room. <S> If you include the definite article then that must refer to a specific class, lesson or whatever. <S> But that is in conflict with the adverb 'usually'. <S> So in my opinion the other three sentences are wrong. <S> The third sentence is also wrong in that one cannot in English speak "very": that word needs to qualify some other word. <A> What's the best out of these four options <S> That's hard to say, since "best" is subjective. <S> But "in class" is much more frequent or popular, even if the other three are not wrong. <A> “In class” generally refers to something that happens in the classroom, an event of some kind, whereas “during the lesson” refers more to the learning process and planned activities.
| The sentences are all essentially equivalent. As a classroom teacher myself, I use both “during the lesson” and “in class”, but for students, and for your examples above, “in class” is the more common.
|
Why ordinal number has been used in "fourth helpings at every meal"? Mrs Weasley fussed over the state of his socks and tried to force him to eat fourth helpings at every meal. The word " helping " is a countable noun, meaning a single portion of food taken at a meal . So, I might think four helpings at every meal seems to be more reasonable. On the other hand, usually the ordinal number is preceded by the definite article " the ", like " the fourth helpings ". Any thoughts? <Q> You are correct that " four helpings every meal" probably makes more sense. <S> "Would anyone like a second helping ?" Mom asked, standing over the table with a full plate of pancakes. <S> We all yelled for more. <S> "Thirds" and "fourths" are also not uncommon when feeding hungry teenagers. <S> With this sentence the trick is to recognize that Rowling writes "at every meal", meaning there were multiple meals. <S> At each of these meals <S> Mrs. Weasley offered Harry "a fourth helping" (after, presumably, the first, second and third helpings) -- which, in the plural, becomes "fourth helpings " (Edit) Just to add detail, the use of "fourths" add colorful imagery to the scene, where we can picture Mrs. Weasley insisting that Harry take seconds , then thirds , and then even more after that. <A> Compare: <S> Would you like a second helping? <S> or No second helpings! <S> We are saving the rest of the cake for your cousins, who will be back from the game momentarily. <S> Without the article the ordinal is a determiner, here referring to a specific helping in the sequence of helpings. <A> I think that the expression is related to second helping <S> A second portion of the same thing, usually of food; seconds; refill . <S> He had already eaten six sausages, but that did not stop him reaching for a second helping. <S> If we extrapolate a bit, we can conclude that Mrs Weasley was trying to force Harry to eat four times each dish served per meal: the original, the second helping, the third helping and the fourth helping. <S> Remember that they think that he was starving before they rescue him from the Dursleys. <A> I think the issue here is that the helpings are served sequentially , not concurrently . <S> If someone puts the equivalent of four servings of food on one large plate, it would be completely correct to describe that as "four helpings". <S> However, if you are served one helping, eat it, and then get another one, the next one would be your "second helping"; if you eat that and get yet another, it would be your "third helping"; etc. <S> Ordinal numbers are used because the helpings are served in an order , not all at once.
| This particular use refers to the common idiomatic expression "second helping", meaning a second portion of whatever was served the first time around.
|
How to understand "Ginny's things second-hand" in this context? "Well, we'll mange," said Mrs Weasley, but she looked worried. "I expect we'll be able to pick up a lot of Ginny's things second-hand ." I think " pick up " here means " to buy ". However, Ginny's things second-hand looks odd. Maybe, second-hand , as an adjective, is used as a complement? Otherwise, I think it might be better to put it as: pick up a lot of things second-hand for Ginny . Does it make any sense? <Q> It's an adverb here: <S> adverb <S> On the basis that something has had a previous owner. <S> ‘tips on the pitfalls to avoid when buying second-hand’ Oxford Dictionaries <S> It sounds perfectly fine to me. <S> So does your proposed rewrite, which also uses it as an adverb. <S> It means that Mrs. Weasley will be either shopping at the wizarding <S> Goodwill or perhaps see if she can get them from her family. <A> Ginny's things means "things Ginny needs" or "things for Ginny". <S> To pick up is an informal way of saying "purchase" or "buy". <S> When shopping for furniture for their rooms, university students typically shop second-hand. <S> The university student bought a desk and chair second-hand. <S> The opposite is "new": When shopping for furniture for their rooms, university students typically do not shop new. <S> Few university students buy their furniture new. <S> Both can be used adjectivally: <S> The university student bought a second-hand desk and chair. <S> The university student wanted to buy a new desk and chair but settled for second-hand. <A> I might be misreading your question here but the gist of the sentence is: Mrs Weasley is worried about money <S> but she thinks they will be OK because she thinks they will be able to buy everything they need used or second-hand.
| second-hand characterizes the shopping for or the purchase of a pre-owned item.
|
Is “it is you that is wrong” correct? I know that between ”it is you who are wrong” and ”it is you who is wrong” , the former is the correct version. However, if I change who to that , is the same still true? It is you that are wrong. It is you that is wrong. To me, that are is clearly wrong. <Q> This is a classic case of grammar where there are two completely different answers, one of which is "grammatically correct" and the other is "what everybody actually does". <S> To be grammatically correct, first, it's necessary to note that since "you" is a person, not a thing, the correct relative pronoun to use in this case is always " <S> who". <S> You cannot actually use "that" in that sentence, as it is grammatically incorrect. <S> So the only technically correct way to say this is: <S> It is you who are to blame. <S> (everything else is wrong) <S> If you follow that rule, it also avoids the whole secondary question of is/are entirely, so you're good. <S> However, that having been said, people do actually use "that" in this sort of sentence all the time. <S> So, according to the rules of grammar, if we accept "that" as being OK for now, the same subject-verb agreement rules would apply as for "who", so technically, the grammatically correct(ish) <S> answer is that it should be: <S> It is you that are to blame. <S> Except, again, the grammatically correct answer isn't what everybody actually does in practice. <S> instead. <S> The reason for this, I believe, is a combination of the fact that the singular "you" is rather special (in that it uses "are" even when singular), and that "that" is more frequently/correctly used to refer to objects (which don't behave specially in this way), so in general people are used to saying "who are" (in the context of "you"), but people are more used to saying "that is" for anything singular. <S> As a result, when you mix "you" with "that", you get "you that is", because "that is" is the set phrase people are used to saying in general for anything singular. <S> So in summary, the most natural-sounding sentence is actually grammatically wrong in two separate ways, but it is still what most people say. <S> I guess this might actually be one of those cases where two wrongs do make a right.. <A> 'That', in "It is you that are wrong", is a relative pronoun and it's not the subject of the subordinate clause. <S> The real subject is 'you', so "are" is correct. <A> Who is wrong? <S> If it is me, and nobody else, then I cannot for a moment see why you would not say "It is you who is wrong." <S> If the people who are wrong are me and my whole family <S> then you would say "It is you who are wrong". <S> The word "you" can be plural or singular depending on context. <S> The verb following "who" must relate to whether the person or people being referred to are plural or singular. <S> I do not see any difference here between BrE and AmE. <A> Strictly speaking It is you <S> who/ <S> that are wrong <S> is the correct grammatical form. <S> It is <S> I who am to blame <S> It is <S> you <S> who are to blame <S> Here the subjects are not relative pronouns <S> but <S> those who precede them. <S> So it is <S> you <S> that are wrong <S> is correct <S> I am not sure whether the rule is strictly <S> followed in speech or not. <S> In informal contexts <S> we hear people say it is <S> you <S> that is wrong <S> Here is a link which shows the usage. <S> https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/topic/i-who-am-is-to-blame
| To most native speakers, assuming that we're talking about a singular "you", that sentence would sound rather odd, and almost everybody would actually say: It is you that is to blame.
|
"In" vs. "Since" in "She has graduated in/since 1990" She has graduated [in / since] 1990. This sentence is in my homework and I don't know which answer I should choose. Choosing since doesn't make the sentence meaningful I think the correct answer is in even that my teacher says since <Q> Neither you nor your teacher are correct, as neither "in" nor "since" would be grammatical (at least not without a lot of background information). <S> The problem is with the present perfect has graduated , which is an awkward conjugation of the verb. <S> There are few cases where it makes sense, as it indicates an action recently completed. <S> For example: <S> He has <S> recently graduated from college <S> He has graduated from college, but he's considering going back for a graduate degree <S> Some people might use it to talk about the school where you graduated from: <S> He has graduated from Harvard. <S> However, in this case I would simply use the simple past "graduated" -- which is also what I would use when talking about the time frame: <S> She graduated from Harvard in 1990. <S> Our lazy son has been "graduating" since 2015. <S> Maybe this year it'll actually become official. <S> (Edit) <S> As Daniel Roseman points out <S> I last saw her in 1990, when she had not graduated; she has graduated since then. <S> is grammatical, although in a very specific context. <S> You could just as easily say something like: <S> She had not yet graduated in 1990, which was the last time I saw her, but I heard she eventually did graduate . <S> It depends on what information you want to emphasize in the sentence. <A> I almost agree with Andrew's answer (edit: Andrew has now edited his answer to include this point). <S> Certainly "she has graduated in 1990" is not grammatical, and "she graduated in 1990" <S> is what I would expect a native speaker to say. <S> That should be an option, and then it would be correct. <S> However, I think "she has graduated since 1990" is grammatical, but wrong in this case because it means something different to what is (presumably) intended. <S> It suggests that you don't know exactly when she graduated, but it was sometime between 1990 and now. <S> Out of context, it is not very idiomatic (why not say "She graduated after 1990"?), but you might see the same construction more naturally in sentences like "She has graduated since 1990, when I last saw her." <A> It is quite possible that different educational establishments refer to graduation in slightly different ways. <S> In those establishments (in England) that I know about the usual form would be :"she graduated in...". <S> Using the word "since", as in "I graduated since five years" is a common mistake made by non-native speakers of English when the correct form is "I graduated five years ago." <A> "She has graduated in 1990" to me [native English speaker, general American dialect] would be correct only if the sentence was uttered in 1990. <S> If the year of her graduation was 1990 and you are speaking after 1990 <S> then you have to say "She graduated in 1990". <S> If the year of her graduation was later than 1990 then you could say "She has graduated since 1990". <S> In this case it implies there is something especially relevant about the year 1990. <S> For example, imagine you are talking about some rule about how student loans are handled during bankruptcy, which applies differently to students who graduated in 1990 or earlier than it does to students who graduated after 1990. <S> Then it would be correct to say, "She has graduated since 1990." <S> Especially Lime gave another great example with "She has graduated since 1990, when I last saw her." <S> If there is not some event that happened in 1990 which is providing context for the statement, but you are just saying that the year of her graduation was later than 1990 you would say "She graduated after 1990." <A> If there is evidence ca. <S> 1990 that she had not (at that time) graduated, you could say, "She has graduated since 1990", meaning after that date. <S> It's not the phrasing I would use, <S> but I believe it would be acceptable and - in that context - generally understood. <A> Since implies an ongoing state or process which started at the point in time stated. <S> So you might say 'she has been a graduate since 1990'. <S> (this is actually a bit clunky but is the closes expression to your example). <S> Has or have plus the past participle indicates a habitual, repetitive or ongoing action or state. <S> While graduated is to single discrete action. <S> Even if she has graduated several times in that period you would hardly call graduation habitual without more specific information. <S> So you have several options : <S> She graduated in 1990 : a specific action completed in the past. <S> She has graduated since 1990 : she graduated at some unspecified time after 1990. <S> This is a bit contextual and just as a statement of fact it would be more usual to say she graduated after 1990 . <S> In this context since is more likely to be used in the form of a question 'has she graduated since 1990?'. <S> even then there are only a few contexts where it would be an appropriate usage. <S> You tend to see it on things like official forms which are asking for very specific information. <S> Normally the present perfect tense (she has graduated) is not used when the time is specified. <S> For example Q: Is she still a student ? <S> A : <S> No, she has graduated. <S> or Q: Is she still a student ? <S> A: <S> No, she graduated in 1990.
| Graduating is a single event, that does not normally continue over time, so you would never use "since" -- except perhaps ironically: She has been a graduate since 1990 : an ongoing state which began in 1990.
|
What does “boot” mean here? I’m reading Kipling’s Kim , ch 2, pg 37 says `Beggars aplenty have I met, and holy men to boot , but never such a yogi nor such a disciple,’ said the woman. What does boot mean here, is it a verb or a noun and what’s the meaning? <Q> to boot vocabulary.com <S> The adverb to boot is another way to say "as well" or "in addition."; in addition, by way of addition; furthermore. <S> As in: You could say that your cat is not only adorable, but clever to boot. <S> and in: <S> `Beggars aplenty have I met, and holy men as well, ... <A> As per Collin's Dictionary , to boot is a phrase and is used for emphasis <S> [formal, emphasis] <S> He is making money and receiving free advertising to boot! <S> They have to be thin, attractive and well-dressed to boot. <S> Though the phrase has other meanings too, I think here, to boot <S> is being used for emphasis <S> only** <A> The usage of the phrase 'to boot' is explained by the OED 's primary meaning for the word 'boot' : <S> a. Good: <S> in phrase to boot: ‘to the good’, to advantage, into the bargain, in addition; besides, moreover. <S> Etymology: <S> Common Germanic: <S> Old English bót (feminine), corresponds to Old Frisian bôte ... <S> 1660 <S> S. Pepys Diary 13 Feb. (1970) <S> I. 54 <S> For two books that I had and 6s. <S> 6d to boot, I had my great book of songs <S> It seems to me that there is a connection with the word 'booty' : orig. <S> Plunder, gain, or profit acquired in common and destined to be divided among the winners. <S> Etymology: <S> The modern as well as the early forms, point to a Middle English long ō OED 2
| You can say to boot to emphasize that you have added something else to something or to a list of things that you have just said.
|
What does "my name was down for Eton" mean? My name was down for Eton , you know, I can't tell you how glad I am I came here instead. Of course, Mother was slightly disappointed, but since I made her read Lockhart's books I think she has begun to see how useful it'll be to have a fully trained wizard in the family. I don't quite get the meaning of "My name was down for Eton"? What does it mean exactly? ~ From Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets <Q> Eton is a prestigious British public school for boys. <S> As an aside - in the British education system, a public school is a privately run school that people pay (large) fees to attend - normally a fairly old one. <S> They're called 'public schools' because when they were established, schools were generally owned and operated by groups like the church or trade guilds, and they only educated their own members. <S> Public Schools were open to anybody who could pay. <S> A British public school is equivalent to a private school in the US; schools owned and operated by the government and free to all children are called state schools in the UK, public schools in the US. <S> Eton College is a particularly well-known and prestigious public school. <S> Both of the current Prince of Wales's children, William and Harry, attended Eton; Nineteen of Britain's Prime Ministers have been Old Etonians; Foreign royal families have been sending their children to Eton for generations. <S> Eton is also one of the most expensive Public Schools in Britain, currently charging about £39,000 per year. <S> Traditionally, parents would apply for their child's admission at the child's birth - that's no longer required, but it's still common for wealthy or prominent families to register their child early. <S> Registration is commonly referred to as " putting one's name down " - not just in this context, but in any context. <S> One might put their name down for the football team, for volunteer work, etc. <S> It's a contraction of sorts, derived from " Putting (or writing) one's name down on a waiting list " Justin Finch-Fletchley is saying that he is from a prominent and wealthy family - most likely minor aristocracy, going by his name - and that they had applied to Eton on his behalf when he was born, but he's more excited to be going to Hogwarts. <A> It immediately identifies the speaker as a particular nationality and social class (so much so that I can practically hear the speaker's accent in my mind as I read it). <S> Americans and other English speakers do use the similar expression "put [someone] down for" to mean "join" or "enroll" in some organization or activity. <S> Example: <S> Are you going to be in the tennis tournament this afternoon? <S> Put me down as well. <S> Once she had put herself down for the drama club in high school <S> , that was it for her. <S> The rest of her life would be spent on one stage or another. <S> Notice the difference in phrasing between "put down for" and simply "down for". <S> Small differences in dialect can have large differences in nuance. <A> It could be for anything that requires being part of a list. <S> Either a list that anyone can be on (volunteering) or some type of elite list where some institution is making a choice about who to choose for some job, training, education, etc. <S> Here, Eton is an elite British secondary school. <S> Private schools in the Uk are called public schools.
| To have one's name down for something means: to have one's name on some list for some purpose. To add on to Werrf's answer: "I was down for Eton" is a very British and a very posh way to say that the speaker was supposed to attend school at Eton when he was old enough.
|
Is "that makes sense" a neutral reply? I wonder if it is neutral (in a sense close to that no positive or negative things implied) when an American utters "that makes sense" after hearing an explanation. I would like to know if it is used as a neutral expression under normal circumstances. For example, is it understandable for a student to use "that makes sense" after the professor answered her or his question? Thanks. <Q> I'm not sure I fully understand the question in terms of it being neutral, but yes, as an American, this is commonly used in lieu of "I understand" <A> It indicates that the student has understood the answer given, and doesn't have any followup questions on the same subject. <S> It does not, by itself, indicate whether the student agrees with the answer - whether that's relevant or not depends on the question - and it would therefore be fair to call it 'neutral'. <S> A response of That makes perfect sense would be less neutral, and would probably indicate agreement with the answer. <S> A response of That doesn't make sense would be less neutral, and would indicate that the student either disagrees with or doesn't fully grasp the answer. <S> They may have followup questions. <A> I wouldn't call it neutral. <S> It is positive. <S> It means "what you've said seems plausible" or "what you've said is cogent, or reasonable". <S> It would be nice to live in a world where "that makes sense" was neutral :)
| I would say that yes, That makes sense is a 'neutral' response.
|
Difference between types of workers While translating some text at work, I want to point out the difference between employees working in the same company, but over different schedules. White collar workers Work mostly from an office Blue collar workers Work mostly in labor-intensive activities (we are talking about the Oil & Gas industry) Shift workers Work over three 8-hour shifts, on rotation, and are usually blue-collar workers. How do I point out the difference between a shift worker and someone who only works during the day, but is not necessarily a white-collar employee? Day laborer is not appropriate, as it reminds me of someone hired on a short term contract. Feel free to suggest improvements to my original options. <Q> Although the phrase shift worker has the meaning you ascribe to it, the use of the word shift still applies to regular office work when a company has people working during the day and at night. <S> For example, an executive at a 24-hour company can be considered to be working <S> the night shift when they are there at 11:00 <S> p.m.—and <S> scheduled to be there at that time, rather than just working late. <S> Therefore, you can have day-shift workers and night-shift workers . <S> However, it is not used as an habitual term. <S> At any given time, you will have day-shift workers and night-shift workers, but people aren't described as being a day-shift worker or a night-shift worker. <S> Instead, they are people who are working a day shift or a night shift. <S> It's a different type of noun category, because both white-collar works and blue-collar workers can be working on a day shift or a night shift. <S> In other words, the description is additive, not exclusive. <S> Somebody can belong to both groups at the same time. <S> So, you can add it as a qualifier to your existing categories, but it's not a separate category in its own right. <A> You could just state their occupation. <S> For most jobs, it is assumed that they would work during the day. <S> This is the case with labourer as you have used in your example. <S> It would only be for certain occupations that you might associate evening work or other work. <S> It probably also depends on the context and the country too. <A> If you want to create your own category, you can do so: Non-shift blue-collar workers. <S> or use a relative clause: Blue-collar workers who only work the day shift. <S> If that seems long winded you can define your own term: <S> The daytime workers earn less than shift workers but ...
| I will refer to blue-collar workers who only work the day shift as "daytime workers".
|
Why is "won't" used instead of "doesn't" sometimes? I've started noticing people using constructions like " something won't do something " as a present tense instead of " something doesn't do something ". For example, here is a piece from Eminem's song but he keeps on forgettin' What he wrote down, the whole crowd goes so loud He opens his mouth, but the words won't come out Is it ok to say like this and is there any specific rule that says in which situations one can use won't when they would normally use don't / doesn't ? <Q> The example is using figurative language to describe the scene. <S> Don't come out would be the normal form to use in that situation if one is simply listing the events, but the song is trying to evoke the sense of a struggle, a fight between the character and the words. <S> Don't is a more neutral term. <S> It's a simple statement of fact - the words do not come. <S> The line is about the singer's surprise that the words he's expecting don't come. <S> Won't personifies the words and grants them agency <S> - they refuse to come out, while the character is trying to make them. <S> The line is then about the singer fighting, trying to make <S> the words come out. <S> Edited for clarity: Won't <S> does not always imply agency <S> - it can also mean a prediction. <S> To use an example in the comments, saying "The water won't drain" doesn't indicate that the water refuses to drain, it indicates a future tense . <S> The implication of agency is largely contextual in this case, and related to the present tense of the line. <A> "won't" is a short form of "will not", where the verb will is used to express an ability, capability or an expectation: <S> Wood will float on water. <S> Rock won't float on water. <S> The car will start when you turn the ignition on. <S> I turn the ignition but the car won't start. <S> The lyrics you've cited express the the lack of the ability to speak, or an unfulfilled expectation that someone will speak when they open their mouth. <A> There, won't means "refuse to". <S> Similar contexts can be found among the results here . <A> He opens his mouth, but the words don't come out <S> This leaves it open that even though the words currently aren't coming out, then may in the future or when he tries a different approach. <S> He opens his mouth, but the words won't come out <S> This more strongly suggests that the problem is unfixable. <S> No matter what he tries, the words won't come out. <S> Not now, not in the future. <S> Note that this is not a stated fact, but simply a stronger implication compared to using "don't". <S> Secondly, keep in mind that this is a song. <S> In lyrics, grammatical correctness can be overridden for lyrical flow. <S> Especially for rap, easy pronunciation is essential to speaking quickly yet being easily understood. <S> Is it ok to say like this and is there any specific rule that says in which situations one can use <S> won't when they would normally use don't <S> /doesn't? <S> The distinction between "won't" and "don't" is effectively the speaker's opinion (in regards to how permanent this statement is). <S> Logically, there is no rule that can define whether what the speaker believes is actually correct or not. <S> However, there is a guideline here. <S> If you're writing a story in which the speaker is convinced the problem is unsolvable, "won't" is a better choice. <S> If the speaker thinks that the problem is only temporary or an easy fix may exist, then "don't" is a better choice. <S> But neither options are definitive. <S> It all hinges on how you want to portray the speaker. <A> My dog doesn't talk. <S> (implausible) <S> My dog doesn't bite. <S> (undesirable) <S> My dog won't fetch my slippers. <S> (plausible and desirable) <S> My dog doesn't fetch my slippers. <S> (plausible and desirable -- doesn't is neutral on those questions) <S> EDIT Roy makes an excellent point, in that "My dog won't bite" is also perfectly acceptable usage. <S> I guess it's really more that "won't" implies some non-neutral desirability, either positive or negative, where "doesn't" -- well, "doesn't" necessarily do so. :) <A> Using the future tense "won't" suggests that a rule or pattern of resistance to your intent has been established, so using "won't" is predictive that the trend will last into the future. <S> It's hinting at: "Even if I try again in the future, it still won't happen." <S> The future is used in the sense that it follows after your intention to make something happen. <S> You wouldn't use it if the situation was never to be repeated in the future. <A> Won't is used here instead of don't , to express the inability of the words to come out. <S> It is not used in this case to express the future tense. <S> I do not believe this use is ungrammatical. <S> Won't is of course a contraction of will not , and will has quite a lot of different uses in addition to its use to express the future tense <S> The Oxford English Dictionary gives 6 different uses of will as a modal verb: one of these matches the usage found here quite well: Expressing facts about ability or capacity. <S> ‘a rock so light that it will float on water’ <S> ‘your tank will hold about 26 gallons’ <A> I would say that won't is generally used when you are expecting someone or something to do a certain action but it isn't doing it. <S> But, doesn't is just stating a fact that someone or something isn't doing a certain action.
| "Won't" carries an implication that the thing not happening is desirable and plausible.
|
Using a noun as a verb I hope this is the right stack exchange to post this question in, I avoided the English one because my question concerns English grammar, and English is not my mother tongue. I'm reading fiction online as way of practicing my own English and writing, and came across this sentence which confused me a lot: Overhead arrows streaked out into the night. The context is a battlefield where archers are sending arrows flying towards the enemy, but I'm having a hard time understanding this phrasing. From what I know, 'streak' is a noun that signifies either a chain of events (so a continuous line of events), or mark/stain of some sort. I'm guessing from the context that the imagery behind the sentence is that the arrows are leaving a line behind in the sky? But I fail to understand what rule determines which nouns can be used as a verb, and how and when exactly can I turn a noun into a verb, and which circumstances can I add an adverb particle (like "out"). <Q> Nouns in English are very often "verbed" <S> As in every other aspect of the language, there really aren't any rules that govern this process. <S> Someone (like Calvin in the comic) decides to "verb" a word. <S> If other people like the neologism, they repeat it. <S> If enough people repeat the new word, eventually it will appear in a dictionary. <S> As to the question of how you can kick off this process yourself, well, you can just do it and see how people react. <S> If your English isn't very proficient (and probably if you have a non-English accent) people will probably think you've made a mistake, rather than an intentional new coinage. <S> Also, there are some people (like Hobbes in the comic) who get annoyed by any new words; so they'd be irritated in any case. <A> Please check English-language dictionaries. <S> "Streak" is also a verb. . <S> Most of the time you have to learn phrasal verbs as individual vocabulary, as the meaning might not be exactly the same. <S> For example, "get out" is not the same thing as "get", or other phrasal verbs like "get into", "get over", "get through" and various others. <A> In this case, "streaked" is not a noun being used as a verb. <S> "Streak" is also a verb with a meaning rather distinct from the noun "streak". <S> "Streak" as a verb means "to move at high speed". <S> See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/streak , v intr definition 3. <S> Perhaps this meaning started out as using the noun "streak" as a verb, like someone thought, "that bright object is moving so fast it leaves a streak of light behind". <S> To answer the direct question, When can a noun be used as a verb? <S> : <S> In some cases this is already accepted usage. <S> If dictionaries list a word as both a noun and a verb, or you have heard or read it used that way often, then it is an established meaning and you can use it yourself without causing confusion. <S> Though I'd note that, like many things with language, some usages are common and accepted in informal speech but considered inappropriate for formal writing. <S> If such a usage is not already common and accepted, you could try to invent it and see if it catches on. <S> Or at least if people understand what you are trying to say. <S> The potential problem is that listeners might not understand just what aspect of the noun you are trying to use as an action. <S> Like suppose you decided to use the word "door" as a verb and said, "I doored my office yesterday". <S> Do you mean that you walked through the door of your office? <S> That you locked the door? <S> That you replaced the door? <S> It might be clear from context or it might not. <S> I would avoid inventing a new usage in formal writing, unless you have a legitimate need to invent a new word and you spell out that this is what you are doing. <S> Like if you were writing a scientific paper about, say, your discovery that objects emit red light under some conditions, you might say, "In this paper we will refer to this phenomenon as 'redding'" and then use the word that way. <S> But I wouldn't just start using such a made-up word with no explanation.
| "Streak out" is an example of a phrasal verb , that is usually related to the meaning of the verb by itself.
|
What does "subtle wisdom" mean? I've always understood subtle to mean the opposite of obvious, as in subtle difference , until I came across this line from The Duchess of Malfi Oh, sir, the opinion of wisdom is a foul tetter that runs all over a dead man's body. If simplicity direct us to have no evil, it directs us to a happy being. For the subtlest folly proceeds from the subtlest wisdom . I had to revisit a dictionary to check for other possible meanings because I couldn't make any sense of wisdom that's barely noticeable . Now it seems to me that subtle here is used in two different meanings: subtle folly is folly that can barely be seen, and subtle wisdom is wisdom that's deep and penetrative. So, the way I understand the sentence is if you have deep wisdom, you're least likely to experience folly, and vice versa. How correct am I? Edit: The Webster dictionary has this one sense among others for subtle: Having or marked by keen insight and ability to penetrate deeply and thoroughly: a subtle scholar. So I thought this was probably the right sense for subtle wisdom. Then I ran a google search with "his subtle wisdom" (with quotes), and finally landed on the following quote from this website : The premise for each episode was simple, Barry Livingston says. “The boys have a problem, and MacMurray, with his subtle wisdom, lets them work it out—but guides them with an invisible hand.” <Q> This play was written in 1612, and uses archaic language. <S> If you're going to read literature written in older English, you must consult dictionaries that include older meanings of words: <S> subtle (adj): 3. <S> archaic Crafty; cunning To properly interpret it in this context, it helps to include more of the scene : <S> ANTONIO. <S> Now, sir, in your contemplation? <S> You are studying to become a great wise fellow. <S> BOSOLA. <S> O, sir, the opinion of wisdom is a foul tetter that runs all over a man’s body: if simplicity direct us to have no evil, it directs us to a happy being; for the subtlest folly proceeds from the subtlest wisdom : let me be simply honest. <S> ANT. <S> I do understand your inside. <S> BOS. <S> Do you so? <S> ANT. <S> Because you would not seem to appear to th’ world; Puff’d up with your preferment, you continue; This out-of-fashion melancholy: leave it, leave it. <S> BOS. <S> Give me leave to be honest in any phrase, in any compliment whatsoever. <S> Shall I confess myself to you? <S> I look no higher than I can reach: they are the gods that must ride on winged horses. <S> A lawyer’s mule of a slow pace will both suit my disposition and business; for, mark me, when a man’s mind rides faster than his horse can gallop, they quickly both tire. <S> Bosola claims that he is not an usually wise or perceptive person, that he has modest ambitions and does not wish to think too deeply or to worry about having a quick wit -- in short that he merely wants to be "simply honest". <S> In this context "the subtlest folly proceeds from the subtlest wisdom" is simply a warning that a man should not be too clever, as in the similar contemporary expression <S> You are too clever for your own good. <S> or You are too clever by half. <S> However in the full context of the play Bosola is putting on a false front, as he is actually the agent of the Duchess' brothers, sent to spy on her and her husband Antonio. <S> He ingratiates himself with Antonio in order to gain his confidence, which later he uses to expose them. <A> I think "easy to miss" or "difficult to detect" is a better description of the meaning of the word "subtle" than "barely noticeable," as the latter kind of implies a lack of significance, which may be far from the case. <S> Example: "Her expression conveyed objection but betrayed no malice. <S> This subtle wisdom earned her a momentary regard." <A> I am going to collate the comments I made under the question itself into an answer. <S> I don't see the meaning of "subtlest folly" or "subtlest wisdom" as being different from the opposite of obvious . <S> In other words, I still see such things to be taken as "almost undetectable." <S> In the sense "having or marked by keen insight and ability to penetrate deeply and thoroughly," and the example of "subtle scholars," that still doesn't mean that something is obvious. <S> In fact, scholars who are not subtle will likely not understand how subtle scholars reach the conclusions they do (barring detailed explanations). <S> Here, subtle means something more like nuanced or discerning . <S> The scholars are described as subtle because they are able to see things that other people can't. <S> In short, it's the scholars who are "deep and penetrative," not the knowledge (wisdom) that they gain or apply. <S> You might call them "scholars of subtlety." <S> But it's not a contradiction to say that knowledge can be both deep and difficult for others to detect at the same time. <S> For instance, "God acts in mysterious ways" could be paraphrased as "God is subtle." <S> In other words, all of existence is influenced <S> (it's a deep influence)—but nobody understands what the the purpose of that influence is <S> (it's also difficult to detect).
| "Subtle wisdom": An easy to miss but potentially important action taken or thought conveyed which reflects a capacity or a propensity to come to correct conclusions or make choices that anticipate and avoid problems and/or propel toward desirable outcomes.
|
What is a really good antonym for "improve"? I'm a software developer and I'm continually faced with efforts on the part of other developers to "improve" software that I'm involved in maintaining. But from my point of view, often the things they do have the opposite effect on the software. There is no truly apropos word. "Impoverished" isn't right. "Transform" isn't either. Neither is "transmogify". I need some really much stronger version of "deprove." "Worsen" isn't really the right word, because that kind of implies that the software was bad to begin with. The reality is a worse tragedy than that, because the software was perfectly good before! "Destroy" isn't really right, because the software still exists. So the reality is actually worse tragedy than that, because now we have this awful software to contend with. If they'd "destroyed" it, we could build something as good or better. "Tainted" isn't really right, because that implies it's mostly still perfectly good, it just has some small part of it that is bad, when the reality is that it is now entirely bad. I need a single word for the act of taking something perfectly good and turning it into something awful. "Monstrousize"? "Frankenate"? Hey, thanks so much for the responses! Ok, I'm afraid I let my emotions run away with me and I asked this question badly. What I'm actually looking for is a word that really functions as a direct opposite for "improve." A word that implies nothing about the initial state or the final state, but only implies something about the direction of the change. "Ruin", "break", "spoil", etc., all kind of imply good things about the initial state and bad things about the final state. I'm looking for something like "worsen," but even "worsen" kind of implies that the state was bad to begin with. "It's condition was worsened by the changes" could be construed to imply that the condition wasn't great to begin with. "Improve" doesn't imply that the initial state was good or bad, it just comments on the direction of the change. <Q> I suggest 'degrade', e.g. "Developers very often degrade the software when their intention is to improve it." <S> "Software decay is a key concern for large, long-lived software projects. <S> Systems degrade over time as design and implementation compromises and exceptions pile up." <S> An Empirical Study of Design Degradation: <S> How Software Projects Get Worse over Time <S> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7321186 <S> In fact there is a humorous/sarcastic term commonly used by software developers but I can't remember it! <S> I suggest you ask on a specialist computing site. <A> The word I'd suggest is ruin . <S> Dictionaries list it as a synonym of "destroy" (which is true), but it's a bit more nuanced than that. <S> In particular, what makes it good for the context you're describing is that ruining something doesn't have to obliterate it (although it can). <S> It's also used to describe situations where something used to be good but is now bad. <S> It's also used to describe situations where something is made significantly less enjoyable, such as when we say that a plot hole ruined a movie. <S> Some pretty good examples specifically about software are: iPhone users say iOS 12 update has ‘ruined’ their screen with ‘washed out’ colours Oreo update ruined my phone — <S> The author is upset about "a horrible design choice": The black theme is now white and the one app that changed the color of the screen for nighttime doesn't work. <S> "update" ruined my Samsung : <S> Has anyone else experienced a whopping 90 minute "update" from Samsung only to find they had changed your phone so much it's not yours anymore? <A> " Mangle ", " mess up ", and " screw up " are appropriate in this context. <S> "Screw up" is less polite than "mess up". <S> " Disimprove " might be the closest to an exact opposite of "improve". <S> "Deprove" seems more like "removing a proof" than "make a negative improvement". <A> In the specific context of documenting software changes that make the software worse, other options could be hinder , harm , or depreciate . <S> For a less formal term, you could also use nerf , which is common in gaming communities to describe reducing the power of a weapon, spell, ability, etc. <S> Function is deteriorated by these changes. <S> These changes are intended to improve the program, but they often hinder more than they help. <S> These changes are intended to improve the program, but often do more harm than good. <S> These changes are intended to improve the program, but often depreciate it instead. <S> These changes are intended to improve the program, but often nerf key features or performance instead. <A> If you improve something, you make it better. <S> The opposite of that would be to break something. <S> From among the many senses of Merriam-Webster's definition of break , are the following: 1 e : to render inoperable // <S> broke his watch <S> 17 : <S> to ruin the prospects of // <S> could make or break her career <S> As such, the software that used to work well could now considered to be broken in terms of practical usefulness.. <A> How about " spoil ": to cause damage to (something), in regard to its value, beauty, usefulness, etc <S> E.g. <S> Now is the time for improving or spoiling herself. <S> ; Here again the computer spoils things rather than helps. <S> ; <S> Apart from anything else, there is a risk of spoiling what we already have.
| I think the direct antonym to "improve" would be deteriorate .
|
How do you describe an anomaly in the car body! deformation? Sunken? Suppose you had a very slight car accident and a point of the car's door looks as if it's pushed in, something like this However, without any scratches, just a simple anomaly that can be easily fixed. How do you describe the door? I came up with: The car's left door is now a bit deformed The car's left door is now a bit pushed-in The car's door looks concave I am not sure about any of these sentence. Would you help with this? Photo Reference: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/16774/fiat-punto-door-dent (The owner of this picture can ask me to delete his/her photo) <Q> My first thought was “dent”: <S> dent a small, hollow mark in the surface of something caused by pressure or being hit: She ran into my car and put a dent in it. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> Briefly, “deformation” suggests to me a manufacturer’s error, not a dent. <S> “Pushed in” seems okay to me, but that’s somewhat broad, or not as specific as “dent”. <A> It's called a dent (noun). <S> The door is dented (adj). <S> He had a small accident and dented (verb) the door. <S> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dent <A> The car's door is dented . <S> A dent can be as small as a coin-sized ding or dimple . <S> Smashing an entire side of a sheet-metal object can cause very large dents, or crumple the object. <A> If the dent is small, it's known as a ding <S> <- see ding2 <S> The difference between a ding and a dent is an informal one: http://bigskycol.com/is-it-a-ding-or-a-dent/ <S> http://www.suburbanautobody.com/Blog/entryid/63/what-is-the-difference-between-a-ding-and-a-dent <S> but relates to size, whether the paint is scratched etc.
| The door has a large dent . “Concave” sounds like a technical observation and not really like damage from an accident.
|
A word to describe a situation, in which the eventual winner in the competition is hardly predictable What's the right word to describe a situation in a sports competition or in elections, in which both competitors are equal on all parameters and it is absolutely not clear which one of them will be the winner? <Q> As JeremyC mentions, there is no single word for this, but there are multiple expressions. <S> He already mentions "wide open", but there are others: <S> It's anyone's game . <S> It's too close to call <S> (there is no way to confidently predict the winner). <S> It's a toss up (random, like tossing a coin) <S> It's an even match/contest <S> (neither participant has a clear advantage) <S> It's down to the wire (as in horse racing, with a wire across the finish line, and none of the horses clearly in the lead) <S> It's neck and neck (another horse racing expression, when the horses are too close together to see which is clearly in the lead) <S> Finally, there's the expression "photo finish", which is used after the race is over, but there is still no clear winner. <S> Again, with horse racing, a photo would be taken at the finish line, then developed and examined to see which horse (if any) was ahead. <S> Naturally this can be used for any competition: <A> Not a single word, but the usual term is "wide open". <S> See Collins Cobuild: <S> If you say that a competition, race, or election is wide open, you mean that anyone could win it, because there is no competitor who seems to be much better than the others. <S> The competition has been thrown wide open by the absence of the world champion. <A> You might call it "close": close adjective 1.4 (with reference to a competitive situation) involving only a small margin between winner and loser. <S> ‘the race will be a close contest’ <S> ‘she finished a close second’ (ODO) <S> You can also comment that it's "too close to call": <S> too close to call COMMON <S> If a contest is too close to call, it is impossible to say who will win, because the opponents seem equally good or equally popular. <S> The presidential race is too close to call. <S> Exit polls in Britain say that today's parliamentary election was too close to call. <S> (TFD) <A> Since you are looking for a single word, I would suggest crapshoot . <S> Of the five examples of usage at Grammarist, one refers to sports and another to elections: <S> Everybody knows that an election with a small turnout can be a crapshoot. <S> Talladega is a crap shoot, <S> so you never know what’s going to happen. <S> Notice in the second example above <S> , it is spelled as two words, which is less common.
| It's a dead heat (as in a race, when neither runner is clearly ahead) From the Grammarist , a crapshoot is a situation whose outcome is not predictable.
|
"have one player less" or "have one player fewer"? Tell me please which word is gramatically correct to use in the following sentence, fewer or less . The team has lost because it had one player less / fewer . I have definitely heard a native English speaker use the word less in similar context, but don't we use less with uncountable nouns? <Q> Technically , you should use "fewer" for countable objects like players. <S> In practice, it could go either way. <S> Take for example this tyical supermarket sign: <S> "Items" are countable (obviously, otherwise how would you know if you had more than 10), so this sign makes some people irrationally upset, because it's not strictly grammatical. <S> It should be "10 items or fewer ". <S> This kind of thing is commonplace, so fighting for proper grammar is a losing battle. <S> We just have to deal with it. <A> Ten players. <S> Nine players are less than ten players . <S> Nine players are one less player than ten. <S> Nine players are one player less than ten. <S> one less player or one player less is nine. <S> One more or additional player is eleven. <S> One more or one less expressed as one player more or one more player OR one player less and one less player. <S> In this context, one player fewer is not idiomatic or grammatical . <S> Fewer players [a comparative] is grammatical. " <S> Fewer players [than some number] were needed at the last game". <S> One player less would be nine, and that's fine. <S> Fewer is comparative. <S> Less is not for the collocation: one more, one less are not comparative here. <A> The distinction between 'less' and 'fewer' is one of usage and is answered in the following dictionary entry: less <S> Fewer is used with nouns that can be counted. <S> [...] <S> [...] <S> [Less] is also used instead of fewer with other sorts of plural nouns, although many people still consider this use incorrect. <S> Less than 10 people showed up. = <S> Fewer than 10 people showed up. <S> This is the same sense as in your example, so indeed you can use either 'less' or 'fewer': <S> The team lost because it had one player <S> less than the other team had. <S> The team lost because it had one player <S> fewer than the other team had. <S> In this situation you probably would omit the last part in this situation, because that part is understood in this context: <S> The team lost because it had one player less. <S> = <S> They had one player less. <S> However, the omission does not affect your choice of using 'fewer' or 'less'. <S> Saying the same thing while using 'fewer' is equally valid. <S> Some would even say it is more valid because 'fewer' is used with countable nouns: <S> The team lost because it had one player fewer. <S> = <S> They had one player fewer.
| Less is usually used with nouns that cannot be counted.
|
"I've got a brother" In my sons' English textbook (they are in 4th grade, and we are Italians) there are some sentences about the family of a kid: the last one is "I've got a brother". When I was a kid, in the late '70s, I was told that "to have got" had a hint of possession; I could have said "I've got a brother" only if I was the elder brother. Is it true that nowadays it's use is so widespread that it is felt as equivalent to "to have"? <Q> No distinction between elder or younger brother. <S> It is not very stylish English, but this is 4th grade. <A> 'Belonging to' or 'ownership' is the most common use of 'have (formal)/have got (less formal)' - I have a pen; I have got a hat, but it is not the only one. <S> We can use possessives about relationships and there is (and never was) <S> any suggestion of ownership in the crude sense. <S> I have/have got three uncles, two aunts, six cousins, a nice neighbour and a lot of friends. <S> They are my uncles, aunts, etc. <A> I've got a brother. <S> [auxiliary:have/has] <S> The older/younger distinction you make is simply misguided. <S> it is not true. <S> I've got a younger brother. <S> I've got an older brother. <S> I have a younger brother. <S> I have an older brother. <S> And have got is the same as have. <S> There is absolutely no semantic difference of these two forms of the present tense. <S> There have always been two forms of the present tense in modern times. <S> And the have got form is used in speech, not in writing.
| "I've got a brother" is perfectly normal English.
|
What is a way to express ``take your time" non-assumingly when asking a senior fellow to do you a favor? When you ask a senior fellow (for example, a professor that taught you before) to do you a favor, how do you express ``take your time" without risking letting the professor feel you are assuming that you are important enough to affect his decision? In my native language, euphemistic ways that do the job are readily available. However, in English I would very much like to know a proper way to achieve that purpose. <Q> In my opinion, take your time is perfectly fine. <S> If you really wanted to express how much it really doesn't matter how long they take, you can elaborate on the point: <S> The deadline for my project is a few months away, so there's really no rush. <S> Please take your time. <S> But again, IMO take your time is perfectly fine. <A> You can simply say <S> I know you are very busy, and that I am asking a favor of you, so please do not feel at all rushed. <S> If you do have a good prior relationship, that should show sufficient deference. <A> I would not tell a professor to take his time doing you a favor. <S> Please do not feel that I am asking you to do this right away or as soon as possible. <S> Whenever is convenient for you would be fine. <A> To me (British English), utterances of this sort (essentially orders/instructions) feel a bit condescending if you are talking to someone who you see as being somewhat above you, and you are asking a favour. <S> To me, there might be two general options: If you need it done by a certain time, let them know when that is, and ask if they would be able to have it done by then: <S> I need it by next Wednesday - <S> would that be possible? <S> If it really doesn't matter when they get round to it, thank them and say nothing more. <S> It might depend on the context or the type of favour you're asking, but given the kind of person you are talking to (professional/academic), I'd be very surprised if a discussion around when it would be done by, how they will let you know when it's done, and other general "next steps" things, didn't arise naturally.
| A more casual alternative would be no rush .
|
What does "he'd seen enough of the trophy room to last him a lifetime" mean? Nevertheless, Harry was determined to find out more about Riddle, so, next day at break, he headed for the trophy room to examine Riddle's special award, accompanied by an interested Hermione and a thoroughly unconvinced Ron, who told them he'd seen enough of the trophy room to last him a lifetime . I don't quite understand the last part of the sentence, especially " to last him a lifetime ". Maybe, it's a special use of ' last ' there, which I haven't found a good definition from dictionaries to fit the context. The close definition I got from dictionaries is: If an event, situation, or problem lasts for a particular length of time, it continues to exist or happen for that length of time. The marriage had lasted for less than two years. [VERB + for] But it doesn't explain well in the context. What does it truly mean? -- From Harry Potter. <Q> "enough to last a life time" is a set phrase in English. <S> It means that you have had so much of something that you never want any more. <S> The thing may have been enjoyable at first <S> but now you are bored with it and do not wish to experience it ever again. <S> Cross-posted with Astralbee <A> As I recall, earlier in the book Ron had been set the punishment of cleaning every trophy in the trophy room by hand; he had therefore spent a LOT of time in the trophy room recently, and did not want to return there. <S> The literal meaning is that one has done/seen so much of X, one does not need to do/see X ever again in their life. <S> It's generally not considered literally, though, and just means "I've had enough for now". <S> A second example, from the first episode of Sherlock : <S> Sherlock <S> : Seen a lot of [...] trouble, too, I bet. <S> Watson: <S> Of course. <S> Yes. <S> Enough for a lifetime. <S> Far too much. <S> Sherlock <S> : Want to see some more? <S> Watson: <S> Oh, God, yes! <S> In this example, Watson is trying to claim that he's tired of seeing war and violence. <S> It's deliberately contrasted with his next line, where he shows that despite his protests, he does still want the excitement that comes from 'trouble'. <S> The phrase can be structured in a number of ways, too - <S> Enough X to last a lifetime , Enough for a lifetime , Enough <S> to last ME a lifetime , or, if one is being hyperbolic, Enough for several lifetimes . <S> All indicate the same thing. <A> This is a common expression. <S> If you had a "lifetime's supply" of something, you wouldn't need any more, ever. <S> The supply would never run out - it would "last" forever. <S> So if you have seen/done enough of something "to last a lifetime" it means you don't feel you need to see or do that ever again. <S> You've had enough of it. <A> to last means "to suffice, as when serving a need, to reach". <S> Will <S> the gas <S> last until we reach the next service stop on the turnpike, or should we fill up here? <S> Do we have enough hay for the animals to last the winter? <S> Do we have enough hay for the animals to last us the winter? <S> Does she have enough hay for her animals to <S> last her the winter? <S> Is there enough hay for the animals to <S> last Farmer Jones the winter? <S> That is, will the amount of gas we have in the tank suffice to get us to the next service station? <S> Is there enough hay for the entire season? <S> The adverbial phrase following the verb expresses a duration: a lifetime, until we reach the next service stop on the turnpike, the winter. <S> A noun-phrase following the verb (in addition to the adverbial phrase) refers to the entity who needs the amount to suffice for the stated duration. <S> So, if we suppose there's some need to see the trophy room, the amount of it that Ron has seen is enough to reach until the end of his life, or at least what he considers to be the average person's life and need to see the trophies. <S> He feels no need to see any more of it -- ever again.
| Enough of X to last a lifetime is an idiomatic expression, indicating that one is thoroughly tired of something and never want to see it again.
|
What does "not for ages yet" mean in this context? A: "When's your holiday?" B: "Oh, not for ages yet ." I've seen this example in the dictionary on my phone -- under the definition of the word 'yet'. But I don't quite understand the phrase " not for ages yet " in this context. What does it mean? <Q> Ages is used here as a colloquial term for "a long time". <S> It's derived in this case from the meaning of "a distinct period in history", and it's used to indicate that there's no need to worry about the exact time. <S> So, in your example: When's your holiday? <S> Oh, not for ages yet ... <S> means that while a holiday is planned, it's a considerable time off, probably several months - long enough that it does not need to factor into your current planning. <S> Similarly... <S> When do you need to leave to catch the bus? <S> Oh, not for ages yet ... <S> means that you have plenty of time to do <S> whatever it is you're talking about. <S> In this context, that could mean several hours or several minutes; it's entirely context-dependent. <A> It is idiomatic, perhaps a combination of two expressions " not yet " and " not for ages ". <S> " Ages " just means a long, unspecified length of time. <S> " Not yet " by itself means something is not happening now . <S> Of course, if someone asks when you are going on holiday, it is quite obvious it is not happening now (you wouldn't be there to ask!) <S> I would say that the expression " Not for ages yet " combines elements of both of the above - that the holiday is so far off in the future <S> that it isn't worth specifying the time at this time . <A> To add to many of the comments and answers, 'not for ages yet' is relative to the amount of time you'd expect to wait: Holidays happen once a year or less often, so 'not for ages <S> yet' would be monthsaway (@dan @Werrf) <S> Seeing friends happens on a scale of weeks or months -- for exampleyou and your mates might go out to a movie once a month <S> but it isstill <S> two weeks away <S> (@Tᴚoɯɐuo) <S> Catching a bus is on a scale of days or hours, so ages might be halfan hour (for example, the bus runs every hour) <S> (@Tᴚoɯɐuo) <S> Waiting for a cup of tea would usually take five to ten minutes <S> ifyou're right next to the kettle, so ages would be fifteen or twentyminutes or more (@Robin Elvin). <S> To me as an Australian English speaker, none of these are odd, but I would rarely use any of them - except, perhaps, the cup of tea example since we're such sarcastic sods
| Saying something is not happening " for ages " implies that it is a long way off in the future.
|
Use of "patterned" as a synonym for "modeling" or "simulated" I'm a beginner in English, and I'm writing a academic paper.Could someone please clarify if the use of word patterned function as a good synonym for modeling or simulated in the following sentence? Aiming to test the reproducibility of the present modeling setup were patterned three realistic spills occurred in the region. <Q> Firstly, I'd say <S> no, patterned isn't really a good replacement here. <S> Patterned indicates that you're copying something, but it does not indicate what you're doing with the copy. <S> Modelled or simulated would both be better, but you could use either of those words along with patterened . <S> Second, the sentence structure is rather off. <S> It took me a few read-throughs to understand it. <S> I'd suggest switching it around a bit: Aiming to test the reproducibility of the present modelling setup, we ran simulations patterned on three spills that had occurred in the region <S> This indicates that you ran simulations, and that the simulations were copied from - or patterned on - spills that had really occurred. <S> Other uses of patterned in a similar context could be: <S> Germany launched a blitzkrieg attack, patterned on their successful strike against Poland. <S> A new product was designed, patterned on the most successful products of the last ten years. <S> does not indicate what action is being taken. <A> Aiming to test the reproducibility of the present modeling setup were patterned three realistic spills occurred in the region. <S> Rewritten: To test the reproducibility of this model's hypothesis, the patterns of three realistic spills that occurred in the region were used. <S> The tests were patterned on the realistic spills that occurred in the region. <S> oil spill patterns or [water in rivers] spill patterns or leakage spill patterns <A> To "pattern" something after something else, means to structure it based on the pattern of that thing -- which is to say, its outward form. <S> Both "simulation" and "model" normally involve some kind of pattern reproduction , but do this with more fundamental elements or concepts. <S> For example, a meteorologist might use mathematical models (known formulas that describe air movement, pressure, precipitation, etc.) to create a hurricane simulation . <S> To test the simulation, the meteorologist might check that it accurately reproduces the patterns of past real-world hurricanes, given the same starting conditions and other controls. <S> To put it another way: <S> The models are the underlying data and mathematical structures that drive the simulation . <S> The pattern is the output from the simulations. <S> So when you model/simulate something you usually think about all the elements that make it work, but when you pattern something you simply copy its observed behavior. <S> All are valid scientific techniques, of course. <S> Sometimes patterning is all a researcher can do, until the underlying elements are better understood.
| In each case, patterned indicates that the action taken was being copied from something else, but patterned by itself
|
What does the meaning of " so I spiraled and shut you out"? It's a phrase from the line: The last time Cal got sick, you went down a rabbit hole looking for every remedy, shutting out the world, shutting out me, and so I spiraled and shut you out. What does " spiraled " and " shut you out " means in this phrase? I checked the dictionary but still confused... I mean, it's weird for me to use spiraled to describe a feeling... looking for help! <Q> so I spiraled Honestly <S> , I am not familiar with "spiraled" used in this context, sense it would normally refer to spinning in circles. <S> There is also the second meaning to "spiral out of control" to mean to lose control over a situation and being unable to recover. <S> However used like this, I'm inclined to think it is slang for something. <S> I found that "spiraling" is a term created thanks to Jersey Shore <S> (article can be found here ). <S> It essentially means drinking in the place of sleeping. <S> and shut you out <S> This is probably referring to the figurative sense. <S> To literally shut someone out means to actively prevent them from entering a building or a room. <S> The figurative sense, you can probably guess, is to drop contact with a person or no longer acknowledge their presence. <S> Putting these together, the intended meaning is that in reaction to Cal getting sick and "you" essentially alienating yourself from friends and others, "I" drank heavily and stopped staying in contact with you. <A> From Macmillan Dictionary we have: spiral (noun) ... 2) <S> a situation that gets worse and worse or as a verb 2) to continuously become worse, more, or less Usually with regards to feelings <S> it is an established feeling becoming more pronounced. <S> In most cases, the spiralling feeling is negative, like depression. <S> In your case, I think it means that they (the author) felt worse because they felt they were being ignored, but that assumes that they felt bad in the first place. <S> It might mean that they repeated the shutting out behaviour themselves but on a grander/more deliberate scale. <S> "Shut out" (again from Macmillan ) means: if you shut something out, you stop yourself from seeing it, hearing it, or thinking about it <S> So they refused to even think about the other person, let alone contact them. <S> So, in simple terms, when "you" ignored me, "I" ignored "you" back, with even more ignoring. <S> Note: <S> "with even more ignoring" is playful English at best - I think it gets my idea across adequately, but I wouldn't use that phrase in formal writing. <A> The figure of speech is related to a crashing plane, which spirals down to the earth. <S> Things can " spiral out of control ". <S> As you can see from the link, this phrase was coined during the world war. <S> It's not a phrase that has been in English for hundreds of years. <S> The "worse and worse" connection comes from the widening radius of the spiral. <S> But the idea of using a spiral as metaphor for an ever-worsening condition predates the war. <S> Compare the poem by Yeats called The Second Coming and the word gyre .
| Alternatively, I've seen "shut out" used to describe a situation where one person hides their feelings from another yet maintains contact.
|
A (Director's name) movie - why not possessive? I have just watched a movie and noticed, during the opening credits: A James Cameron movie Why it is not "James Cameron's movie" when it actually is his film (in a sense that he directed it). Why his name is used as an adjective? <Q> Stylistic Convention (written and spoken) <S> Beethoven symphony means: a symphony composed by Beethoven Picasso painting means: a painting painted by Picasso Miller play: a play written by <S> (Arthur) Miller Giacometti sculpture: a sculpture sculpted by Giacometti Hitchcock movie: a movie directed by Hitchcock Mies building: a building designed by Mies (van der Rohe) <S> This is just usage. <S> There is no grammatical explanation for it, really. <S> I call this a stylistic convention : using a creator's name (proper noun) in front of the work to mean: the work created by a particular creator. <S> Of course, you can use grammatical terms to describe it <S> but it will not help you understand how to use it. <S> (By that I mean: it will not help you understand that a Hitchcock movie is a movie directed by Hitchcock.) <S> If you were comparing two directors, you could say or write this one of two ways: - The [this, that] Cameron movie is better than the [this, that] Hitchcock movie. <S> Or : - Cameron's movie is better than Hitchcock's movie. <S> In critics' language, in written form, the name + noun form usually prevails, unless there is some specific reason for using the possessive, for clarity's sake, for example. <S> In the case of Cameron's movie , it is not really that it belongs to him , as if this were a weird possessive case, unless copyright to it is being discussed,for example. <S> The meaning of the possessive in these cases is : a movie directed by Cameron (likewise with other verbs for other creations: painted by, written by, composed by etc.) <S> So the possessive is really used to mean: by. <S> A Picasso painting is a painting [painted] by Picasso. <S> And not "of" . <S> Also, beware of this <S> : sometimes the name preceding the noun is not describing what I just said, but rather, it is used to give a name to a physical place : <S> the John Hancock Building, a formal name, and not any building that long-departed man may have built. <S> In the case of the Eiffel Tower, however, it is the place name and the name of the architect. <A> In this phrase, "James Cameron" is an adjective describing the subject ( "movie" ); it is the same usage as, for example, "A Paramount Pictures production" . <S> It is also possible that the possessive form is avoided because "ownership" is not really intended to be in focus. <A> A James Cameron movie. <S> " <S> James Cameron" is not an adjective. <S> It's a nominal modifying "movie". <S> Another decent example might be "a United States warship". <S> Not everything that modifies a noun is an adjective!
| In English, the names of creators of a creative work (painting, drawing, movie, sculpture, cartoon, piece of music, song, etc., etc.) can be placed in front of the work to mean: the creative work created by that person.
|
"A man's man" and "A ladies' man" A man's man is a man who enjoys being with other men and doing sports and activities with them, and is popular with men rather than women. and a ladies' man is a man who is popular with women and who likes to go out with a lot of different women. ---- Cited from Longman dictionary. My questions are: We usually use "men and women" or "ladies and gentlemen". But why we use "a man's man" and "a ladies' man", but not "a woman's man" or "a gentlemen's man"? Can similar phrases be used to describe a woman? If yes, what are they, "She is a man's man", "She is a man's lady" or "She is a man's woman?" Can "a man's man" be used to describe a boy or a girl? Which of the following saying do you prefer: "The boy is a man's man", "The boy is a man's boy", "The boy is a boys' man", or "The boy is a boys' boy"? Why the word "man" is in single form in "a man's man", but the word "ladies" is in plural form in "a ladies' man"? <Q> For example, they admire his strength, courage, wisdom, and success. <S> The expression is phrased in terms of whom a hypothetical individual man would like to be. <S> In this context, it is not possible for multiple men to be the same man. <S> "A ladies' man" is a man who is very popular romantically <S> and/or sexually with many women. <S> One point is that the man does not restrict himself to just one woman. <S> Another point is that the women are of moderate or high status, so the term "lady" is appropriate. <A> These are set expressions, so we'd better use them as the dictionaries suggest. <S> However, in "Staying Alive", Bee Gees sang, "I'm a woman's man, no time to talk." <S> Generally speaking, lady is a more polite way of referring to a woman. <S> Here is one word I can think of to describe a girl who prefers to be around boys: Tomboy - <S> a girl who enjoys rough, noisy activities traditionally associated with boys Be careful with phrases like "a man's woman." <S> Unlike the phrases from question 1, these phrases are not set expressions. <S> And their use can easily lead to confusion and misunderstanding. <S> A man's man is always a man. <S> If it's said to describe a boy, then it's said with humor. <S> Again, it's just a matter of collocations. <S> By the way, you can say "a ladies' man" as well as "a lady's man", but you can only say "a man's man. <S> " <S> Why? <S> These are set expressions. <A> Ladies man enjoys the company of ladies, more so than the company of men. <S> He enjoys the dinners, giving flowers ...as other men find that a means to and end... <S> ladies man truly enjoys the courtship
| "A man's man" is a man that other men would like to be.
|
Is there an idiom about how humanely killing something is better than letting it live in pain? The thing in question can be a wounded animal or a dysfunctional relationship. In mild sense, it can be an object or idea that requires a lot of investment for it, and when it turns out that it not working you want to cut it down to avoid further loss. Is there an idiom, proverb, or common saying that describes this situation? Related: Is there an idiomatic way to say "go to the path of no way out"? <Q> You can put the animal out of its misery . <S> It means to euthanize. <S> I suppose you could say the same of a failing business enterprise, figuratively, and even of a dysfunctional relationship, when speaking with a sort of grim humor, where you're casting the relationship as a badly injured or terminally ill and suffering creature. <A> I've heard both used in other contexts such as bad relationships or failing businesses. <A> A coup de grâce is a death blow to end the suffering of a severely wounded person or animal.(Wiki) <A> I'd use take it behind the barn and shoot it for putting an early end to something instead of having it drag on. <S> A similar saying is take it out back . <A> Tᴚoɯɐuo gave the best answer for killing an animal mercifully. <S> In the case of a business or investment, while we might use that as a metaphor, some common phrases are cutting your losses and don't throw good money after bad . <A> 'It would be better off dead', 'I'd be better off dead!' <S> is a common UK and US idiom, in speech and writing. <S> It sounds very strong unless we are already talking empathically about death. <S> ' <S> Flogging a dead horse' ie continuing with a hopeless endeavour. <S> 'Hastening the inevitable' clichéd but appropriate. <A> " pull the plug " Literally, this means to pull the plug of life support equipment and let someone die. <S> Or less morbidly, unplug a bathtub and let the water drain out, ending the bath. <S> Metaphorically, it means to put an end to something: <S> We've been more like roommate than lovers for the past 6 months. <S> It's time to pull the plug on this relationship. <S> I hate to pull the plug on this party, but it's midnight. <S> I've gotta get some sleep. <S> There's also " pull the trigger " which has multiple connotations depending on context, but the same basic meaning of ending a period of waiting: <S> Pull the trigger to kill/stop something "She's suffered long enough. <S> You've just gotta pull the trigger and get it over with." <S> Pull the trigger to initiate/ <S> start something (like a starter pistol at a race) <S> "We're ready--just waiting on the boss to pull the trigger so we can start." <S> Commit to a decision/action "Dude! <S> It's not that complicated! <S> Just pull the trigger and pick one!"
| Put to sleep and put down are common euphemisms for euthanizing an animal - "put Fluffy to sleep", or "have Fluffy put to sleep", or "have Fluffy put down."
|
Difference between the very soon and in a jiffy I will be with you very soon vs. I will be with you in a jiffy Which of the two sentences is more correct? <Q> The first sentence I will be with you very soon <S> is perfectly correct whether written or spoken. <S> The second version <S> I will be with you in a jiffy is rarely written, and is an idiom that may or may not be in fashion in any particular milieu. <A> Both are equally correct from a grammatical point of view. <S> According to Collins Dictionary in a jiffy <S> you will do something in a jiffy = <S> you will do something very soon <S> The expression "in a jiffy" is not marked as old-fashioned or archaic <S> but if we compare the ngrams offered by Google, it seems that "in a jiffy" [red] is less used today. <A> There can be an emotional difference. <S> When a person tells you that they will be with you in a jiffy , there is an expression of empathy that you are waiting and they acknowledge this and they will try to hurry or at the very least not dawdle. <S> When a person tells you that they will be with you soon , there can be an expression that you are expected to have the empathy and understand that they are busy, and you should try to be patient or at least not become impatient.
| If you say that you will do something in a jiffy , you mean that you will do it very quickly or very soon .
|
What does "ground" mean in this sentence? And what is the sentence saying? I am not sure about the meaning of the verb ground in this sentence from an online article . Accessories were kept polished and stylish with taupe suede Manolo Blahniks grounding the look and simple diamond stud Adina Reyter earrings for subtle sparkle. Does ground mean connect with the ground , place on the ground , or give theoretical basis to ? None of the dictionary definitions seem to work here. What does the sentence mean? Manolo Blahniks supposedly refers to a pair of shoes designed by Manolo Blahniks, but how do shoes ground a look? <Q> In this case, there is a very fashion-specific meaning for grounded. <S> One occasional definition of the verb ground is to keep something on the ground or to prevent something from taking off/flying (see, for example, MacMillan Dictionary ). <S> Fashion writing sometimes plays on this meaning to describe some element of an outfit that keeps it from being too outrageous or over-the-top. <S> For example: The skirt is what keeps the outfit grounded and keeps it from going overboard. <S> ( 2018 fashion blog post ) <S> we do love the way in which the shocking green hue makes her outfit pop, yet the casual shape keeps the outfit grounded ( 2010 fashion commentary blog ) <S> If you find bold colours challenging, try grounding the outfit with muted shades, like white and navy. <S> ( Style advice section on fashion retail site ) <S> In this case, the sentence is part of a description of an outfit worn by Megan Markle . <S> The main element was a canary yellow dress, so the implication is that the less-colorful shoes keep the outfit "classy" and restrained, rather than too flamboyant. <A> When a person has their feet on the ground , it means that they're sensible and focused on the immediate practicalities of the world around them, as opposed to someone who has their head in the clouds , constantly thinking about abstract ideas or fantasies. <S> In this case, it sounds like the article is saying that the shoes helped make the outfit as a whole practical and useful. <A> Manolo Blahnik makes shoes, so the meaning is a pun. <S> Shoes touch the ground, and in this case they also form the foundation of the ensemble. <A> "Establishing a neutral-toned foundation" is my take, where "foundation" has the sense of "main underlying color". <S> P.S. <S> grounding also may have connotations of basic simplicity. <S> There's nothing "flashy" about taupe. <A> I have two possible answers:Grounding can mean establishing a center or base, as in "My college education was grounded in science. <S> "Grounded <S> can mean down-to-Earth and practical, as in "He may look like a dreamer, but his career is very grounded." <A> First of all, fashion writing is often strongly stylised, playing with conventions (the quote reminds me of the Maestra fiction novels!).Here <S> it is quite likely that the author is writing in jargon for two or more audiences: so as others have already answered, 'grounding' is a term used in colour design, but also provides the pun of connecting the body to the floor.
| I would say this is the figurative use of grounding to refer to something being reliable and practical.
|
What does "ripped back" mean in this context? (Harry opening his present from Hermione...) His heart gave a huge bound as he ripped back the paper and saw a sleek black leather case, with silver words stamped across it, reading Broomstick Servicing Kit. I couldn't find the definition of " rip back " from any dictionaries. It might not be a fixed collocation. I might think " rip away " could probably fit for the context. What does it truly mean? <Q> So for example: He peeled back the sheets and got into bed. <S> or She peeled back the label from the jar. <A> With respect to your suggestion that away might be better here. <S> I think there may be a subtle difference in connotation between away and back . <S> rip back suggests that what was inside was being exposed to view, whereas rip away could suggest not only that but something a little more forceful, that the paper was being torn off . <A> To me, "rip back" gives the impression that the paper was being ripped away from the tear, thus basically folding (or at least, being pulled on top of) other portions of the paper. <S> Imagine you have a package, and you grab the paper at the top of a side and pull down. <S> This creates a tear at the top of that side, and you are ripping the paper away, or back, from that tear. <S> You will now have two layers of paper at the bottom of that side: the layer of wrapping paper that was originally covering the bottom of the side, and the layer that used to be covering the top.
| "Back" is a relative direction , and when describing the process of unwrapping something (such as a wrapped gift, as in your example), or peeling back a layer of something (such as the peel on fruit) it is common to use the word "back" to denote that you are lifting something away from the surface of something else.
|
What does "Scary-lookin' fing, inee" mean? ... Harry had never met a vampire, but he had seen pictures of them in his Defence Against the Dark Arts classes, and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one. ' Scary-lookin' fing, inee ?' said Stan, who had been watching Harry read. 'He murdered thirteen people?' said Harry, handing the page back to Stan, 'with one curse?' I'm not sure what the sentence means. I searched on the web: fing could be 'thing', 'effing' and etc, but not quite sure what it is in this context. I can't find a reference for 'inee' anywhere. -- From Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban <Q> The "standard" spelling is Scary-looking thing, isn't he? <S> I'm not entirely sure, but <S> I believe this kind of spelling is called "eye dialect": <S> Eye dialect is the use of nonstandard spelling for speech to draw attention to pronunciation. <S> This form of nonstandard spelling differs from others in that a difference in spelling does not indicate a difference in pronunciation of a word. <S> That is, it is dialect to the eye rather than to the ear. <S> It suggests that a character "would use a vulgar pronunciation if there were one" and "is at the level of ignorance where one misspells in this fashion, hence mispronounces as well". <S> The term is less commonly also used to refer to pronunciation spellings, that is, spellings of words that indicate that they are pronounced in a nonstandard way. <S> For example, an author might write dat as an attempt at accurate transcription of a nonstandard pronunciation of that . <S> The rest of this article will discuss the former definition. <S> (Wikipedia) <S> There's likely a technical point here <S> I'm unaware of. <S> Anyway, at the very least, the point of this spelling is to show that he speaks very differently from the others. <S> I imagine it possibly reflects a real-world dialect, but I wouldn't know which one. <A> The English "th" sound is relatively hard to pronounce, and in some English dialects it tends to be replaced by "f" or "v" at the start of words. <S> This is common enough to have a technical name, th <S> -fronting . <S> In the OP's example "thing" is pronounced "fing". <S> Clusters of consonants tend to be omitted or simplified in some dialects. <S> and "t" in the middle of a word often becomes a glottal stop , so "isn't it" becomes "innit" (which has almost become a word in its own right, used as an indication that someone doesn't speak "correct" English) or even "inni'," with the final "t" turned into a glottal stop. <S> "Isn't he" in the OP's example becomes "inee," or "innee" by analogy with the usual spelling of "innit". <A> That way of speaking is common in some English dialects like South and East London and northern areas around Manchester. <S> "Fing" is just another way of saying "thing" equivalently "innee" is how some people say "isn't he" in some parts of England. <S> I'd imagine it's to show the character's regional accent. <A> You're quite right to suggest thing for "fing". <S> "inee" would be a contracted form of "isn't he" therefore the sentence expanded and pronounced would be: Scary-looking thing, isn't he? <A> It's common in many dialects throughout England to pronounce 'th' as 'f' and is known as 'th-fronting', so 'thing' could be rendered in writing as 'fing'. <S> It's actually common to the extent that most people don't even realise that they are doing it. <S> The 'inee' bit is referring to 'Isn't he?' <S> but it's obvious that the 'h' is not being pronounced: again, this is quite common. <S> It's similar to the way that the Spanish language has sounds which are pronounced very differently depending on the country or region of the country to the point where it no longer sounds 'correct' to someone who is learning the language, even though in reality it is normal to just follow the pronunciation which is around you, without worrying whether it is 'correct' or not.
| The term was coined by George Philip Krapp to refer to the literary technique of using nonstandard spelling that implies a pronunciation of the given word that is actually standard, such as wimmin for women ; the spelling indicates that the character's speech overall is dialectal, foreign, or uneducated.
|
What is the difference between "Soccer" and "Football"? I am very confused about these two words. I mean these two words are used interchangeably. which make new comer so much confused. i need full explanation which can differentiate these two words with examples.Thanks... <Q> "Soccer" is the word for the sport in America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South-East Asia, and Japan (or a closely related pronunciation). <S> The country where the speaking person learned English is the only difference between these words. <S> And be careful, because an American will use the word "fooball" to describe a completely different sport, similar in appearance to rugby but with different rules. <S> It may help to see this article and map by Business Insider. <A> All these countries use different words, Which all refers to the game with 11 players on each side. <S> All these blue countries in the map have a word "football" which genrally refers to "American football". <S> More information about American football . <A> Football is a term for a number of sports that use balls, the hands and feet in various ways depending on the rules of the particular sport. <S> Some versions of football are quite old the Royal Shrovetide Football match played in the town of Ashborne in Derbyshire, England has been played since the 12th century. <S> These various versions of football were played to their own rules until the middle of the 19th century when improved education, printing and communications all came together to allow the various games to codify their own rules. <S> In this era the various versions of football, Association Football, Rugby Football League, Rugby Football Union, Australian Rules Football etc. <S> had their rules set down. <S> Soccer is a shortening of the term Association Football first coined in England, but that has become more commonly used as a term for the sport in America, Australia and some other countries. <S> In these countries there is often a local version of the sport such as Australian Rules Football or the NFL that is considered football for that country, or they are in the sphere of influence of a country that uses football to describe another sport such as Japan's relationship with America after WW2 ( also the reason why Baseball is popular there). <S> Football is commonly used as the name for Association Football in the UK although some diehard fans of Rugby League or Union will refer to it as soccer. <S> As the map Aiden Stewart has linked shows many other countries use a version of football to describe Association Football as a sport.
| "Football" is the word for the sport in the United Kingdom and Europe, along with some other places.
|
Is there a more natural way of saying "piss while standing up"? It sounds too convoluted. I thought about "piss on their two feet", but not sure this is more common than "piss while standing up". "Men piss on their two feet." "Men piss while standing up." Is there a way to get rid of the while. It sounds unnatural. <Q> "Men piss standing up" seems to be a fine enough sentence to me. <S> Google Ngrams has plenty of hits for that, but none for "piss while standing up". <A> Don't Say This <S> "Men piss on their two feet." <S> This sounds like someone is urinating on their own feet. <S> Unless that's what you're trying to say, I wouldn't use this construction at all. <S> Simple and Complex Constructions <S> "Men pee standing up." <S> However, "piss" and (to a lesser extent) "pee" are somewhat vulgar in American English. <S> Men often stand while urinating. <S> Since men can urinate while sitting, you might also provide more context to explain the point of your sentence. <S> For example: Urinals allow men to pee standing up without the hassle of raising the toilet seat. <S> Or you may be trying to draw a contrast between men and women, or men's and women's restroom facilities. <S> For example: Men typically urinate standing up, which is why men's restrooms usually have urinals installed. <S> Women typically urinate while sitting down, which is why women's restrooms have stalls but no urinals. <S> Ultimately, the choice of phrasing depends a great deal on your intent and your audience. <S> Context matters! <A> The "up" can be omitted: "piss while standing" is more concise, and as another pointed out, more specifically conveys the relatively static poise.
| More polite phrases might be: Men often urinate while standing. If you're just trying to keep it short and colloquial, it's probably fine to say:
|
What kind of trip WILL YOU BE TAKING vs. What kind of trip DO YOU WANT TO TAKE? A sentence meaning question of: 1) What kind of trip will you be taking? Vs. 2) What kind of trip do you want to take? (If I were to construct) If I were to ask a commuter about the trip he is going to take I would construct Sentence 2... What is the difference between the two really? - is it how soon it will be? Or something... <Q> What kind of trip do you want to take <S> refers to a desire. <A> The key difference will be in the expected response. <S> The first construction implies the response will be declarative; the decision is made. <S> The second construction suggests the possibilities are endless. <S> The answer you seek might be literal, whimsical, or philosophical. <S> You might ask an adult, "Where are you going on vacation?"An adult could respond, "We are going on a tour of museums. <S> "You might ask a child, "What kind of trip do you want to take [if you could choose]?"A <S> child might respond, "I want to visit zoos [ <S> but nobody asked me]." <A> In some circumstances they are interchangeable, but in others not. <S> The first one is appropriate only when you know the other person has a definite plan or intention to take a trip - not necessarily soon, but firmly intended. <S> The second one could be used in that case, but could also be used when the other person is merely thinking about the possibility of taking a trip.
| What kind of trip will you be taking refers to a planned trip.
|
different "culture" or different "cultures" I believe this is simple, yet crucial and time-worthy to know amongst ELLs. As a traveler, I've experienced different culture/cultures across the world. First off, culture is an uncountable noun . Every time I'm going to use this word "culture", I've always been unsure whether it should be just "culture" (singular), or "cultures" (plural). Come to think of it, you cannot count "culture", and grammar books say it too. So, in the sentence above, can you say different culture specifically? Confusion and annoyance: Different fruit/fruits? Different vegetable/vegetables Please note that I've included " different " before a noun, which should usually be followed by a plural noun (for example "different books", "different computers"). <Q> Your grammar book is, unfortunately, incorrect. <S> (n): [mass noun] <S> The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively [count noun] <S> The ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society. <S> Examples: <S> Different countries have different cultures . <S> Everyone loves living in that city, but they all complain about the lack of culture . <S> It is possible to talk about "different culture" in the abstract sense of the word: <S> Everyone says the East Coast of the United States has a very different culture from the West Coast. <S> Various other nouns (like fruit ) also have the quality of being uncountable in the abstract, while countable in the concrete. <S> My doctor says I should eat more fruit every day. <S> My favorite fruits are kiwi, mango, and guava. <S> Vegetable is slightly different, since the singular can be an adjective <S> The entire structure seems to be covered in a dense layer of vegetable matter. <S> The plural is always a noun referring to particular types of vegetables: <S> Broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and kale are different vegetables <S> that nevertheless all belong to same species. <A> Culture, in this context, is not an uncountable noun. <S> "I've experienced different culture" is not correct, although you could say something like "he comes from a different culture." <S> Similarly, you cannot use fruit/vegetable like that: Five different vegetables were served with dinner. <S> (Note that this almost always means five different types of vegetables: carrots, spinach, etc.) <S> I would have preferred a different vegetable than the one I was served. <S> Fruit is a little weird, since you generally say "I ate fruit for breakfast," (it's uncountable in this usage), but you could not say "I ate vegetable" -- <S> it's always either " <S> I ate a vegetable" or "I ate vegetables." <S> But fruit would still be used as above, when modified by different: <S> Five different fruits were served at breakfast (i.e., five different types of fruit). <S> I would have preferred to eat a different fruit than the durian I was served. <A> When traveling, I hesitate to identify one distinct culture. <S> I err on the side of caution with diverse groups and broadly refer to "cultures." <S> Here is a good example from Louisiana Folklife: <S> "A complex blend of French, Spanish, German, African, Irish, and Native American influences created a unique regional culture. <S> Yet, when one looks closer, one becomes aware of local variations: in spite of its deep French roots, South Louisiana is not a monolithic, homogeneous Francophonic culture." <S> Therefore after visiting, you may have experienced a variety of cultures. <S> Good luck, G.
| Culture is both countable and uncountable , depending on which definition you mean: culture
|
How to understand the grammar of "the many lamps" in this context? Everything was lit with a dim, crimson light; the curtains at the windows were all closed, and the many lamps were draped with dark red scarves. -- From Harry Potter As I know, when ' many ' precedes a noun word, we can not add the definite article 'the'. For example, I've seen " many people ", but not " the many people ". So, " the many lamps " here looks odd to me. How should we interpret it in this case? Or my understanding for this part of the grammar is plain wrong? <Q> Let's get rid of "many" and see what happens. <S> Everything was lit with a dim, crimson light; the curtains at the windows were all closed, and the lamps were draped with dark red scarves. <S> This wouldn't make any sense without "the", since it wouldn't specify which lamps were being talked about. <S> With "the", it's clear: all the lamps in the room. <S> Now we want to add that there are a lot of lamps in the room. <S> We are trying to say that the lamps have the property of being "many", so we use "many" as an adjective. <S> If we still keep the word "the", we're still talking about all the lamps in the room. <S> Now we could drop the word "the", and the sentence would still make sense, however it would have a slightly different meaning. <S> Everything was lit with a dim, crimson light; the curtains at the windows were all closed, and many lamps were draped with dark red scarves. <S> This version says that there were a lot of lamps draped with scarves. <S> But it's no longer clear that we're talking about all the lamps in the room. <S> There could be some other lamps that weren't draped with dark red scarves, and in fact this wording suggests that there were (just as saying "many people like Harry Potter" suggests that some people don't). <A> In fact, we can use <S> the before many. <S> When we say I have seen many people , we don't mean anyone in particular, but just state the fact that we have seen a lot of people (and it doesn't matter who exactly). <S> Here are a few more sentences with <S> the + many : <S> In these 50 years, our peacekeepers have continued to provide peace to the many people suffering the ravages of war and violence. <S> Most important, recognition is due to the many people of Fiji who worked tirelessly towards the restoration of democracy. <S> Great importance must be attached to the need to protect the basic rights of the many people involved, whether by legal means or on humanitarian grounds. <S> In each of the sentences above we can use "those numerous people" instead of "the many people." <S> Note that every time we say "the many people," it's clear who we are talking about. <A> It's exactly the same as "the five lamps" except that there weren't just five – there were many. <A> many can serve as a determiner or as an adjective (or as a pronoun <S> but that's not relevant to your question). <S> Many people keep dogs as pets. <S> Of the many people who keep dogs as pets, quite a few also have cats. <S> Quite a few of the many people who keep dogs as pets also have cats.
| The many lamps means the writer is referring to some particular lamps she has mentioned before, or the context makes it clear (which I think is the case).
|
Help to understand the use of 'but' in this sentence They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses, but the front legs, wings and heads of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes. I don't know why ' but ' is used in this sentence. It seems to me that it could be either a conj. or prep. What's ' but ' doing there? Will it change the meaning of the sentence? -- From Harry Potter. <Q> I agree with Michael Rybkin. <S> I think that "but" is used as conjuction there. <S> At least according to the meaning established in the Oxford Dictionary but [ conjuction ] Used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned . <S> ‘he stumbled but didn't fall’ ‘this is one principle, but it is not the only one’ ‘ the food is cheap but delicious ’ ‘ <S> the problem is not that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a predatory way’ contrast <S> The state of being strikingly different from something else in juxtaposition or close association. <S> Some parts [horse-like] are strikingly different from the other parts <S> [eagle-like]. <S> I have highlighted an specific example above where you can observe that the verb is used only once, the ellipsis mentioned by @Tᴚoɯɐuo <S> The food is cheap but delicious. <S> The food is cheap but (it's) delicious. <S> You got the same case in your example. <S> Let's simplify <S> They had horse-like bodies but eagle-like heads. <S> They had horse-like bodies <S> but (they had) <S> eagle-like heads. <A> Do you think you will better understand it if I restructure your quote like this: <S> Question : They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of what? <S> Answer : Of horses. <S> Question : <S> But what did they have the front legs, wings and heads of? <S> Answer : <S> Of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes. <S> The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts which are listed later are like those that giant eagles have. <A> It had the head of a man but (had) <S> the body of a lion. <S> It is a kind of ellipsis, I think. <S> Perhaps there is a narrower technical term for it. <S> The verb had is understood to govern both objects, the head of a man and the body of a lion . <S> So that but there joins two clauses in one of which the verb is merely understood to be present.
| Thus, technically speaking, but as used in your passage is a conjunction. It's making a contrast between different body parts that the creatures they're talking about have.
|
Articles, a mistake in a job description I have found the following job description. I think there is a mistake, isn't it? FFF asset management is looking for an experienced analyst to join its team. The role requires a strong working knowledge of THE various asset classes with a specific focus on Fixed Income markets. They don't talk about any concrete company with their assets. They talk about it general. As a listener, I don't know anything about those assets classes. I think there is no need in the. EDIT I searched in google for the exact expression and got the following results: "knowledge of various asset classes" - 26 000 results "knowledge of the various asset classes" - 98 results Almost all job descriptions don't contain the. <Q> Presumably there is a finite number of asset classes—and the job description wants the applicant to know all of them rather than just some of them. <S> Even if there is a variable number of asset classes in general, the job description could be talking about the specific number in use at the company. <S> Although more context would be required to know that. <S> Note that according to Investopedia , there seem to only be between three and six asset classes, a small enough number that the definite article could easily be used: <S> What is an 'Asset Class' An asset class is a group of securities that exhibits similar characteristics, behaves similarly in the marketplace and is subject to the same laws and regulations. <S> The three main asset classes are equities, or stocks; fixed income, or bonds; and cash equivalents, or money market instruments. <S> Some investment professionals add real estate, commodities, and increasingly, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, to the asset class mix. <S> Using the definite article is like saying a Quentin Tarantino film critic should know the Tarantino films. <A> I can't be sure without more context, but if they are looking for applicants with knowledge of every single asset class, then they are correct to say "knowledge of the various asset classes. <S> " <S> If they did not use the , then it would mean that they were looking for applicants with knowledge of at least two asset classes (just to make it the plural "classes"), but not necessarily all of them. <A> This cannot be googled because google does not show the reason why one might choose one or the other. <S> This is, in fact, very simple: a strong working knowledge of the various asset classes (the company works with) versus a strong working knowledge of various assets classes (general statement using a plural noun). <S> a nice painting of the garden outside the house <S> [there is only one] a nice painting of <S> the gardens outside <S> [there are several] a nice painting of garden s outside <S> the house [not barns, for example] a nice painting of a garden outside the house [not a barn] <A> 'various' here means that the asset classes differ from each other. <S> In other words, there are a variety of them. <S> If you omit the THE from that sentence, the meaning changes slightly. <S> Now 'various' means 'several', so the sentence would be asking for someone with knowledge of several asset classes.
| Using THE in this sentence implies that there exists a specific set of generally known asset classes (all of which the applicant needs to know).
|
How to use "make"? She decided to make running at least one mile a part of school day to supplement regular PE,class. Why use "running" rather than "run"? <Q> That's because running at least one mile is the object of the verb make . <S> She decided to make something a part of school day to supplement regular PE class and that something was running at least one mile. <S> We could ask this question and get the following answer: <S> Question : <S> She decided to make what a part of school day to supplement regular PE class? <S> Answer : <S> Running at least one mile . <S> Running is being used as a noun and the whole thing, running at least one mile , is a noun phrase. <S> Make run at least one mile <S> a part of school day sounds wrong and makes no sense in this context. <A> She decided to make running at least one mile a part of the school day to supplement regular PE class . <S> "Make" is a catenative verb but it only occurs in complex catenative constructions (the kind with an intervening NP) <S> , e.g. I'll make them run a mile every day. <S> Thus since your example is not a catenative construction, this a case where, exceptionally, there are sufficient grounds to include the non-finite clause "running at least one mile" within the direct object type of internal complement with "a part of school day" as objective predicative complement, cf. <S> She made regular exercise a requirement . <S> Note, though, that " running at least one mile " is not a noun phrase , since "running" has the noun phrase "at least one mile" as direct object, and nouns don't take direct objects. <A> Examples for the purpose of re-use: to make something something <S> To make good grades [his,her,my etc.] goal. <S> He wants to make good grades his goal. <S> He wants to make long-distance running his goals. <S> She decided to make running a part of her regular exercise. <S> running is a sport and the noun is running for the sport. <S> It is also used adjectivally: running sports as opposed to water sports, for example. <S> If running is what you do for exercise, you go for runs (jogging) or you run around a track. <S> You can go for a run but not be into running (the sport) in a major way. <S> Also, there is ski run (the path or place you ski down the mountain).
| Run is another noun which is the name of the actual activity.
|
What is the difference between terracotta and earthenware? My understanding is that terracotta is clay made into a figure then baked, such as the Terracotta Warriors of China. But earthenware and pottery both refer to baked clay, so how are these different? And does the following mean the same? Terracotta pot Earthenware pot <Q> To make clay into pottery it is fired. <S> Different clays contain a different mix of minerals. <S> When it is heated to about 1000 °C, some of these minerals partially melt, and cause the clay to turn into a ceramic. <S> There is a limit to how hot you can heat the clay. <S> If you make it too hot, the clay will melt, and sag in the kiln. <S> In extreme cases the clay can melt completely and the pot will become a puddle (You then have a big job scraping melt off the kiln floor.) <S> Some clays can survive higher temperatures. <S> These can be heated to 1200 °C or even higher without sagging. <S> At these temperatures the clay particles bond together to become waterproof. <S> This is called "stoneware". <S> A particular type is "Porcelain" that has a large amount of kaolin clay. <S> Porcelain is especially strong, so it can be made very thin. <S> Most clay can't be heated this much, and is heated to 950-1150 °C. <S> At these temperatures the clay particles are bound less tightly together and the fired body can absorb water. <S> This is called "Earthenware". <S> Earthenware may be white, grey or red and it is often glazed to make it waterproof. <S> Terracotta is one type of earthenware. <S> It is an iron rich earthenware (and so a rusty red colour) that is often left unglazed so that it can absorb water. <S> It is used for a range of applications. <S> Plant pots, flooring and roofing tiles and storage jars, but not usually for plates, cups or other crockery. <S> So Earthenware refers to the type of clay, and terracotta is a type of earthenware. <A> Terracotta is just one type of earthenware. <S> The relationship (or "difference") between them is like those between "vehicle" and "bus", or "metal" and "iron", or "nation" and "Japan". <S> Terracotta is not just used for making figures; many useful articles are made from it, including plant pots, tiles and water pipes. <S> The word also has a number of specialised meanings in art, archaeology, etc. <S> Earthenware (Oxford Dictionaries) <S> Earthenware (Wikipedia) <S> Terracotta (Oxford Dictionaries) Terracotta (Wikipedia) <A> The definitions are taken from the Collins Dictionary: <S> Terra-cotta is a hard, brown-red , <S> usually unglazed earthenware used for pottery, sculpture, etc. <S> Earthenware bowls, pots, or other objects are made of clay that is baked so that it becomes hard. <S> Terra-cotta pots: <S> Earthenware pots (just a couple of examples): <S> So, terra-cotta stuff is usually unglazed. <S> Also, terra-cotta refers to the color (see the picture of the pots above). <S> Earthenware doesn't refer to that color, earthenware can be any color, basically.
| Earthenware is a general term for a material made by baking clay, sometimes together with other minerals, and for items made from that type of material, e.g. tableware.
|
Difference between 'way back then' and 'way back when' Can anyone here please tell me the difference between 'way back then' and 'way back when' ? Thanks,Vivek <Q> Both informal phrases are used as a phrase of time comparison. <S> The usage differs though. <S> Way back then: "Ah, those good ol' days. <S> The 1960s. <S> Sigh. <S> Way back then , the skies were clearer and the people were kind." <S> Way back when: "Do you remember the day we first met? <S> Twas that sunny day, way back when you still used to wear those horn-rimmed glasses!" <S> In the former case, the " then " shows that the time period has been mentioned before, unlike in the case with the latter, where the " when " specifies the time with some incident. <A> Way back then = long ago at that time Way back when = <S> long ago <S> Both are conversational in tone. <A> So it's like an additional form of wording to the previous already stated time. <S> Way back when - refers to something that happened in the past, the time is not specified here by previous instances, and the word "when" symbolizes an event or usance that helps us determine the time or <S> at least help us with our perception.
| Way back then - indicates something that happened in the past, but the time is usually specified in some previous instance.
|
Can things "grow smaller"? This is the headline of an online article : Tasty Fish Grow Smaller in Warming Ocean. And this is from Google search : Why Belgian coins grow smaller. Growing is all about increasing in size and getting bigger while smaller is just the opposite, however, English seems to permit the two words to come together.How is this possible? <Q> Oxford lists three primary meanings for the word grow . <S> The first two reflect what we often immediately think of when we think about growing: grow ( v. ) to undergo natural development by increasing in size and changing physically <S> grow ( v. ) to become larger or greater over a period of time; <S> to increase It’s the third meaning, though, that provides the key to your apparent oxymoron: <S> grow ( v. ) to become, gradually or increasingly : sharing our experiences we grew braver <S> So, if the number of fish are gradually becoming diminished, then a headline might say: Tasty Fish Grow Smaller in Warming Ocean <S> More likely, though, is probably referring to the size of the fish, if the gradually-warming ocean is causing the fish to become smaller over time (or, perhaps more accurately, "causing the average size of adult fish to become smaller over time"). <A> Grow and smaller aren't linked the way you are interpreting it. <S> The sentence is saying that fish that used to reach a certain size in adulthood aren't growing that big in a warmer ocean, they are smaller than their predecessors. <A> As well as the common usage of grow to increase in size it can also be used to indicate a gradual or progressive change of state for example <S> As night fell it began to grow colder. <S> Having said that using the phrase 'grow' smaller is probably best avoided as it is a bit ambiguous as it is not clear whether it means they actually shrink <S> or they just grow more slowly, reach a smaller maximum size or indicating a trend in in the population as a whole over time. <S> Although this is often the case with headlines and often the ambiguity is deliberate in order to make a story sound more interesting or sensational than it really is. <A> I don’t see any conflict in it. <S> but consider that they grow less than expected. <S> Tasty Fish Grow Smaller [than it is expected] in Warming Ocean. <A> I think you can use 'grow', since there is an increase of 'smallness' compared to a previous state. <S> A different argument is: 'grow smaller' does not mean a big fish turns small. <S> It just means that fish now have a slower growth rate, or that they stop growing earlier at all. <S> Nevertheless you have the act of 'growing' from tadpole to fish. <S> This is what 'grow' refers to, it is not a general phenomena that happens to all fish. <S> So, long and thanks for all the fish :)
| Yes, “to grow” means get bigger and they are!
|
"if we are to" VS "if we were to" If we are to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based materials must be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. If we were to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based materials must be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. I have seen usage of both "if we are to" and "if we were to", and I am not sure which is correct. Since it is a subjunctive mood, I thought past tense may be a better on. Where am I wrong? <Q> Your two sentences have different meanings. <S> If we are to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based materials must be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. <S> This means the following: <S> In order to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based material will have to be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. <S> In other words, to accomplish that goal those actions must be taken. <S> This is the same things as: <S> If I am to make it to work on time, I must leave the house now. <S> I need to rephrase your second sentence slightly, because its current form doesn't work with the subjunctive: <S> If we were to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based materials would be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. <S> This means the following: <S> Should the Paris climate goals be met , it would result in the use of fossil-based materials being quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. <S> Unlike the first sentence, the second half of this sentence isn't spelling out actions that must be taken to accomplish the goal. <S> Instead, it's spelling out the results of the goal should it be met. <S> The actions required to meet it are not being stated. <S> This is the same thing as: <S> If I were to stay at home, I would be late to work. <A> Can we meet those goals? <S> The subjunctive "if we were" suggests that we won't. <S> The indicative "if we are" suggests that we might. <S> If we are to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based materials must be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. <S> Here, both the condition and its consequence are represented as possible. <S> The window of opportunity is open. <S> If we were to meet the Paris climate goals, the use of fossil-based materials would have needed to be quickly reduced and replaced with renewable materials. <S> Here, neither the condition nor its consequence is represented as possible. <S> The window of opportunity has been closed. <A> There are three possible clauses in this situation, and they have subtly different meanings. <S> If we were to agree, do you think we could start next month ? <S> is a remote hypothetical <S> ('I know it's unlikely, but just suppose'). <S> If we are to agree ... would normally preface some sort of demand, like ... <S> you will have to start by raising the price. <S> Technically, it's imposing a condition that must be fulfilled before any agreement can be considered. <S> (This condition might, of course, be that 'you agree to start next month', in which case your second example would be correct; but even then it isn't the best way to express it.) <S> The normal wording in your sentence is just If we agree on this deal, can we start next month? <S> Quotation
| I suspect the answer is "Neither of them".
|
Using “help you with” in a sentence If I'm not wrong, the sentence "I want to help you with XYZ." means, you have a problem XYZ and I am willing to help you solve that problem of yours. Right? Now, when I have certain expertise and I want to help you solve your problem using my expertise, how do I put the whole thing in a sentence properly? "I want to help you with my expertise." doesn't sound right. <Q> with can introduce the tool or implement (broadly understood) that you are using, or the thing or situation that requires help: I want to help you with that fallen tree with my chain saw. <S> I want to help you with your startup company with my business acumen. <S> They helped the town with its recovery after the earthquake with portable shelters and tankers carrying fresh water. <A> Perhaps a phrase along the lines of: Using my expertise, I want to help you. <S> With my expertise, I want to help you. <S> I would like to offer my expertise to help you. <A> Just to be very clear: <S> When you say "I want to help you with...," the phrase that follows is what the person needs help with, not what you are going to use to help them. <S> Your last sentence doesn't make sense because the other person doesn't possess your expertise, or need help with it. <S> They need help stemming FROM the expertise, not WITH it. <S> " Then you can add "with [thing they need help with] <S> " <S> You can also put the tool you're using (your expertise) after the thing they need help with, like <S> so: <S> "I want to help you with [your problem], using my expertise." <S> The most important thing is to keep the core phrase intact. <S> "I want to help you with..." should always be followed by what they need help with.
| Like the top answer says, it would be best to say "Using my expertise, I want to help you.
|
What does 'by' add to here? What does 'by' add to here? They walked along by the old canal. <Q> The phrase could alternatively be written: They walked along beside the old canal. <A> They |walked along| in silence. <S> [right, we say along so it doesn't sound so abrupt and provides the idea of the ongoingnes <S> s of the walking <S> , no canal] <S> They walked |along the canal| . <S> [right, means: the path or banks that are located beside the canal] <S> Here's the tricky bit: They walked by the canal and into town <S> **. <S> [they passed it during their walk]. <S> As in: They walked by the school to the park. <S> [they passed it and reached the park]. <S> However, they walked along [in silence] by the field or canal <S> means: <S> They walked along [ongoingness idea] by the field or by the canal with nothing else, means: they were parallel to it and not walking past it. <S> walk along = <S> to stroll, to walk unhurriedly in an ongoing mannerwalk by [some thing] <S> = <S> [go by or go past <S> something]BUT <S> : walk by [some thing] can also mean: along or beside some thing. <S> But both together can only mean: to stroll or walk along the length of a thing: a road or path that goes by a field, a river, or other structure. <A> Don't forget that by is a preposition which, besides its other numerous meanings, basically means this: near or at the side of <S> So, what the quote in question is saying is that they were walking along the old canal and the walking process was happening very close to it (or, in other words, by it ).
| To denote that they walked adjacent to the canal, rather than along it.
|
Word or short description for someone who roams around in his local city and knows about local lesser known places, events, things to do etc Just like we use travellers or wanderlust or globe trotters etc for people who enjoy travelling out of their own city, I want a word for people who enjoy roaming about their own city and knowing local stuff, like rare book shops, non-crowded running trails, lesser known little cafés, small offbeat local events, etc. <Q> You could have explorer or discoverer . <S> If you are finding lesser known little cafés or small offbeat local events <S> then you are exploring. <A> While "explorer" or "discoverer" certainly work, they're both kind of vanilla in that they lack the kind of romantic nuance that "wanderlust" has when describing someone who loves to travel. <S> There is no single word for this, but there are any number of possible expressions. <S> For example, we could focus on this person's love of discovery. <S> She loves to ferret out some back-alley cafe or side-street bookstore known to only a cognizant few. <S> Or include something about their wandering habits: <S> She's a kind of peripatetic sleuth , who knows all the best places in the city. <S> Or focus on their wisdom and the fruits of their knowledge <A> There is also an old set phrase, off the beaten track , which refers to a little used path, trail, or road; the "beaten track" is one that has much traffic on it: He tended to avoid the beaten track. <S> He looked for things off the beaten track.
| Discoverer could also be used as you are discovering less well-known places/events. : She's like a guru of all this city's hidden gems .
|
Why say "buy shares in a company" but not "buy shares from / of a company"? In the dictionary : share /ʃeəʃer/ noun 1[countable] one of the parts into which ownership of a company is divided Friendly companies and banks hold (=own) 56% of all shares in Germany’s listed companies. Why don't we say " buy / own shares from / of a company "? <Q> We "take part in " something, we participate in it. <S> When you buy shares in a company, you are, in effect, participating in the venture. <S> You share in the risks and rewards. <S> We can say "he bought ten shares of Acme Widgets", and there the purchase is being cast as an acquisition of some of the company's shares. <A> Although prepositions are used conventionally rather than logically, by buying shares, people have a share in a company. <S> They literally own a part of the company. <S> If a company issues 100 shares, a person with one shares owns one-hundredth of the company. <S> They have an interest in the company. <S> You could also say that people have a share of a company but this is not idiomatic. <S> However we talk about holding some of a company's shares as well as holding shares in a company. <S> They amount to the same thing. <S> Companies don't normally sell their own shares. <S> They are sold on exchanges and via intermediaries such as banks, dealers and stockbrokers. <S> So you don't buy shares from a company directly. <A> We don't say buy shares from a company, because you only buy some thing from company when a company is selling it. <S> They are not the sellers of their shares. <S> Their shares are said to be traded (bought and sold) on stock exchanges. <S> Companies don't sell their shares . <S> When they are listed companies, their shares are listed on a market. <S> You buy shares of some company on some stock market. <S> Please read on. <S> Companies sell widgets. <S> Company shares are sold on markets like NASDAQ,for example. <S> And yes, you buy shares in a company . <S> He bought 10,000 shares of IBM stock. <S> He bought 10,000 shares in IBM. <S> A company has some number of shares, called authorized shares. <S> Investors are said to own shares in a company . <S> And that is why the preposition "in" is used. <S> Share ownership can be expressed in many ways. <S> Here are a few of them. <S> - <S> He owns 10,000 shares of IBM stock - <S> He owns 10,000 shares of IBM [where stock is implied and would be stated, if this was a written piece] - <S> He owns 10,000 IBM shares - <S> He owns 10,000 shares in IBM <S> Generally, we would not write : He owns 10,000 shares of IBM, because people who do this occasionally or all the time would more likely write one of the other phrases I wrote out above. <S> Please note: <S> In my answer, I have dealt with the idea of shares as authorized shares of a company. <S> I have not explained usage for: owning an equity interest or stake in a company, that is, owning a share of a company as a percentage.
| Companies or corporations don't sell shares.
|
What's the difference between wanted and wanted to? Is there any difference between "wanted" vs "wanted to" for such situation? A: I'm not going to eat a lot this weekend! B: Couldn't do it even if you wanted to , I bet! A: I'm not going to eat a lot this weekend! B: Couldn't do it even if you wanted , I bet! I feel the first one sounds more natural, talking as an English learner, but I don't know why. <Q> In your question, 'to' is not a preposition - it is part of the infinitive 'to eat'. <S> You couldn't even if you wanted to eat , I bet. <S> Because your example is in response to someone else's statement, 'eat' is already implied, so it is dropped and we are left with just 'to'. <S> Compare this omission to your omission of 'you': <S> You couldn't becomes <S> Couldn't because 'you' is implied. <S> To answer the question, there are multiple correct options. <S> Both wanted and wanted to <S> are correct, as are wanted to eat and wanted to eat a lot , but although the latter two are acceptable, they are tautology, so you wouldn't find them in a conversation. <A> No difference in meaning, and one is no more common than the other. <S> If you really wanted to dig through minutiae though, you might argue the 'to' ending the first sentence is extraneous. <S> Forget this distinction as it's profoundly useless. <A> The first example is grammatically correct because B-sentence is elliptical, and it can be reconstructed as 'Couldn't do it even if you you wanted to EAT <S> , I bet!'In <S> the second example B-sentence is reconstructed as 'Couldn't do it even if you you wanted EAT, I bet!', which is grammatically wrong.
| wanted without 'to' is ok, but it's less specific.
|
Why does "money" take "the" in "all the money in the world"? "All the money in the world " , in this sentence we talk about money in general , right ? I've read a book that says if we're talking about things in general we do not use "the".So why "the money" ? <Q> This sentence is not talking about money in general. <S> Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world . <S> How would you choose to distribute it? <S> Other examples talking about a specific set of money: Do you still have the money <S> I gave you for your birthday? <S> The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction. <S> It is possible to talk about money as a concept , in which case you would not use the definite article. <S> Examples of this: I don't care too much for money , and money can't buy me love -- John Lennon / Paul McCartney <S> A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart. <S> --Jonathan <S> Swift Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant. <S> --P.T. Barnum <S> It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity . <S> All money in the world , in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something. <S> Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food. <S> [Edit] With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money. <S> In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated. <S> The second half of the sentence applies either way. <S> Conceptual example : Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared. <S> Ellipsis example : <S> (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared. <S> I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required . <A> You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general". <S> In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms: Money is an alternative to barter. <S> Water is necessary for life. <S> But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular : <S> All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season. <S> All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that. <A> I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth. <S> 1 Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article. <S> Macmillan (definition 1b) says: used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with regularly <S> I looked up at the ceiling; suddenly all the lights went out <S> Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general. <S> Consider: <S> The lion is king of the jungle. <S> Top of the morning to you! <S> It hit me right between the eyes. <S> Religion is the opiate of the masses. <S> All the news that's fit to print. <S> 1 <S> See what I did there? <A> Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add: <S> Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically. <S> Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists. <S> Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept. <S> But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world". <S> While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not. <A> The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is " modadic "— the as in the one and only . <S> From your example, rephrased: <S> There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world. <S> Reference: 8. <S> Monadic ("One of a Kind" or "Unique") <S> The Article <A> All the money in the world would not make you happy. <S> We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific. <S> Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours. <S> [non-specific] <S> And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business. <S> [specific] Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank. <A> There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier: All of the money in the world " <S> Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.
| It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world ", as if it was a specific quantity you could receive:
|
Prepositions of Place: "next to" or "behind"? I'm a non-native teacher of English and I work with adults. On Monday we studied prepositions of place and when my students were working with the picture one of them asked if we should say "The sink is next to the toilet" or "The sink is behind the toilet" I feel we should use "next to" because the toilet doesn't cover the front side of the sink and some of my students agreed with me. That very student, however, is an engineer and he sees geometry everywhere. He said that if a person was standing on the rug they would see the toilet covering the most part of the sink, so "The sink is behind the toilet". Now I'm pretty confused. Which preposition would you use and why? <Q> Conventionally you'd describe the fixtures in the bath from a point-of-view facing them. <S> So the sink is next to or to the left of the toilet. <S> In the sketch, which shows the room from the doorway, from a vantage-point outside the room, the sink is behind the toilet—but only from that vantage point. <S> From a point-of-view of someone seated on the toilet, the sink is to the right of the toilet. <S> But that is not the conventional point-of-view. <A> Prepositions of place are not determined by where the viewer is, because that would simply lead to confusion from a multiplicity of subjective points of view. <S> Imagine if there were 5 people sitting in the room, each with a different angle of view to the bathroom. <S> The location of the sink relative to the toilet would be different for each person. <S> This would be a clumsy way to describe spatial relationships, and so it is standard to describe the locations of objects relative to each other. <S> The side of the sink is adjacent to the side of the toilet. <S> Therefore, the sink is next to the toilet. <A> Bathrooms are laid out with toilets against a wall. <S> Always. <S> Unless you are a king and have a toilet in the middle of the room. <S> Very unusual, to say the least. <S> Therefore, nothing can ever be "behind" a toilet. <S> The front and the back of a toilet are "set things". <S> They don't change depending on your point of view. <S> When any built structure has items up against a wall like a toilet, there is a front (where your feet go) and a back to the toilet that is up against the wall. <S> The back of the element is against a wall (sink and toilet) and the front sides face outwards. <S> This is pretty much standard in the Western world. <S> Even if there is a partially obstructed view, one would not say the toilet is behind the sink. <S> So, teacher, you were right and your student was mistaken. <S> And I believe this is probably the same thing in most languages.
| The toilet and sink in the picture are next to each other.
|
A word describing a 'part' of UK hospitals (departments?) What's the common name in usage in the UK for the part in the hospital that specializes in one field only (for example neurology)? I saw two different names 'wing' and 'department'. But both are in non native English speakers country, so I'm not sure what it reflexes and if it's correct also in context of medicine. <Q> Wing and department are both acceptable. <S> Department suggests part of the organisational structure. <S> At my local hospital the buildings are named "Jubilee Centre", "Canadian Wing", in which there are multiple "Departments", each has its own name. <S> The Canadian wing houses the "Ross Tilley Ward", "Day surgery" and the "Diet and Nutrition Department". <S> It is possible for a building to house just one department. <S> There is the "Burns and Reconstruction Department", which is both a building and a department. <S> There are many other words that could be used, and sometimes no word at all. <S> One of the departments is called "Outpatients" another is called "Cardiology". <A> A specialist section in a hospital is sometimes referred to as a unit as in "the maternity unit" or "the burns unit". <S> Taking the definition from Collins : any group or individual, esp when regarded as a basic element of a larger whole <S> So the maternity unit is the group within the hospital that deals specifically with maternity matters. <S> You can see from the ngrams <S> graph that "maternity ward" is more popular than "maternity unit", but that is more popular than "maternity department" (the order still holds if you switch the search to British English). <S> That said, it is also normal to simply omit the specifier (ward/department/unit) and say something like "Send these results through to cardiology". <S> If you attend hospital for a specific reason, you are very likely attending a "clinic". <S> A clinic can be a specific building/location but it can also be a specific session. <S> That is, a "baby clinic" can be held in a rural community centre, or it can be a specific part of a hospital building. <A> Have you considered the word "ward"? <S> That's how I've heard it mostly commonly referred to. <S> I am in the UK, if that helps. <A> A wing is a large section of a building. <S> It may contain multiple departments or wards but it's a term common to all buildings large enough to have them. <S> It's not hospital specific. <S> A specialist ward may be, but many wards are general and will take patients from multiple departments <S> A department is probably the word you're looking for. <S> This covers the likes of cardiology, physiotherapy, ophthalmology etc. <S> They may have the word department in the name, but will often just be referred to by their 'ology' or sometimes as a unit. <A> For example you might say that the cardiology department is based in the east wing of the hospital. <S> Of course if one part of the building is dedicated to one department it might well be called the cardiology (or whatever) wing. <S> There is also 'ward' which refers specifically to a (usually large) room or suite of rooms where patients are housed and/or treated. <S> You often also see the term 'unit' which tends to be used for a composite collection of staff, equipment, space and other resources intended to work together for a specific function or specialism. <S> The implication often being that it is able to draw on a wide range of resources and coordinate them effectively.
| Generally 'department' relates to an administrative division which isn't necessarily located in one specific place while 'wing' tends to refer to a large area of a building or complex of buildings. A ward is a room where patients sleep in a hospital, it may or may not be bound to a specific department. "Wing" suggests a physical building that is next to the main part of the hosptial.
|
"Awaits for you" or "awaits you"? Is it wrong to say: Happiness awaits for you? Is it totally wrong to put ‘for’ after awaits ? <Q> Await has both transitive and intransitive uses; I believe most of the other answers are focused on the transitive usage, reading the sentence as [Happiness] <S> [awaits for] <S> [you] , which is indeed non-idiomatic. <S> You can wait for something or someone, or await something or someone, but you would not await for it. <S> Happiness awaits for you <S> is entirely grammatical when parsed as [Happiness awaits] [for you] , however. <S> This parsing would be more clear <S> if awaits were followed by a comma, or inverted as <S> For you happiness awaits . <S> The prepositional phrase for you indicates the party affected by the awaiting, rather than the target of the awaiting. <S> Consider these examples: <S> A balcony awaits for dining alfresco. <S> [ Seattle Post-Intelligencer ] <S> The balcony is not waiting for alfresco dining, it is lying in store, or being availablet for alfresco dining. <S> A move to Europe awaits for the hard working dead-ball specialist… <S> [ Sydney Morning Herald ] <S> The activity of moving to Europe, again, is not literally waiting for the player (Brandon O'Neill). <S> Rather, the author is noting that the prospect of a move exists, and secondarily that it affects this player. <S> That said, I don't think the phrasing awaits for is particularly common, perhaps to avoid confusion with the transitive usage, or the appearance that the author or publication has made an error. <A> ... awaits you or ... <S> waits for you <S> not ... awaits for you <A> Await, by itself, means wait for. <S> Thus, awaiting means waiting for; for example, "a whole new life was awaiting him in the new job" will be reframed as "a whole new life was waiting for him in the new job". <S> Other examples: 1. <S> The cat awaits the mouse to come out of the hole. <S> 2. <S> We've been awaiting over an hour now. <S> 3. <S> Happiness awaits you. <A> The verb await in the sentence is a transitive verb that is followed by a direct object; you don't use the preposition "for". <S> So it's correct to say: Happiness awaits you. <S> Instead of the await, you can use the intransitive verb wait, usually as (be) <S> -ing form, followed by the preposition "for" as follows: Happainess waits for <S> you/Hapiness is waiting for you.
| Yes, it's ungrammatical to say: Happiness awaits for you.
|
How to avoid ambiguity of the antecedent of a relative clause? I wrote this technical text, which I found ambiguous: What's a child expression? It's a call expression inside a function, which represents a parent call expression. For the purposes of discussion in this question, let's simplify it to this: What's a child sphere? It's a sphere inside a cube, which represents a parent shape. How do I rewrite this sentence in a non-ambiguous way, to link the verb represents to the noun cube ? (Also, hypothetically, how would I rewrite it if I wanted to link the verb to sphere ?) <Q> For example: It's a sphere inside a cube, with the cube representing the parent shape of the sphere. <S> or It's a sphere inside a cube, where the cube represents the parent shape of the sphere. <A> Do you need to convert the single sentence to a single sentence? <S> If so, I would go with the approaches chosen by Tashus ("... where the cube represents" or "... <S> with the cube representing...") or Utkarsh Singh (using "former" or "latter" to refer to the item in question). <S> If you're not restricted to a single sentence, you can simply repeat the noun in a new sentence: <S> It's a sphere inside a cube. <S> The cube represents a parent shape... <S> UPDATE: <S> As David Richerby points out, you could then combine the sentences with a semicolon or a connecting word: <S> It's a sphere inside a cube; the cube represents a parent shape... <S> It's a sphere inside a cube, and the cube represents a parent shape... <S> It's a sphere inside a cube, where the cube represents a parent shape... <A> In my opinion, the usage of the determiner "which" herein will inevitably lead to ambiguity. <S> One of the ways to avoid this, while still retaining the word "represents", can be to instead use a co-ordinating conjunction like "and" - It's a sphere inside a cube, and <S> the former represents... <S> (in case the subject is sphere). <A> The easiest way to disambiguate in speech (which is after all the only real language, to a first approximation) is simply to stress the word sphere and introduce a slightly longer pause before the next word. <S> Orthographically, that would be represented as... <S> It's a sphere - inside a cube representing the "parent" shape <S> (Note that I've included "parent" in scare quotes because I don't exactly understand the usage in context. <S> If OP knows his target audience will understand the expression, there's no need to call attention to the potentially problematic usage.) <A> In terms of the particular sentence you gave, What's a child sphere? <S> It's a sphere inside a cube, which represents a parent shape. <S> There's only one thing wrong with it: the comma. <S> You want What's a child sphere? <S> It's a sphere inside a cube which represents a parent shape. <S> When parsing a sentence, the comma gives us an indication as to the sentence structure. <S> In your sentence, the comma indicates that the clause "inside a cube" is complete and you're beginning a relative clause referring to the sphere. <S> Commas also correspond to pauses in normal speech, so that may help (though the correspondence isn't perfect). <S> This doesn't mean that this is the right sentence to use; while it's (technically) unambiguous, someone who is not reading carefully is likely to read it wrong.
| You can make the sentence less ambiguous by expressing the intended concept more explicitly.
|
There was a farmer had a dog, but which one was named Bingo? There was a farmer had a dog, and Bingo was his name-o. From these words alone (so, without appealing to different versions , translations, likelihoods of names, etc.), is there some way to decide whether the name Bingo applies to the farmer or the dog? I've actually met an Irish farmer (nick)named Bingo and a Kiwi dog named Bingo. I guess my other question is: am I the only one who wonders about this when hearing this rhyme? <Q> In some sentences, it is not possible to determine the antecedent of a pronoun with 100% certainty. <S> This sentence is one such example. <S> When in doubt, the nearest sensible noun is likely to be the antecedent, but this assumption is not always correct. <S> Unfortunately there is no way to determine definitively whose name-o is Bingo. <A> Analyzing this sentence linguistically requires us to ignore the particular name "Bingo" and the particular nouns "man" and "dog", and instead assume that these are generic entities that have the possession relationship, can be named, and are of the correct syntactic gender. <S> So let us convert this sentence into <S> There was a Klingon [who] had a brother and Krzakh was his name. <S> Now, is Krzakh the Klingon or the brother? <S> I would guess that it is the Klingon. <S> The evidence is not strong, but the subject of the sentence is clearly the Klingon, not his brother, so the new information seems to point at the former. <S> If I wanted to point explicitly at the brother, I could have used <S> There was a Klingon who had a brother, and his brother's name was Krzach. <S> I could also use either "and the brother's name" or "and the man's name". <S> These two are parallel structures. <S> But here's the thing; there is no parallel to "and his brother's name" except, well, "and his name". <S> So my intuitive ear concludes again that, if "his name" is used, it is probably the Klingon. <S> With the actual nouns and names this logic may not work so well anymore, and the sentence can be interpreted both ways, which is unfortunate. <S> If you don't write poetry (or try to amuse your readers in other ways), choose your words carefully to avoid ambiguity. <A> original origins of the song make it clear tha the dog was caled Bingo and by the way the farmer was a womanThe farmer's dog leapt over the stile,his name was little Bingo,the farmer's dog leapt over the stile,his name was little Bingo. <S> B with an I <S> — I with an N,N with a G — G with an O;his name was little Bingo:B—I—N—G— <S> O!His name was little Bingo. <S> The farmer loved a cup of good ale,he called it rare good stingo,the farmer loved a cup of good ale,he called it rare good stingo. <S> S—T with an I <S> — I with an N,N with a G — G with an O;He called it rare good stingo:S—T—I—N—G— <S> O!He called it rare good stingo <S> And is this not <S> a sweet little song?I think it is —— by jingo. <S> And is this not a sweet little song?I think it is —— by jingo. <S> J with an I — I with an N,N with a G — G with an O;I <S> think it is —— by jingo:J—I—N—G— <S> O!I think it is —— by jingo. <A> Context is king. <S> Whenever a line doesn't make sense or is ambiguous, consider the wider context. <S> There is a modern version of this child's song which doesn't say much more beyond the lines you quote, but an earlier known version of the songs says: <S> The farmer's dog leapt over the stile, <S> his name was little Bingo <S> In this example, it is quite clear that the farmer's dog is called 'Bingo', as he is the only subject. <A> Unfortunately, we have been led to believe that Bingo is the name of the dog, but the truth is, it is actually the name of the farmer. <S> Here is why: <S> Fact: <S> The song goes like this:"There was a farmer who had a dog and <S> Bingo was his name - o." <S> Fact: When you address an animal, if they are not related to you, you refer to the animal as it, not him or her. <S> Definition: <S> An animal is referred as “it” unless the relationship is personal (like a pet that has a name). <S> Then it's OK to use “he” or “she” when referring to the animal. <S> Therefore, assuming that the person singing it is not related to the dog, such as you or me, then we are referring to the farmer. <S> Hence, Bingo is the name of the farmer. <S> Hope <S> this is clear. <S> If you have any other input, please feel free. <S> I love a nice debate.
| Usually the determination is based on the context of the sentence. In this particular case and adhering to the limitations in your question, I would assume that the dog's name is Bingo based on the proximity of the words "dog" and "his".
|
Can motivate be used as a negative word? Can the word "motivate"be used in a negative situation? For example,"the Stamp Act motivated people to voice their opposition" <Q> However, it is often used to describe efforts to make people do more, do better, or make positive choices, and "motivational" speeches, posters, slogans, etc, are used for that kind of purpose: to make someone want to do something well <S> Motivate (Cambridge Dictionary) <A> "Motivation" is a neutral term. <S> The same set of circumstances can be said to motivate someone to do either positive or negative acts. <S> Extreme poverty motivated her to start her own business. <S> Extreme poverty motivated her to commit several robberies. <S> In any case, "voicing opposition" is not normally considered a negative act. <S> As with "motivate" it's a neutral expression whose connotations depend on the exact circumstances of the opposition. <S> For example, in the TV series <S> "The Simpsons" the misanthropic owner of the town's nuclear power plant often voices his opposition to things like charity or quality of life, which most would consider to be a "negative" opinion: <A> Yes. <S> Although motivation has a positive connotation, for instance when we talk about the reasons a murderer murdered someone, we talk about his motives . <S> In a similar sense, politicians often advocate their policy as meant to diminish certain motivations, such as the motivation to misuse social benefits.
| The verb 'motivate' can simply mean to "influence a person or people to do something", with no "positive" or "negative" meaning: to cause someone to behave in a particular way
|
What does "while all along" mean? (comparing to "while") Catch Me If You Can is about someone who convinces everyone that he can really fly a plane while all along he's just a teenager. My question is: What is the difference between "while he's just a teenager" and "while all along he's just a teenager" in terms of meaning? "All along" means "from the very beginning" according to a dictionary. So I guess "while all along he's just a teenager" might mean that "when he's just a teenager all along". Is that right? <Q> The phrase all along is often used in contexts where some duplicity or mistaken understanding is involved. <S> You've been attending our meetings for weeks, and I thought you were interested in the birds that migrate to this area during the winter. <S> But all along you just wanted to get to know Martha <S> so you could ask her out on a date! <S> This entire time , you have been pretending to be interested in birds, when you're really interested in Martha. <S> We thought the butler killed the duke. <S> But it was the duchess all along! <S> We developed a theory that the butler had killed the duke <S> but it turned out that the duchess was the one who had killed him. <S> We were mistaken from the start. <A> Equivalents include "since the beginning", "the whole time", "from start to finish". <S> The expression is often used when a false assumption, lasting some time, is exposed as false: I thought she loved me, but I've been fooling myself all along. <S> He told me he was single and took me on dates, but he was married all along. <S> Catch Me <S> If You Can is about a teenager who, over a period of time, convinces everyone that he can really fly a plane, when he can't. <S> On a pedantic note, I will add that teenagers frequently do know how to fly planes; the international minimum age for <S> a powered flight private pilot's license/licence is 17, although training can start at any age. <S> All along <A> In this case, all along is added in primarily for emphasis. <S> It doesn’t really change the meaning of the sentence, but it sharpens the focus of it. <S> So, if the synopsis read: Catch Me <S> If You Can is about someone who convinces everyone that he can really fly a plane while he's just a teenager. <S> that sounds like a basic fact – but <S> it’s devoid of excitement. <S> However, when we add the words all along , it makes you think more about how odd it would be for a teenager to convincingly play the role of a pilot: <S> Catch Me <S> If You Can is about someone who convinces everyone that he can really fly a plane while all along he's just a teenager. <S> I think another way we could accomplish the same thing is to use the phrase even though : <S> Catch Me <S> If You Can is about someone who convinces everyone that he can really fly a plane even though he's just a teenager.
| "All along" is an idiom used about a fact that has been true over a period of time.
|
What is the meaning of "Take a good look because "? What is the meaning of "Take a good look because" in the following sentence(Source: Skateboard moves by MATT CHRISTOPHER), Charlie skated toward the exit gate. He did not see X until he slammed right into him. "You are still here!" X exclaimed. "Surprised to see me?" Charlie sneered. " Take a good look because the next thing you will see is my back. I know you stole my skateboard!" He shoved X aside and skated home as fast as he could. ? Does it mean "From now on, play alone. I will not play with you anymore! You can not see my face in the future. All you can see is my back." ? <Q> This may be a little bit of a stretch, but I see it as a combination of two expressions: take a good look at something/someone and turn your back on something/someone . <S> We say "take a good look at [something/someone]" when we want the person to remember the thing or person being looked at. <S> For example, imagine a kidnapper taking a parent's children. <S> You won't be seeing anytime soon! <S> Figuratively, when we turn our backs on someone, we reject them: <S> turn your back on somebody/something To ignore, disregard, or exclude someone or something; to abandon, give up on, or forsake someone or something. <S> It's clear that the company has turned its back on customers. <S> After becoming a successful writer, Jim turned his back on all the people he used to know back home. <S> COMMON <S> He had turned his back on his Communist past and formed a completely new party. <S> The organisation says that young people are increasingly turning their backs on marriage. <S> (TFD) <S> So, although X will literally see Charlie's back when Charlie skates away, I think it can also be interpreted figuratively. <S> I'm just guessing that the relationship is "friends", but it could be something else, like teammates, colleagues, or whatever the case may be in the text. <A> It does mean that from now you'll see me fighting against you. <S> OrHe won't further help him anyway. <A> Take a good look because the next thing you will see is my back <S> It's not an idiom. <S> It's a pretty literal phrase in this context. <S> Charlie is angry with X because he stole his skateboard. <S> He doesn't want to speak with X at that moment, so he skated home as fast as he could . <S> He skated away from X. <S> When you skate, your face usually points in the same direction of the movement, so you can see what you got ahead and can react accordingly with the obstacles, so if someone is standing, looking at you while you go away, the observer can not see your face, he only see your back . <S> You can not infer From now on, play alone. <S> I will not play with you anymore! <S> You can not see my face in the future just from that sentence. <S> It applys only to that next instant. <S> It doesn't imply anything about the future, about the next day, the next week or his lifetime. " <S> From now on", "will not play anymore" ... are concepts that are not present in the sentence.
| This is often used when the thing or person will be missing, removed, denied, or some similar state. The kidnapper might say Take a good look at your kids! If you turn your back on something, you reject it or stop being involved in it. I would say it means something like remember me because I will reject you , or more plainly, remember our friendship because we are longer friends (since X stole Charlie's skateboard, according to Charlie). The original sentence is not a metaphor.
|
"Analysis" or "The analysis" I've come across many scientific articles which bear titles beginning with: "Analysis of ...". For example: Analysis of the accuracy and implications of simple methods for predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins or, Analysis of Discrete Ill-Posed Problems by Means of the L-Curve Is this correct or should they include a definite/indefinite article at the beginning? <Q> Rules of grammar hardly apply to headlines and titles, which are telegraphic speech or <S> even more abbreviated. <A> Headlinese or not, the definite article is surely not suitable. <S> It would imply that the study being described is the one and only good study of the subject. <S> The indefinite article will make the title sound irrelevant, as in "one in many". <S> So in this case, the zero article (no article) is the best solution. <A> Titles of books and articles have slightly modified rules. <S> In particular, titles starting with an article are (or at least were) so common that there is a convention to move the article to the end for sorting purposes: <S> The Cat in the Hat Becomes: <S> Cat in the Hat, <S> The <S> For technical reasons, the sorting version has become the dominant version, used pretty much everywhere except the cover of the book or article itself. <S> So, if almost nobody will ever see the article in its proper place, then authors might as well just leave it off.
| A possibility would be to say "Another study..." or "A new study..." but that already sounds like a description or like an advertisement, not like the title of an academic paper.
|
How do you describe a nut which does not tighten Suppose that you want to use a pair of bolt and nut to connect two things. However, the nut is like you can screw it forever and does not tighten! What do you call this kind of nuts?Is there an adjective for them? I would say the nut is broken , but I am not sure if that's the most common way of saying that. <Q> I would say: The thread has been stripped. <S> That is to say, the thread on either the nut or bolt has become damaged and can no longer support the load applied by the opposite thread: <A> In New Zealand and Australia we use the adjective munted to describe something (or someone) no longer capable of functioning, particularly screws, nuts and bolts that have been damaged by someone forcefully trying to turn them with the wrong tool. <S> It is now more often used to describe people who are too intoxicated to function properly. <A> I think outside of engineering most people would be grasping for some kind of synonym of broken <A> The nut is worn out . <S> Something that is worn out can no longer be used because it is so old or because it has been damaged by continued use: <S> Cambridge Dictionary Damaged or shabby to the point of being no longer usable. <S> Oxford Dictionary <A> There is also crossthreaded . <S> This probably isn't quite what you're going for, but it's related. <S> In this case it feels tight and will not turn easily, but because the nut's threads and the bolt's threads are not properly aligned, it's not holding on with the desired strength.
| Or you can say This nut's threads are worn out . In this case I would say dodgy, broken, loose
|
What does "were identical to the last freckle" mean in this context? Aunt Petunia shrieked and fell backward over the coffee table; Uncle Vernon caught her before she hit the floor, and gaped, speechless, at the Weasleys, all of whom had bright red hair, including Fred and George, who were identical to the last freckle . As I understand, "A is identical to B" means A and B are the same. But in this context, the phrase seems to be used in a different way. It sounds like it conveys both Fred and George were exactly identical (from the first) to the last freckle. Is my understanding correct? <Q> Yup, it means every single one of their freckles is the same, along with everything else. <S> " to the last _____ " is often used with something small or insignificant, to convey the idea that even if you checked rigorously every single detail, up to the smallest one, the affirmation would still hold. <S> Eg. <S> : <S> He cleaned the house to the last speck of dust <A> If you were to compare all the freckles on their faces, all of them would turn out to be indistinguishable from one another. <S> The idea is that freckles in two seemingly identical people (like twins, for example) are actually the last thing you would expect to be exactly the same when everything else seems to be exactly alike. <S> I'm sure you understand that all this is just metaphorical language. <S> As I've already mentioned the idea comes from a situation where two people that seem to look identical are in fact not identical under close examination because we all know that there certainly will be some features on their faces (such as freckles) that can be used to tell the two apart. <A> The prepositional phrase to the {superlative}... expresses the idea of to the n th degree . <S> Don't wait to the last minute to sign up. <S> She swore that she would answer to the best of her knowledge. <S> And in contexts were an implicit comparison is being made, <S> the prepositional phrase to + noun-phrase also expresses degree: He cooked the turkey to perfection. <S> She imitated her teacher to a "t". <S> The teams were equally matched, to a man. <A> Yes, your understanding is correct. <S> the Weasleys, all of whom had bright red hair, including Fred and George, who were identical to the last freckle. <S> To be absolutely clear, in the Harry Potter books and movies, all the members of the Weasley family bear a strong resemblance due to their striking red hair, but Fred and George are identical twins : <S> (The four youngest Weasleys siblings as depicted in the movies. <S> Fred and George are on the ends, with Ron and Ginny in the middle.) <S> In addition, prominent freckles are frequently associated with red hair, which is why the author probably mentioned it. <A> The other answers are good, but ignore one thing; this is a magical family. <S> In humans, "identical" twins aren't actually identical when you look closely. <S> (One's hair parts to the left, the other's to the right, one is slightly taller, ...) <S> "To the last freckle" is meant to emphasize that they were exactly identical, in a way that you don't find in Muggles.
| But when we say that two people are identical to the last freckle, the metaphor is that if you were to compare all the freckles, blemishes, wrinkles and other similar features on their faces, you would not be able to tell who is who because absolutely everything in them seems to be exactly the same. I think that your understanding is absolutely perfect.
|
What is a better way to write X increases as Y increases? What is a better way to write X increases as Y increases ? Two increases seem repetitive. Thanks. <Q> You could say: As Y increases so does X. As pressure increases <S> so does temperature. <A> X increases as Y does. <S> There are alternatives, but I cannot see an alternative to using 'as' if you need to retain the idea that the increases in Y are causing those in X too. <A> As Tᴚoɯɐuo noted, there really isn't any reason to avoid the repetition. <S> But if you want to, there are plenty of good ways (his own suggestion of "so does" included). <S> X increases in proportion to Y. <S> (If you mean that they increase at 1:1 ratio, you can say "exact" proportion.) <S> X and Y increase in proportion / in parallel. <S> (Again, if the ratio is 1:1, you can say "at the same rate".) <S> X's increase is a function of Y's. <S> ... <S> and so on. <S> P.S. Don't forget that the convention is for X to be the independent variable, not Y.
| X increases with Y. X and Y increase at the same time.
|
What does "two large, disheveled shapes" refer to in this context? Harry felt as though he had barely lain down to steep in Ron's room when he was being shaken awake by Mrs. Weasley. “Time to go, Harry, dear,” she whispered, moving away to wake Ron. Harry felt around for his glasses, put them on, and sat up. It was still dark outside. Ron muttered indistinctly as his mother roused him. At the foot of Harry's mattress he saw two large, disheveled shapes emerging from tangles of blankets. “'S time already?” said Fred groggily. They dressed in silence, too sleepy to talk, then, yawning and stretching, the four of them headed downstairs into the kitchen. I don't know what " two large, disheveled shapes " refer to. Are they persons, Fred and Ron maybe? It's really miserable. <Q> I believe that J.K. Rowling here means that there were two misshapen shapes emerging from the blankets. <S> (The objects being two people presumably) <A> In the Potter books, I am not sure it is fair to infer that creatures are necessarily humans. <S> As I read it, there seem to four sleeping in the room: <S> Presumably, this gets clarified either before or after the quoted sentences. <A> Both Harry and Ron are already mentioned, so my guess is we're meant to assume the two large, disheveled shapes are Fred and George , since they are the other two people in the room. <S> Plus, throughout the series, the Weasley twins almost always appear and act together. <S> In this context "disheveled" does not mean "unhappy". <S> It's more how someone looks when they have just woken up, before they have a chance to wash and/or groom themselves, e.g. "bed-head" .
| Imagine something like this: The blankets were disheveled by the objects inside them. Ron in one bed, Harry in the other, and two, one of whom is named Fred, at the foot of Harry's bed.
|
Is the genderless mentioning of the person as "them" is correct? I need to express the message avoiding mentioning the gender. The sentence is next: They are designed to store the team's work collectively, so if a document's creator moves off of the team that document doesn't go with them . I did some research but the information regarding this question is very ambiguous. Is it correct? If it is not, maybe there could be another wording? <Q> It is grammatically correct according to the rules of English. <S> If this is at all disputed it will not be on grammatical grounds, but likely due to ongoing disputes over gender pronouns. <S> However, if this is written English <S> I would prefer it to be written as: <S> They are designed to store the team's work collectively, so if the creator of a document moves off the team, that document doesn't go with them. <S> "The creator of a document" is a little clearer than "the document's creator". <S> Unless "creator" is specific terminology you might even consider using the term "author". <S> "Moves off the team" is correct, and perhaps "leaves" may be even better than "moves off". <A> It is disputed yes, but mostly by pedants. <A> According to this Oxford Dictionary usage note , the use of the singular 'they' and 'them' when gender is unknown is centuries old and perfectly acceptable. <A> I noticed a news article recently about a pilot in Australia who had done something wrong, and the writer of the article repeatedly used the plural pronoun either because the pilot's gender was unknown or in order to avoid identifying the pilot in any way. <S> The article has stuck in my mind because of the repeated use of the pronoun - it drew attention to either the lack of information or the avoidance of identification. <S> I think there needs to be a delicate touch in using a grammatical nuance such as the singularised plural.
| The use of singular them is not a new innovation and the sentence you give makes perfect sense. "Off of" is a colloquialism and considered grammatically incorrect by most native speakers.
|
"here and there was a tent" VS "here and there were tents" They trudged up the misty field between long rows of tents. Most looked almost ordinary; their owners had clearly tried to make them as Muggle-like as possible, but had slipped up by adding chimneys, or bellpulls, or weather vanes. However, here and there was a tent so obviously magical that Harry could hardly be surprised that Mr. Roberts was getting suspicious. ... I found " here and there was a tent ..." interesting. Apparently, there were many tents mentioned in this context, so I'm wondering why it didn't put " here and there were tents ..." instead? <Q> here and there was a tent vs here and there were tents The difference is in plurality, the first one says that there were single tents dotted about, but your sentence is not that precise. <S> In your wording, there could be any number of tents in a patch – it could be one or it could be five. <A> That is a phrase which indicates that there are many tents, though there is typically no visible structure to them. <S> That can be contrasted with "a long row of tents" which has a very clear row-like structure. <S> Those phrases together would show a well ordered group of tends (in a row), of which some portion are "obviously magical," but there's no particular rhyme or reason to it. <S> Rowling's choice of "Here and there was a tent" is a more atypical phrasing. <S> She is using an unusual construction which gives more of an impression of isolation. <S> The magical tents are kind of independent, each one standing on its own. <S> I would read into her words as an explanation for why Mr. Roberts is merely suspicious. <S> In his mind, each of these "obviously magical" tents is an isolated thing, and he hasn't yet connected the dots. <S> He hasn't linked together all the information he's observing about each tent to come to a conclusion that the tents, as a whole, were magical. <S> If she had used the more typical phrase, "Here and there were tents..." <S> that would give more of the impression that the dots are indeed being connected. <S> Personally, I would almost always use the more typical plural sentence. <S> However, a writer often understands the subtle effects word choice has. <S> In this case, Rowling chose the singular. <A> @WendyG is correct; however, to me, it's a bit more clear if you reorder the sentence a bit: <S> There were tents here and there <S> In this case, there are magical tents scattered around the campgrounds, some of which may be alone and some of which may be in groups (i.e. multiple cases of single magical tents and/or multiple magical tents grouped together). <S> v.s. <S> There was a tent here and there <S> In this case, there are single magical tents scattered around the campgrounds (i.e. multiple cases of a single magical tent).
| "Here and there were tents" would be the typical phrasing.
|
"[A] voice that bored a thousand ships into sinking themselves" Still a line from "The Marvelous Ms. Maisel" The character said: And Stan... who has a voice that bored a thousand ships into sinking themselves. I was totally lost about this phrase. <Q> It is a reference to the Iliad , in which a lady leaves her husband <S> but she was so pretty that he was willing to launch a thousand ships full of Greek soldiers to get her back. <S> So you get the saying "beautiful enough to launch a thousand ships" to mean "very pretty." <S> And now there is apparently a bloke who is so boring his voice <S> will sink a thousand ships, that is, he is very boring. <A> While the underlying reference, as Quuxplusone stated, is to the Iliad , the specific expression is a play on a famous line from Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus : <S> Was this the face that launched a thousand ships And burnt the topless towers of Ilium? <S> The context is that the main character, Faust, has made a deal with the devil and gained special powers, including the ability to talk with the spirits of the dead. <S> Here, he has summoned the spirit of Helen of Troy. <S> He asks if this is really the spirit of a woman so beautiful that her abduction motivated her husband to launch a huge naval invasion to get her back. <A> It means that his voice was so boring that a thousand ships decided to sink themselves. <S> Compare it with the expression to talk someone into doing something . <S> talk into ( phrasal verb ) <S> If you talk a person into doing something they do not want to do, especially something wrong or stupid, you persuade them to do it. <S> It's basically the same idea. <S> (answer transcribed from comment) <A> It is a clever pun that plays on the idea of "the face that launched a thousand ships". <S> This phrase is a reference to the launching of a fleet of ships to rescue Helen of Troy, a woman of the most astounding beauty who eloped/was abducted by Paris. <S> The launching of the ships to bring her back sparked the start of the Trojan war (the Iliad). <S> It is such a poetic phrase that it is in common usage in English to describe someone of exceptional beauty ("she is beautiful enough to launch a thousand ships") .The <S> phrase "has a voice that bored a thousand ships into sinking themselves" plays with this idea to suggest that Stan's voice has a level of boredom that is as exceptional as Helen of Troy is beautiful, and does it in a clever way. <A> The term "bore" can mean 'drill a hole in something', or can mean 'induce boredom', so the sentence has two meanings. <S> The second is that Stan's voice makes holes in ships and causes them to sink.
| As well as what the other answers have said, the sentence is a pun. Rather than launching a thousand ships to rescue the most beautiful woman ever, this guys voice is so dull that a thousand captains would rather sink their own ships than listen to it.
|
A dog ran down/along the street- meaning difference The dog ran along the road. The dog ran down the road. I was doing a test paper on English and came across this question "the dog ran __ the road", and from the options only two made sense, along and down, but do they both not mean the same thing? So far as i've been told, walking down does maybe indicate there being a sense of direction. Whereas walk along, could just mean walking horizontally on something like a pavement, or next to something. But if you're talking about running or walking down/along the sidewalk or the street, both should pretty much mean the same thing, right? That you're either walking or running on the flat surface of the pavement. <Q> Well, IMO, both are correct. <S> In English, certain words require some preposition, and 'walk' is the word here. <S> Other options of preposition after the verb include along , down , and even up ! <S> I think they might have a hairline difference. <S> Maybe, the next word shows some direction? <S> If a road is going downhill, it could be 'walk down the road'; if it's running toward some hill or slope, we may say 'walk up the road', and in a case, it's flat or plain, 'walk along the road,' maybe! <S> I also feel that along has 'long' in it and thus, it might have to do something at the 'stretch' i.e. walking with the length of the river? <S> Interestingly, it's also used as an idiom , and there too, they are the same! <S> along/down the road: in the future, especially at a later stage in a process <A> I think the two prepositions are for all intents and purposes synonymous in the phrase walking down|along the street . <S> When a native speaker says We were walking down the street. <S> it does not mean that they were on the roadway used by cars and trucks, but on the sidewalk. <S> But there are differences with "walk". <S> You can say <S> We were just walking along and chatting about our school days. <S> But you can't say <S> We were just walking down and chatting about our school days. <S> not idiomatic <S> In order to use walking down , a prior reference explaining the use of "down" would be needed: <S> On Sundays, we like to hike up Blueberry Hill, have a picnic at the top, and then return home. <S> One day, as we were walking down, ... And in that case it would be ellipsis: "... as we were walking down [the hill]" <A> Look at the pictures please: <S> The people are cycling along the river . <S> They are floating down the river . <S> Speaking of the dog, it could actually run down or along the road. <S> Was there any context given? <S> If not, I'd say "the dog ran down the road."
| But these 2 things may be not the same ("may" because "along" means "moving on or beside a line"). They both mean to make your way on foot, with the street (broadly construed so as to include the pedestrian walkway) being the path you were taking.
|
What does "tell with" mean in this context? "Did sir just call me Dobby?" squeaked the elf curiously from between its fingers. Its voice was higher even than Dobby's had been, a teeny, quivering squeak of a voice, and Harry suspected -- though it was very hard to tell with a house-elf -- that this one might just be female. " Tell with " is not a set phrase defined in the dictionaries I've looked up. So, how should we understand the " tell with " in this context? Is it a common set phrase? <Q> You are not parsing it correctly. <S> A comma might have helped you there. <S> ... hard to tell, with a house elf. <S> ... with a house elf, hard to tell. <S> With the picture <S> so dark, it's hard to tell who this is. <S> I can't say who that is. <S> It's hard to tell with the picture being so dark. <S> or Is that a female or a male crocodile sunning on the bank? <S> -- I'm not sure. <S> It's hard to tell with a crocodile. <S> But that's a male chimp over there, and over yonder is a female. <S> You're right. <S> With a crocodile it's hard to tell, and it's easy to tell with a chimp. <A> This is a less common sense of "with". <S> It's not literally referring to being in the company of house-elves; it means more "in matters related to" or "when dealing with". <S> The relevant portion is <S> it was very hard to tell with a house-elf <A> Harry suspected -- though it was very hard to tell with a house-elf -- that this one might just be female. <S> Harry suspected that this house elf was female, though it is hard to tell/decide/say what the gender is when you look at a house elf.
| This can also be phrased the other way around: with a house-elf, it was very hard to tell What it's saying is that when dealing with house-elves, it can be difficult to tell whether they are female or not, whereas for other creatures it might be easier.
|
Is it right to say I was child or I was a child Is there a difference in meaning or is there a grammatical mistake <Q> The article is required in sentences like this, so "I was a child". <S> Have you some reason to think that "I was child" might be grammatical? <A> English consistently distinguishes between the general and specific case for nouns. <S> "a car" is general. <S> "the car" is some specific car. <S> "I have a car. <S> " tells someone that have possession of a car, but also denotes that the specifics aren't especially important. <S> "I have the car." <S> also denotes possession but now it refers to a specific vehicle, usually specified previously in the conversation. <S> Sometimes the specification comes after, and, other times, it's not given at all because previous shared information is assumed to clarify. <S> "I was child. <S> " is incorrect because you haven't clarified the reference. <S> "I was Child. <S> " could be grammatically correct if the name "Child" applied, but would be capitalized to show that. <S> "I was a child", on the other hand, would be a correct way of explaining a state of immaturity. <S> "I was the child." <S> would be the way of claiming a specific example of child. <S> Now, it's important to now <S> that's the rules for nouns. <S> (Nouns are objects, but grammatical folks wanted that term for other things so we use noun.) <S> They flesh out and describe nouns. <S> "I was ill." <S> , "I was childish. <S> ", "I was immature.", and "I was purple. <S> " are all grammatically correct because they describe the "I", directly, because of the "was". <S> Adjectives also often modify nouns by being adjacent. <S> "The ill boy was green.", "I, ill, went straight home.", and even the slightly archaic "Childish, I was." are valid. <S> Note that "the" for the boy in the example. <S> It suggests that the boy was exceptional for being ill. <S> This may not be the best way a language can convey such details, but it's how English does it <S> and it is often useful. <A> Some languages have a definite article (in English ‘the’) and an indefinite article (in English ‘ <S> a’ or [before a vowel] ‘an’). <S> Russian has neither a definite or an indefinite article. <S> Nor does Latin. <S> Ancient Greek and Arabic (ancient and modern) have a definite article (ό Greek, لا Arabic), but no indefinite article. <S> Strictly, ancient Greek did have a sort of indefinite article, ‘tis’ (τίς), which is actually called an ‘indefinite pronoun’: that is, it could stand alone to mean ‘someone/thing’. <S> The indefinite article in romance and teutonic languages is generally the same as the numeral ‘one’. <S> It refers to something either not specific or not yet specified. <S> In English, no noun (other than a proper noun [name] or an abstract noun) can be use without either a definite or indefinite article. <S> But in some romance languages <S> these exceptions may not apply. <S> So in French both place names and abstract nouns must be preceded by a definite article. <S> In English an indefinite article is only required in the singular. <S> In the plural, however, English is riddled with exceptions and special cases. <S> First, ‘ children’ can be used on its own. <S> This book is not suitable for children. <S> Children are often fussy eaters. <S> The safety of children is paramount in our school. <S> This works because we are in these cases talking of children in general (in the abstract). <S> So, not surprisingly, French (and Italian and Greek) would use the definite article ( Les enfants, gli bambini, τα παιδιά ). <S> In other cases, English does or may require the use of ‘ some ’ or ‘ any ’. <S> You can say either of <S> There are children in the garden <S> There are some children in the garden. <S> The finer points of all this are too complicated to explain here. <S> Ultimately, only reading English and talking with English people will do it. <S> Nevertheless, in your sentence. <S> ‘ <S> child must be preceded by ‘a’.
| I was a child is correct. Adjectives follow different rules because they are very different things.
|
Which one is gone in this sentence? The appetizing plate of cookies was gone in half an hour. In this sentence, which one is gone, the cookies or the plate? Thanks for your help in advance. <Q> The cookies are gone. <S> A plate of something, usually food, is considered to mean not the plate, but whatever is on it. <S> plate noun [countable] also plateful an amount of food on a plate: <S> Stephen ate three plates of spaghetti. <S> Plate (Cambridge) <A> It is ambiguous. <S> So we must use context to interpret the meaning. <S> While it could either mean the cookies were eaten, or someone stole the whole plate of cookies, <S> In any normal context it means the cookies have been eaten, especially as we know the cookies were delicious and so likely to be eaten quickly. <S> Compare: <S> Waste services are really good in this city. <S> I put a bag of rubbish out and it was gone in half an hour. <S> Here the context would suggest the opposite, the bag (and the rubbish) was taken. <A> The whole thing. <S> The plate and the cookies on it. <S> Most likely this is because the cookies had been eaten and the empty plate removed, but not necessarily. <S> It could also be that nobody liked the cookies (nobody wanted to eat them) and everything was taken away again. <S> There is nothing in the statement that explains the history of what happened or the intention behind it. <A> To add on to the other answers: There is a joke possible in the ambiguity of your sentence, especially since you put "appetizing" before "plate". <S> Of course any rational person would assume it isn't the plate that is appetizing, but some people may not be so particular. <S> (Okay, that's probably a frisbee that Cookie Monster is eating, and not a plate, but you get the idea.) <S> This is a typical style of English humor, which plays against what is expected from the syntax. <S> An example of this is a classic joke from the comedian Groucho Marx: <S> One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. <S> How he got in my pajamas <S> I don't know. <S> The joke is that we expect he shot an elephant while he was still dressed in his pajamas, but the ambiguity of the sentence means it's possible that it was the elephant who was wearing the pajamas. <S> In any case, if you wanted to be perfectly clear that it was the cookies <S> that were tasty, you could write: <S> The plate of appetizing cookies was gone in half an hour. <S> but where's the fun in that?
| Strictly speaking it's the plate of cookies that was gone.
|
"Too expensive for me to afford it" why ungrammatical? The medicine was too expensive for me to afford it. My practice question marked that as wrong for I didn't put the It out at the last. It suggested me to use "...too expensive for me to afford". I couldn't grasp the idea why would that matter. I googled them, but people use the equivalent states as they are with it in the last. Besides I'm not sure there's any wrong in the sentence below as well. It's too hard to do it alone. Do I also have to rephrase it into like "It's too hard to do alone"? <Q> As far as I can see, it is grammatical both with and without "it" at the end. <S> I think I would usually say it with "it", but I'm not certain. <A> In your first example, there probably isn't an adequate grammatical rule about why. <S> I can tell you the it is unnecessary, and generally you don't want to use more words than necessary to communicate. <S> That probably isn't the answer you want, but you can think of it another way. <S> There is only one subject ("the medicine") in that sentence so you don't need to refer to "the medicine" again. <S> In your second example, "It's too hard to do alone" is much better than "It's too hard to do it alone. <S> " You are saying the same thing in fewer words. <S> Generally, if you can communicate the same idea in fewer words you'll be better off. <S> As a native English speaker, I would say The soup was too hot for me. <S> The test was too difficult for me. <S> The drink was too strong for me. <S> instead of <S> The soup was too hot for me to eat it. <S> The test was too difficult for me to pass it. <S> The drink was too strong for me to drink it. <S> because those ideas were already implied. <S> Hope that helps. <A> With test question, you need to be clear about what is being tested. <S> And with language learning, that can mean the difference between being grammatically correct and being idiomatic. <S> Most people in conversation would probably leave out the ‘ it ’. <S> But the inclusion of the ‘it’ as the object of ‘to afford’ is correct. <S> You can leave out the ‘it’, because of a ‘missing object’ principle, applying to comparative sentences involving excess and deficiency. <S> The apples are too high (for me) to reach (them) / not ripe enough (for me) to eat (them)... <S> In your example, as you can see from other answers, some would include the ‘it’, others might cut down to the bare essentials, making “the medicine is too expensive for me”. <S> But it is not a matter of grammar. <A> Both phrases are absolutely grammatical and fine. <S> I would only say that the first is maybe a little awkward, because the "it" is redundant and therefore not used like that very often. <S> But it doesn't even sound unnatural, at least not to me. <A> I would say intuitively that from syntax perspective it depends on how you cut the sentence, and this explains why both versions are acceptable: With this first cut, the last bracket is an infinitive structure, which requires the it : <S> [The medicine was too expensive] <S> [for me to afford it] <S> You could in theory put that last bracket at the beginning of the sentence, where the it cannot be omitted. <S> With this second cut, the last bracket is a subject complement (a sort of multi-word equivalent of an adjective), which cannot have the it : [The medicine] <S> [was] [too expensive for me to afford] <S> In other words the syntax uncertainty is what makes the it optional. <A> The problem is it sounds clumsy because it is redundant. <S> "The medicine was too expensive for me" should be enough. <S> If it's too expensive, it follows that it is unaffordable. <A> The construct "The noun is too adjective for me to verb " can be used transitively, but the object is very strongly implied as being noun . <S> In most cases where the object isn't noun , some other construct should be used, and in most cases where the object is noun <S> it shouldn't be stated unless there is a reason to state it. <S> Consider, for example: <S> The mice were too fast for me to catch both of them. <S> The mice were too fast for me to catch more than two. <S> In the second construct, the implication that the verb "catch" refers to the mice is so strong that including "of them" would sound unnatural. <S> In the first construct, however, the need for "both" to have a bound object is sufficiently strong that including "of them" would seem more natural than omitting it. <S> An alternative phrasing would be "catch them both".
| I'd agree with everyone else that it is grammatically correct. I would actually drop the entire phrase "to afford it" because you're just repeating the same thing twice in the same sentence. My guess is that what is found to be wrong about the inclusion of ‘ it ’ is probably that it is not idiomatic.
|
Why the hood is also called bonnet? ...but where do you go to learn what is under the hood Trying to understand the operating system is unfortunately not as easy as just opening the bonnet So it seems like hood is equivalent to bonnet...? But what's the difference? Is that opening the bonnet has other usage? <Q> The cover of a car's engine is called a bonnet in British English, and a hood in American English. <S> Also, at the back of a traditional car design, the luggage compartment is called the boot in BrE, and the trunk in AmE. <A> In addition to the basic "Americans use hood and Brits use bonnet <S> but it's the same thing", you can look at the origins for the term and see that they both also describe very similar pieces of headgear: A hood is a cold weather cover for your head... <S> usually nowadays we would say it is attached to a jacket or coat, but it used to be more common for it to be a completely separate piece of clothing. <S> It covers the back of your head completely and usually comes forward a little bit, shielding the face without covering it. <S> A bonnet is an old fashioned type of hat that women used to wear, which covers the back of the head and usually comes forward, shielding the face without covering it. <S> So it's no surprise that people picked those words to describe it. <A> The hood is the term used for the hinged opening to a cars engine compartment in American English. <S> Bonnet is the term for the same thing in Britsh English, so you will see both used depending on where the writer of the article comes from. <S> In order to check the condition of a car particularly a second hand one before buying it, it is considered important to open up this engine compartment to check the state of the components there. <S> They are both used as metaphors for understanding how things work such as computers and other devices.
| In old fashioned cars, the shape of the hood/bonnet actually slightly resembled a hood/bonnet (clothing).
|
Repetition of a proper noun in journalism In a recent article about a youtuber named Felix Kjellberg (also known as Pewdiepie), I came across this sentence: In Kjellberg 's most recent edition of Pew News, a semi-satirical series where Kjellberg offers his own take on news events [...], he dedicates [...] The very close repetition of the name really surprised me, I'm 100% sure if I did that in an essay in my native language I would get a remark from my teacher. The writer could have easily avoided it by using he the second tim. Repeating a pronoun is really not as bad. Does it look normal to you? Is it a thing related to journalism writing style maybe? Another thing to note is that in the whole article, Pewdiepie is never referred to as something else than "Kjellberg", except when the writer is quoting someone else. Not even "Felix", or "the youtuber", just "Kjellberg". Is it common practice or lazy writing? (I don't want to link the article but it's easy to find) <Q> It's lazy, but safe writing. <S> It may be weak stylistically, but if you have a bunch of subjects (Kjellberg, edition, Pew News, series), especially when used some distance from the chosen subject, the repeated name unambiguously points out the reference. <S> In this case 'he' would be clear, as there's no different person to be referred to, but it may be just a habit - imagine <S> In Kjellberg's most recent edition of Trump News , a semi-satirical series where he offers his own take on news events would be completely ambiguous. <S> Even in this case readers not familiar with the channel might wonder "who is Pew?" <S> - and if you start using replacements like "Felix" or "the youtuber" you confuse the readers completely. <S> " <S> What youtuber?" <S> "Who's Felix? <S> " Only later they'd find out, "Oh, Felix is Kjellberg's first name, and he's the youtuber!" <S> In this case clarity takes priority over stylistic rules about repetition, and even if not strictly necessary in certain cases, the repetition may be used habitually, as typical to situations with many subjects. <A> I agree with the answer by @SF. <S> There is an more elegant solution for this particular sentence: <S> In his most recent edition of Pew News, a semi-satirical series offering his own take on news events, Kjellberg dedicates ... <S> Note that readers will not be certain who 'his' is referring to for some time, but because the subjective case (*) pronoun, 'his', is used, all ambiguity is resolved once the subject of the main sentence, 'Kjellberg', is eventually mentioned. <S> (*) <S> I since have realised 'his' is not the "subjective case", but I think, the "genetive (or possessive) case". <S> The point I was trying to make is still valid though. ' <S> His' is unambiguously referring forward to the subject of the main sentence. <S> But as @SF says. <A> There's nothing ungrammatical about it. <S> The challenge the author faces is that he or she wants to say what Pew News is and in the same breath talk about its most recent issue. <S> There are a number of ways to address that challenge, one of which would be to say what Pew News is and then in a new sentence <S> talk about what Kjellberg does in the most recent issue. <S> Kjellberg publishes Pew News, a semi-satirical series in which he offers his own take on current events. <S> In the most recent edition he ...
| This is a matter of style and there is no grammatical problem in the original sentence.
|
Parenthesis with apostrophe, how to order and how to space? I have a very simple phrase: I want to introduce Adam's kid I want to insert a pair of parentheses for Adam , say, should be like this: I want to introduce Adam (my friend)'s kid But I'm not sure about spacing/the order of ' and () .Like, should I put a space before the ' ? The following also looks pretty good to me: I want to introduce Adam's (my friend) kid I want to introduce Adam (my friend) 's kid but there must be a better choice (which is what I want). <Q> There is no reason to put 'my friend' in parentheses. <S> You could use either: <S> I want to introduce my friend Adam's kid. <S> I want to introduce the kid of my friend Adam. <A> There may be ways of phrasing the sentence so that parentheses are not needed, but if you want to use parentheses, you can do so. <S> Whatever is inside parentheses has no grammatical impact on anything outside of them; however, that doesn't mean that things can't look awkward. <S> The multiple use of the possessive is redundant—but <S> so, in some ways, is the use of parentheses in the first place. <S> And the repetition of the possessive here avoids the awkwardness of only having it in one place. <A> The "better way" is not to use the parentheses at all: <S> I want to introduce my friend Adam's kid <S> Parentheses should be used to introduce nonessential information. <S> Parentheses are like whispers or footnotes -- they may be interesting facts, but it should be fine if the reader ignores them. <S> In this case, let's assume it not important that Adam is your friend. <S> What is important is the introduction of his son. <S> It's more organized if you keep the information in the parentheses related solely to Adam, and limit its relationship to his son. <S> Although it's not elegant, you could write something like: <S> I want to introduce (my friend) <S> Adam's kid. <S> This is not a grammatical rule, so it would also be fine to write something like: <S> I want to introduce Adam's (which is to say, my friend's) <S> kid. <S> Which you choose is entirely up to your personal style.
| In your sentence, assuming I used parentheses, I would write it like this: I want to introduce Adam's (my friend's) kid.
|
Let us do what we want or Let "we" do what we want? I took an exam and the test included this exerciseRewrite the sentence: Don't stop us doing what we want! -> Let................................. At first I thought it was "Let us do what we want", but when my teacher corrected, she told us that the answer was "Let we do what we want". Still, she said that the first one was ok.I have never heard "Let we do what we want" so which one should I choose? <Q> Your teacher is wrong. <S> "Let us do what we want" is correct; "let we do what we want" is never right in standard English. <S> Also note: in any kind of formal writing, using more than one question mark is an error. <A> From a question on English Language & Usage Stackexchange: <S> Us is accusative since it is the direct object of let. <S> Disambiguation might help: Allow us to go. <S> The convention is to delete the to from the verb after let; otherwise it is the same as allow: <S> Allow them to come here turns into <S> Let them come here . <A> "Let we..." is not correct. <S> You need to use the objective case here (i.e. "us"). <S> I'm a native speaker of American English, but you can verify this yourself by searching <S> COCA <S> for . <S> let we (note that the period is used so that it only finds "let we" at the start of a sentence; you will need a free account to do this search). <S> Out of the multitude of words in the corpus, there are only two matches, both from the same work, which are examples of intentionally broken English.
| It's not correct now and it never has been, at least in Standard English.
|
Is this phrase a dramatic effect? What does the highlighted expression mean, is it a dramatic effect? SIGHTS During: a car in one’s lane or a barrier approaching, the frightened faces of the people in the oncoming vehicle right before impact, hoods crumpling, glass fracturing, passengers being thrown forward in their seats, airbags deploying in white clouds, each moment in time cut into small flashes rather than a conscious stream <Q> That passage is not a sentence but a series of fragments, one following the other without connectors. <S> This syntactic feature is known as asyndeton . <S> And as the syntactic features reflect the subject matter being discussed, we could say that the passage is mimetic . <S> Mimesis is sometimes considered a dramatic effect. <A> Is this phrase a dramatic effect? <S> The highlighted sentence in the context it's presented seems to describe the way the memory of a traumatic event may be recalled, i.e. as a series of images and impressions, each distinct and not necessarily within a clear linear framework. <S> This typifies the type of imagery that can be triggered in post-traumatic disorders. <S> Whilst the whole scene is dramatic, the effect created is a series of clauses with no verbs; approaching, crumpling, fracturing, being, deploying - these are all functioning as gerunds. <S> It's not until the final highlighted bit that these staccato chunks are unified and explained, rather cleverly mimicking the experience of the person viewing it. <S> Rhythmic mimesis perhaps. <A> What we gather from the surface, the description relates to cinematography or screenplay (screenshot) <S> what goes by the name 'stage direction' in plays. <S> It is all about an impending and imminent accident on road or an aircrash. <S> Not only the bold portion but the whole description is dramatic. <S> The highlighted portion gives the intended effect to be conveyed : Time is arrested, it doesn't seem to move at all with the heaviness of lead and is fragmented and falls asunder.
| It is a direction to the camera where scenario is fragmented into bits to heighten the dramatic impact and severity.
|
"By a month" Vs. "in a month" What's the difference between these two sentence? He's sure that he'll speak French fluently in a month . Vs. He's sure that he'll speak French fluently by a month . <Q> "by a month" is simply not idiomatic at all in English here. <S> For time , one does things or things are done in a month, week, year, day, hour etc . <S> That is the period of time that will elapse. <S> He beat the deadline by a month . <S> There, by a month is used to measure the number of months he won by. <S> Some project has to be handed in in six months. <S> The guy hands the project in in five months. <S> He has beat the deadline by a month . <S> For time that will elapse (go by) <S> we use in: in a month. <S> To measure some amount of time in relation to a set time, we use by: <S> He beat me by ten minutes. <S> They beat us (in the sailing race) by a month. <A> "In a month" is correct. <S> It means that it will take 1 month by the time he'll speak fluent French. " <S> By" is used to indicate the end point of an event. <S> For example, you can say "He'll speak fluent French by February". <S> February is the deadline by which the activity will be completed. <A> The primary difference is that one of those two sentences is grammatical, and the other is not. <S> " <S> He's sure that he'll speak French fluently in a month " <S> is correct. <S> It is equivalent to " <S> He's sure that he'll speak French fluently within a month", or <S> "He's sure that before a month has passed, he'll speak French fluently". <S> In this context, "[with]in [some amount of time]" means "before [that much time] has elapsed". <S> " <S> He's sure that he'll speak French fluently by a month " <S> is not grammatical, because in this context "by [something]" means "before [something] <S> has happened ". <S> "In" needs a span - a length of time, which might begin now, or at some other point already established by context ("once he starts the course, he's sure that he'll speak French fluently in a month" would mean the month started when the course did, at some point in the future, rather than right now). <S> Hence you might say "he's sure that he'll speak French fluently by summer", because "[the start of] summer" is a point. <S> So is "dinner", though expecting someone to gain fluency between now and dinner is probably unreasonable. <S> You can use "by the time [something happens]" in a similar way, so you could say "by the time a month is up", where "the time a month is up" means the point in time at which one complete month has passed.
| " By " needs an point in time: "a month" isn't a point, but "next month" could be (in this context it would be taken to mean "the start of next month").
|
Name of a salon or hall in which a rock band would perform music What do we call a music salon or hall in which a rock band would perform, in English? I want words both for a place with roof and without roof (like an amphitheater) please. <Q> "Venue" is the overarching term that describes a location where anything can be performed. <S> venue <S> (n): <S> The place where something happens, especially an organized event such as a concert, conference, or sports competition. <S> It doesn't matter if it is an outdoor stage, stadium, public park, convention center, sports arena, theater, or even an actual performance hall. <S> All of these can be considered venues for organized events. <S> "Music hall" or "music salon" sound old-fashioned to me, but seem to still be in use for older, landmark buildings. <S> "Concert hall" is also used, although this seems to be more a place for a symphony orchestra than a rock band. <A> The words <S> There is (AFAIK) <S> no word or phrase exclusively used for rock music. <S> Note <S> that "music hall" is only slightly less commonly used than "concert hall"; see this Google Ngram . <A> You might be looking for auditorium : <S> A large room for public meetings or performances. <S> That might not be a perfect fit, as it usually implies a closed room rather than one open to the air. <S> But its etymology does connect it very strongly with sound (through audio ). <A> For small to medium sized venues (see other answer), an informal term for this would be 'club' or 'nightclub' . <S> For rock music <S> specifically you might use 'rock-club'.
| "concert hall" are often used (for a place with a roof); even though these used to be constructed centuries ago for classical music, nowadays they're used for all kinds of music, including rock music.
|
"Not to" or "to not" What is the difference between: "I promise not to misbehave." "I promise to not misbehave." as in something a kid would say to convince its parents that it will behave well? <Q> Some people think it's important to avoid "splitting infinitives. <S> " <S> In these sentences, "to misbehave" is an infinitive verb and "splitting" it means inserting a word between the "to" and the "misbehave. <S> " <S> In your example 2, "promise to not misbehave" is a split infinitive. <S> I happen to think this is an entirely pointless rule. <S> Sometimes it makes more sense, either because of clarity, or as Andrew says, because of the sound of the sentence to split the infinitive. <S> One commonly cited example of a split infinitive that sounds much better split is that Star Trek slogan, "to boldly go where no one has gone before. <S> " <S> This breaks the split infinitive rule - which would tell you that it must be "to go boldly" or "boldly to go" - but sounds much nicer. <S> Additionally, in some circumstances repositioning the "not" can subtly change the meaning of the statement: <S> Be aware that putting "not" or another adverb between "to" and its verb adds some emphasis to that adverb. <S> For example, in the sentence "They decided not to stay another night" the phrase "they decided" is the most important information, but the sentence "They decided to not stay another night" tells us that maybe they decided to stay another night before, but now it is important that they will not stay. <S> http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/Split-Infinitives <A> The meaning is the same - there is no difference. <S> A child would probably say either one, but it seems promise not to is more grammatically correct, as described here . <A> The meter of the sentence changes with the word order, as it's common to put a slight accent on "not". <S> To explain this, let's exaggerate as if the words were set to poetry. <S> Imagine <S> it's like a drumbeat: <S> I pro ' mise not ' to mis ' be have ' (da DAH da DAH da DAH da DAH) <S> I pro mise to not ' <S> mis ' be have ' (da dah da da DAH (pause) da DAH da DAH) <S> Of course people don't normally emphasize the meter in this way, but nevertheless there's still an underlying rhythm to every sentence. <S> You can hear this even in ordinary conversation -- pick a scene from a movie and then try to listen to the rhythm of the words, rather than the meaning <S> For example, this classic scene from Taxi Driver (1976): <S> https://youtu.be/4e9CkhBb18E?t=50 <S> You talk in' to me ? <S> You talk in' to me ? <S> You talk in' to me ? <S> [turns around to look behind him] <S> Well , then who the hell else are you <S> talk ing ... <S> You talk ing to me ? <S> Well, I'm the only one here . <S> Anyway, because there is this difference in this rhythm, someone may choose to say "not to" or "to not" to fit a particular intonation that (they think) sounds better in that context.
| There is no difference in meaning, but there is a difference in the way the sentence is spoken.
|
What does "Blooming" mean in this context? “Dumbledore!” he called heartily as he walked up the slope. “How are you, my dear fellow, how are you?” “ Blooming , thank you, Professor Karkaroff,” Dumbledore replied. I've looked it up and found this definition: informal Brit (intensifier): a blooming genius; blooming painful. But it doesn't seem to fit for this context. What does "blooming" truly mean in this context? <Q> It means "I'm doing just fine and dandy" or <S> "Couldn't be better". <A> The use of the word "blooming" here is probably in line with the second definition listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the word "bloom": <S> It lists two subdefinitions: a state or time of beauty, freshness, and vigor <S> a state or time of high development or achievement <S> And it gives an example: a career in full bloom <S> All of these would be a sensible interpretation of Dumbledore's response to Karkaroff. <S> Though Dumbledore is quite old, he is still fresh and vigorous, and he is still achieving. <A> However, as in the case of the two examples that you provided as part of your definition, 'blooming', when used as a mild expletive, is not followed by a comma. <S> Its use is widely accepted in informal conversation, but should be used with discretion in more polite society and should rarely, if ever, be used in formal writing. <S> The definition that you provided used this sense of the word. <S> 'Blooming' in the sense used by Dumbledore, means 'in good health'. <S> It is commonly used to describe women when the are pregnant. <S> In this case 'Blooming,...' is an abbreviation for 'I am blooming,...', so it is rightly followed by a comma. <S> For me, this is an unusual adjective to use to describe a male, although I would not say that using it to do so is incorrect. <S> Most men would normally have responded by saying something like, 'I am well,...', or perhaps just, 'Fine,...'.
| 'Blooming' is a mild expletive that is commonly used in the United Kingdom and some other Commonwealth countries.
|
How should I describe someone's experience being "diverse"? I would like to describe someone's experience as diverse . I am not sure if diverse can be used to describe someone who has had many work and education experiences in different fields. I was thinking diverse , meaning showing a great deal of variety. But it appears from dictionary definitions and examples that diverse is only used to describe a group or groups of people as different from each other or data being different. So can I say He has a diverse experience (or diverse experiences?). He has a diverse professional experience (or diverse professional experiences?). What words would fit in this context? <Q> You could also predicate diversity of his experience: <S> His work experience is diverse. <S> rather than using diverse as an adjective attributively: He has diverse experience. <S> The difference is stylistic. <S> Both are grammatical. <S> Personally, I find a diverse experience somewhat clunky, whereas a diverse student body is fine. <A> "Diverse" essentially means, "having a wide variety", so it's fine to use to describe someone's experiences: <S> Her travel experiences have been diverse , ranging from simple sightseeing in Paris, to traversing the Klondike on a bobsled, to submersible diving into the Marianas Trench. <S> I would personally adjust this to say someone has a "diverse range of experiences", but that might just be my style. <A> "He has diverse experience." sounds fine to me, and searching the internet on the phrase "diverse experience" seems to produce many relevant instances of that wording. <S> Please note, though, your examples aren't quite idiomatic. <S> "Experience", when you are talking about work experience or mastery of a profession, is not plural. <S> "Experiences" would be individual events that you had experienced in your life. <S> And "professional experiences" (plural) would sound like you were referring to incidents that you had experienced while at work. <S> Also "experience" (meaning work experience) will not take an indefinite article. <S> So your examples should be: <S> He has diverse professional experience. <A> You said: But it appears from dictionary definitions and examples that diverse is only used to describe a group or groups of people as different from each other or data being different. <S> That's not an accurate interpretation of the word (or its definition). <S> From Merriam-Webster's definition of diverse <S> : 1 : differing from one another : <S> UNLIKE <S> // <S> people with diverse interests <S> 2 : <S> composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities // <S> a diverse population <S> Diverse is an adjective <S> and it's used to describe any number of things that are different from each other. <S> It can be people or data, but it can be many other things too. <S> As in the definition of its first sense, you can have diverse interests (as it's used in the dictionary's example sentence), diverse food, diverse schools. <S> Or, as in your case, diverse experiences . <S> If you use the singular, it needs to be something that contains other things. <S> (In the dictionary definition, a diverse population contains many different people.) <S> So, you can't say that you have a diverse experience because that's a single thing that doesn't contain anything else. <S> But you can say that you have diverse experiences because each experience is different from the others. <S> So, either of these is fine: <S> You have diverse experiences . <S> You have a diverse professional history .
| He has diverse experience.
|
Leave, pour or drop I would like others to tell me which verb is correct in these sentences. Is there another verb which fits best? I was leaving sand from my hand slowly. I was dropping sand from my hand slowly. I was pouring sand from my hand slowly. <Q> Both pouring and dropping make sense here, but in this context I would say that “Pouring” works better as sand (especially with the “Slowly” you included) <S> would behave very much like a liquid for this action. <S> Hope this helps! <A> You were letting sand slowly out of your hand. <A> Transitive "pour" usually implies not just intention, but also attention: "I was pouring sand from my hand" suggests that I was carefully pouring it into some vessel, or for some particular purpose. <S> (Intransitive "pour" doesn't have this implication: "the sand poured out of my hand <S> " doesn't say anything about my intention). <S> Transitive "drop" can be intentional, but it is more often unintentional. <S> "I dropped the sand" is probably unintentional, or at least not careful. <S> "I was dropping sand from my hand slowly is probably intentional, but suggests less care about the process than "pouring". <S> "Leaving" doesn't work this way at all. <S> You leave a place (or a person), you don't leave something from somewhere: that is not among the maeanings of the word. <A> You asked: <S> Is there another verb which fits best? <S> I would one of the following different descriptions: <S> You let sand slowly flow from your hand. <S> You let sand trickle from your hand. <S> The definition of meaning trickle includes the concept of slowness, so it doesn't need to be part of the description. <S> Also, the Wikipedia entry for hourglass uses the word trickle . <S> It says: An hourglass (or sandglass, sand timer, or sand clock) is a device used to measure the passage of time. <S> It comprises two glass bulbs connected vertically by a narrow neck that allows a regulated trickle of material (historically sand) from the upper bulb to the lower one.
| You were letting sand pour slowly out of your hand.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.