source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
What do you call a person who keeps hold on documents/paperwork? I am working on my research assignment and it needs me to list down my group mate's jobs on the paper. <Q> This task or role can be performed by people with a number of formal and informal titles, including **secretary, clerk, recorder and bookkeeper (for financial records). <S> What do you call a person who add records to a log? <A> A lot depends on exactly what the context of your question is. <S> It is not clear. <S> The context may be that only you are responsible for recording or documenting what tasks each member of the team performed. <S> In which case, R. Sole's answer of "recorder" is excellent. <S> (In a legal or very formal context, "secretary" in the sense of the person officially responsible for recording and retaining important information is preferable, but that word seems too legalistic for academic work.) <S> The context, however, may be that you alone are responsible for describing the methods and results of a research project for which others have done the work on which the report is based. <S> In that case, I prefer the word "reporter," which clarifies that you are responsible for the text, but are not responsible for what lies behind the text. <A> As others have mentioned, "secretary" is the most common term in a formal group . <S> The secretary’s role in any formal group is to be guardian of the process of meetings. <S> They are usually the person who makes the arrangements for the meetings, ... and keeps formal records of the group’s process and decisions: the minutes of the meeting. <S> This may include keeping records of correspondence. <S> In a less formal project, the person charged with maintaining the repository of documents might be called the "record keeper" or "document keeper", depending on the nature of the work. <S> However in things like software development, this is normally part of the duties of the "project manager" who also does things like schedule meetings, assign tasks, maintain progress reports, and communicate with the client. <S> In any case it's not clear why you would need to have a person for this role. <S> Why not put all the documents in an online repository (e.g. Google Docs) and have them jointly maintained by everyone in the group? <S> That way they are accessible to everyone, and can't be lost in the event of a single computer failure.
| As a member of a research team, I think recorder is closest - as answered in a similar question below.
|
Abigail is amazing Slang english american? okay while I read Urban Dictionary I saw this Slang: Abigail and its description is: Abigail A Best Friend who understand everything about everyone, the most amazing person you'll ever come across, beautiful funny, talented, clever. Gets on with everyone yet chooses to have the weirdest people as best friends because deep down she is a insane crazy child! Secretly has alot of problems that she doesnt want anyone to know but ends up telling some one or another because her best friend knows her too well. She is very strong and would rather see others happy than be happy herself. Happiest when singing or acting and playing the piano. And All Round Amazing Person... I can understand this slang could I use when a girl is cool,beautiful funny,talented,etc? for example could I say some this way: my friend is funny she says some funny everyday she is abigail this way is correct? Abigail - Urban Dictionary <Q> I have only heard it used as a person's name. <S> I think that someone with a friend named Abigail created these entries in this "slang dictionary" as a way to please his friend. <S> In other words, I don't think "Abigail" is actually a slang word at all, and I would not encourage you to use the word in that way. <A> This entry that you are quoting has quite a few errors in basic English. <S> I have never heard this usage. <S> Consequently, I would not rely on this entry. <A> The urban dictionary is user edited. <S> This means that people can enter definitions for their own names, or names of friends (or enemies). <S> There is not much editorial control on Urban dictionary. <S> A lot of the definitions of names are like "John: a really cool guy". <S> or "James: a horrid person who steals from the fridge" <S> In this case, all it means is that someone called "Abigail" thinks it would be funny to edit the entry for her own name. <S> You should not use Abigail, or any other name you find on Urban dictionary.
| I have never heard the word "Abigail" used as a slang word for a best friend who understands everything.
|
Is it wrong/illogical to say ... twisted open the door?" Example sentence: I twisted open the door. Some people argue that you can't twist a door. You twist a doorknob. However, some people have used this construction. What's the real answer? Or there isn't one? <Q> I would not use that combination. <S> While technically not wrong it a very uncommon way to say this. <S> To me "twisting a door" sounds like someone used magic to turn a door into rubber and twisted that like a rubberband. <S> I would any synonym of pushing or pulling, or words like slamming/kicking if you want to denote force. <A> The rules of a language are based on what its speakers actually say. <S> That you can find a handful of examples is more or less meaningless in face of the millions of examples where the verb is pushed open or pulled open or yanked open or kicked open or flung open or burst open or threw open. <S> You twist open a jar or something with a screw-cap. <S> P.S. <S> It isn't a matter of logic but of the behavior of speakers. <A> TL;DR "twisted" is probably wrong and "wrenched" is probably right. <S> To me it depends on how strong the subject of the sentence is. <S> Given the mechanical difficulty of grabbing the edges of a door and forcefully twisting, this seems unlikely, especially when comparatively easier options like kicking a door down exist. <S> If this is the case, an effective writer should provide some more illustration around the action itself like: "The enraged troll grabbed the edges of the door and twisted with such force that the hinges were torn from the frame." <S> As other posters have said, the best word for more standard contexts would be "wrenched", which could easily be mistranslated or erroneously taken from a thesaurus. <S> In many contexts, "wrench" and "twist" are synonymous, and a "wrench" is a tool used for twisting things. <A> If you need a description of a forceful action, "Wrenched the door open" is a very valid phrase, and wrenching could be mistranslated as twisting. <S> That being the case, since doors swing on a hinge, not around a central axis, doors are therefore not generally twistable. <S> Anecdote: twisting is generally applied to a rotational movement about a central axis, usually where that axis is the longer part of the object. <S> This is not dictionary definition, by any means, but observationally about what types of objects "feel right" being described as twisted. <S> (Like a doorknob, twisting around the handle's axis) <A> If you want a door that twists open <S> I suggest you search online for the Evolution Door . <S> It is very ingenious. <S> I wouldn't say that a normal door twists. <A> To me it sounds very odd. <S> As you said, twist a doorknob is good here. <A> You don't "twist" a door, as twist implies an axis of rotation within the object or aggregate object. <S> Consider opening a jar, where the lid rotates in one direction while the jar itself does not (or rotates in the opposite direction). <S> That is a twist. <S> A door does not exhibit such a motion at any point in its opening or closing. <S> You could maybe say "twist a door on its hinges ", but that is also a somewhat unnatural construction. <A> Merriam-Webster's first definition for the verb " to open " gives the example of a door. <S> I argue that the default English verb to move a door to the open position is simply "to open". <S> Preceding the adjective "open" with another verb provides more detail to the act of opening. <S> Most of the examples given ("wrench", "push") emphasize how this act differs from normal, in direction or intensity. <S> But "twisting", as you use it, is the normal action of the door. <S> I highlight the answer of mix3d: in the English I've heard, twisting is usually along a central axis rather than along an edge (as with door hinges). <S> I also highlight the answer of Tᴚoɯɐuo: language is about usage, not logic.
| "Twisting the door open" could theoretically be an appropriate action if the subject is literally grabbing the door/doorframe and twisting so hard that the door is torn off of its hinges. In certain fantasy or sci fi contexts, this could be accurate. At best it is redundant, at worst it is confusing.
|
Verb meaning "compensate for falling behind schedule by working more" Imagine one is behind schedule and then decides to work more than usual to compensate the delay, or the difference between where he is and where must be . Do you have a word or expression or phrase equivalent with the italic part? In a hiking group, those who fall behind try and catch up with others. It looks as though catch up (with) is typically used with people, can we use it with plan, schedule, lessons etc.? <Q> catch up works fine in this case as well, but with a different preposition: on instead of with . <S> See e.g. the examples given by The Free Dictionary : <S> To do a task that one has neglected. <S> If you haven't done any biology homework in weeks, you better spend this weekend catching up on it—it's due on Tuesday! <S> I'm trying to catch up on work after being out sick, but my inbox alone might take all day! <A> " <S> Although the verb is based on the verb "to catch," which primarily has a physical sense, and although "to catch up" in the sense of pulling even after having been physically behind is a meaning in common use, "to catch up" is also commonly used in a more figurative sense. <S> "Your daughter is behind due to her having been ill and missed so many classes, but I am confident that she can catch up if she does some extra work" is a perfectly good sentence in American English. <A> ... <S> to work more than usual ... <S> We will have to work overtime to meet the deadline. <S> We will have to put in some long hours to meet the deadline. <A> Less succinct than catch up is make up for lost time . <S> From Dictionary.com : <S> Also, make up ground . <S> Hurry to compensate for wasted time, as in They married late but hoped to make up for lost time , or We're behind in the schedule, and we'll just have to make up ground as best we can . <S> The first term was first recorded in 1774; the variant dates from the late 1800s. <A> Elucubrate is a related-but-advanced word that roughly means 'produce after burning the midnight oil [to catch up]'. <S> Nobody but the most advanced literature majors will understand you though. <A> "Working double time" is a one saying I use, don't know of any exclusive verbs.
| Yes, "to catch up" means "to make up a difference.
|
What does "Fits" mean in this context? ... On the way, Harry filled Ron in on everything Sirius had told him about Karkaroff. Though shocked at first to hear that Karkaroff had been a Death Eater, by the time they entered the Owlery Ron was saying that they ought to have suspected it all along. “ Fits , doesn't it?” he said. “Remember what Malfoy said on the train, about his dad being friends with Karkaroff? Now we know where they knew each other. They were probably running around in masks together at the World Cup.… I figure " fits " here means something like: "it fits for the situation" or "that makes sense". But I don't know if my understanding is correct? Is it short for something? <Q> be compatible or in agreement with; match. <S> (from Google) <S> The question, "Fits, doesn't it?", is trying to convey the idea that what they know about Karkaroff indeed matches the situation and there is no contradiction . <A> “Fits, doesn't it?” <S> To expand this to the full sentence the word "fits" is expressing everything below that is in bold All the information we have and everybody's actions all make sense , doesn't it? <S> I hope you do jigsaws as this analogy will work a lot better if you do :) <S> Imagine the story to be a jigsaw, all the clues are jigsaw pieces, You have lots of pieces, some are together making a picture, but there are some gaps still. <S> This new piece fits nicely into one of the gaps filling in more of the picture. <S> Thanks to @AC for reminding me of this. <A> It is elliptical: <S> [It] fits <S> , doesn't it? <S> It means "to jibe, to agree". <S> For the ellipsis compare: We should paint the ceiling first and then the walls. <S> That way we won't splatter the walls with ceiling paint. <S> -- Makes sense. <S> Such ellipsis is very common in informal conversation. <S> We painted the room. <S> -- Looks good!
| "fits", in this context, indeed means "makes sense".
|
What's the meaning of "dump" in the context of "adrenaline dump"? What's the meaning of the noun " dump " in the context of " adrenaline dump "? It’s an adrenaline dump , nature’s way of preparing my body for fight or flight. And it can be very difficult to control or deal with. The primal nature of a grappling competition (after all, we are literally getting ready to try and choke someone unconscious) amplifies the bodies’ reaction. My hands are literally twitching a little bit as I type this, just visualizing the moments before a match begins. I checked dictionaries and I don't understand what meaning of the noun to choose between the ones that exist there. ( Cambridge dictionary- dump . Oxford dictionary- dump ) <Q> Both dictionaries have an entry for the verb 'to dump' which applies here: 1.2 <S> Put (something) down heavily or carelessly. <S> ‘she dumped her knapsack on the floor’ (Oxford) C2 to put down or drop something in a careless way: <S> He came in with four shopping bags and dumped them on the table. <S> (Cambridge) <S> Your brain instructs the adrenal glands to release a rather large amount of adrenaline to your body (greatly increasing the level) and doesn't care how the body reacts to it. <A> To add on to Glorfindel's answer: "Dump" has an underlying meaning to release, store, or discard a large quantity of something related to these definitions from Merriam-Webster 3 : to sell in quantity at a very low price, specifically : to sell abroad at less than the market price at home 4 : to copy (data in a computer's internal storage) to an external storage or output device <S> Definition 3 describes the action of releasing a large quantity of a product into a particular market at a drastically reduced price. <S> This forces the competition to also lower their prices, possibly below the point where they can sustain their business. <S> Through this practice an unscrupulous manufacturer might take a short-term business loss in order to capture a monopoly on a particular market. <S> It's called "dumping" because the products are sold in large quantities, (since small amounts would have no effect). <S> Definition 4 describes the storage of a relatively large amount of "raw" data related to some computer process. <S> Because raw data is not filtered in any way before the "dump", it needs to be parsed afterward to find anything relevant. <S> For example, Facebook might to a "dump" of the logs of all user activity over a certain period of time, which can then be separately analyzed to find particular patterns or locate one significant record. <S> In a similar way, an "adrenal dump" means that the gland releases a significant quantity of the hormone in response to a particular stimulus. <A> I find both dictionaries' noun definitions needlessly restrictive, but perhaps this reflects a difference in U.S. versus U.K. usage. <S> To look at a couple of American dictionaries, AHD provides the definition An unordered accumulation; a pile. <S> and MW says an accumulation of refuse and discarded materials <S> In short, a dump is any release of something en masse. <S> A database dump, for instance, is a download of the entire contents of a database, rather than a curated query that chooses specific rows and columns. <S> This connotation is perhaps reinforced by the stateside usage of terms like dump truck , which apparently is known as a tipper elsewhere. <S> This is the origin of computing terms like core <S> dump and database dump , which are requests for the entire contents of something rather than a curated query for specific data, and of the concept of dumping in international trade, where a market is flooded with imported goods to damage domestic suppliers.
| The use of "dump" implies that the release is somewhat unregulated in quantity -- that the gland simply releases as much as it can.
|
May not only take.... but also it MAY In this inversion sentence, do I have to use "may" in the relative clause again?(Assuming you are not sure, that's why you are including "may" in your sentence) "Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives. Or Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but it also endanger the victims' lives. Which should I use? <Q> Grammatically speaking, @anze-k is correct. <S> For factual correctness, however, you need 'may' in the second instance <S> but I'm not so sure you need it in the first. <S> In your second example (which would need correcting to '... <S> also endanger s <S> the ...') <S> , you are saying that robbery definitely endangers victims' lives. <S> This is not the case; robbery (for instance an unarmed robbery) is not definitely life-endangering. <S> However, robbery definitely does take possessions - otherwise it's only attempted robbery. <S> You may want to reconsider using 'may' in that first part. <S> Also, the unlawful force doesn't need an indefinite article. <S> Given the above, I'd consider rewriting the sentence to: Robbery not only takes international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives. <A> 2nd may and it are redundant (we already know the subject). <S> Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but also endanger the victims' lives. <A> You have to independently determine if the "may" is necessary in each part of the sentence. <S> As you know, "may" implies that an event is not certain , so only you can say (based on the context) if both events are uncertain. <S> For example: Due to the morning fog we may not see the sunrise, but we will see the sunset. <S> Due to the evening fog we will see the sunrise, but we may not see the sunset. <S> Due to the fog we may not see the sunrise, and we may not see the sunset. <S> Because of the ambiguity it's not always correct to omit a repeating "may", unless the meaning is obvious: <S> Due to the fog we may not see the sunrise, or the sunset. <S> If brevity is your goal, you can, however, omit "it" from the second part, as the subject is the same, and also use "their" instead of "the victims'". <S> Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but may also endanger their lives. <S> As others have said, "may" is not really necessary in the first part, because it is a statement of fact, not conjecture. <S> Using "may" only in the second part implies it is less likely than the first part: <S> Robbery takes international students' possessions by an unlawful force, and may also endanger their lives. <S> Of course, this makes the tone somewhat more ominous. <S> It all depends on what you wish to say. <A> I don't see anything that resembles a relative clause in your examples. <S> Neither do I see any inversion. <S> Your first example contains two complete independent clauses, each with an explicit subject and finite verb: Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but <S> it may also endanger the victims' lives. <S> Here, "robbery" is the subject of the first "may", and "it" is the subject of the second. <S> You don't need the second "may", but <S> without it the "it" has no role to play: Robbery <S> may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force but also endanger the victims' lives. <S> In this version, the only subject/verb pairing is robbery/may . <S> This is one clause with one subject and one finite verb. <S> There are also two bare infinitive verb phrases: "take international students' possessions by an unlawful force" and "endanger the victims' lives". <S> The two bare infinite phrases act as coordinate arguments of the finite verb, effectively creating two verb constructions: "may take" and "may endanger". <S> Another option is to have two complete coordinate predicates: Robbery <S> may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but may also endanger the victims' lives. <S> In this structure we repeat the "may" but we do not provide the second finite verb with its own subject. <S> Instead, the coordinate pair takes "robbery" as the only subject it needs. <S> Your choice among these three grammatically sound options is a question of style, emphasis and intent. <A> There is no rule that says you have to repeat the modal may. <S> As a general, repeatable proposition therefore: <S> You may like this fact or you <S> may not . <S> [repetition] You may like this fact or [may] dislike it. <S> [no repetition, but repetition is implied ] <S> However: two independent clauses joined by a conjunction may call for separate verbs depending on what you want to say. <S> 1) "Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives."OK <S> 2) "Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by unlawful force, but it also endangers the victims' lives. <A> You can have "Robbery may not only" apply to both "take international students' possessions by an unlawful force" and "also endanger the victims' lives", but you can't drop <S> just the "may" in the middle. <S> Also, you can't really drop the "not only" in the middle, either. <S> If you want to separate out the two things it may do, you should move the "not only" to the front. <S> So either Robbery not only may take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but it may also endanger the victims' lives. <S> or Robbery may not only take international students' possessions by an unlawful force, but also endanger the victims' lives. <S> Note that the first has more of a sense of independence of the two possibilities than the second does. <S> That is, if you want to say that one could happen independently of whether the other happens, the first would be better for emphasizing that, while if you want to emphasize the possibility of them happening together, the second one is better for that.
| In your example, if you want to emphasize that both are possible events, and not certain , there's nothing wrong with repeating "may".
|
Can "project is lead by" be ever correct? Knowing that Lead-led-led, I find this sentence wrong (from a book available on Google books): The project is lead by an alliance of three partners, comprising the GI, the FIZ Karlsruhe (a provider of scientific online information services) and Springer- Verlag.. Shouldn't there be "led by"? <Q> No, it's not correct. " <S> led by" is always right in this case. <S> "Led" is the past tense of "lead". <A> When you're hit over the head, the instrument could be a “lead” ( Plumbum ) pipe. <S> But when it's a verb, “lead” is the present and “led” <S> is the past tense. <S> The problem is that the past tense is pronounced in exactly the same way as the above-mentioned metal, so people confuse the two. <S> I think this is a typographic error and someone not checking. <S> The project was lead by an alliance of three partners, comprising the GI, the FIZ Karlsruhe (a provider of scientific online information services) and Springer- <S> Verlag.. <S> [Past tense] <S> or The project is led by an alliance of three partners, comprising the GI, the FIZ Karlsruhe (a provider of scientific online information services) and Springer- Verlag.. <S> [Present tense] Would be correct. <A> However, some people may mistakenly use "Lead" as a participle and past tense in casual writing ( e.g. , texting) <S> because "led" (the past tense and perfect participle of the verb "lead") is a homophone of the noun "lead. <S> " How common is the mistake of writing "lead" instead of "led" is impossible to say, but avoid it if you want to be thought skilled in English.
| Most definitely "led by" is grammatically correct and would always be used in speech and should always be used in writing.
|
What does "her squashed-tomato of a nose" mean in this context? At this, Winky howled even harder, her squashed-tomato of a nose dribbling all down her front, though she made no effort to stem the flow. I think " her squashed-tomato of a nose " might refer to Winky's snot, that is, her snot is something like "squashed-tomato". Is my understanding correct? From Harry Potter - the Goblet of Fire -- Chapter 21 <Q> Winky is a house-elf. <S> They have, from the human point of view, strange and rather ugly faces. <S> In particular, Winky's nose looks something like a squashed tomato. <S> This is a known piece of imagery. <S> There is a children's song <S> My teacher's got a bunion <S> A face like a pickled onion, A nose like a squashed tomato <S> And legs like matchsticks. <A> Thus <S> At this, Winky howled even harder, her [ nose (resembling a squashed tomato) ] dribbling all down her front, though she made no effort to stem the flow. <S> " <S> His/her something of a something" is a phrase commonly used to compare a face feature with some object. <S> Examples from Google Books found using "his * of a nose/eye/ear": <S> His black dot of a nose rested between his paws. <S> If they knew that his one grave slit of an eye had seen gold in rice grains and furtive wealth in human lives, they were not prepared to abuse his memory, because Lung had stolen from them without vulgar ceremony <S> Mad Jack stroked his chin, began fidgeting with the ring in his gnarled lump of an ear . <A> Winky may have rhinophyma, a skin condition which causes the nose to become red and enlarged (sometimes also appearing flattened, if it enlarges more side-to-side). <S> Historically people thought that alcoholism caused rhinophyma so the imagery of her having a large, red nose reinforces her alcoholism. <S> Also, her nose dripping is similar to a faucet dripping, the actual nose or faucet doesn't move but liquid comes out of it.
| The meaning is Her nose, which was looking like a squashed tomato
|
I wish I ate meat I heard this in a Hollywood movie called "How to lose a guy in 10 days". A boy cooked his girlfriend meat and served her but she said I wish I ate meat . Can we also say this like? Would both sentences convey the same meaning? I wish I could eat meat. <Q> Not quite. <S> I wish I ate meat <S> indicates that, for whatever reason, she does not eat meat. <S> Technically, this could be by choice, it could be for medical reasons, etc. <S> I wish I could eat meat <S> indicates that she is prevented from eating meat, whether she chooses to or not. <S> Possibly her religion forbids it, or she has a health problem that prevents it, either way <S> there is some external factor or force that prevents her from eating meat. <S> Most likely from the context, she is vegetarian by choice, as this is a common phrase when someone is abstaining. <S> Another example would be "I don't drink" to indicate abstaining from alcohol. <S> Technically, the first phrase doesn't indicate the reason she does not eat meat; it simply states that she doesn't. <S> The second phrase indicates both that she does not eat meat, but also indicates that there's a factor or force preventing it. <S> Without that indication, the assumption is that it is by choice. <A> To add on to Werrf's correct answer: <S> This subtle nuance is reflected in many English sentences. <S> For example, suppose you are at a party and offer someone a glass of wine. <S> They respond: <S> I don't drink (alcohol). <S> The simple present refers to things that are general, natural, or habitual, so <S> this expression means the person doesn't drink as a habit . <S> We generally assume this is due to personal or religious reasons, rather than medical reasons, but we'd have to ask to know for sure. <S> In addition, it's natural to assume this is a relatively long-term habit, rather than something recently adopted. <S> The following conversation would be odd, and possibly funny: <S> A: <S> Hi, would you like a glass of wine? <S> B: <S> Sorry, I don't drink. <S> A: I understand. <S> When did you stop drinking? <S> B: Yesterday . <S> Compare this with: <S> I can't drink (alcohol) <S> This reflects a general inability rather than a habitual practice , and also indicates a contrast with the person's desire -- they would really like to drink, but for some reason they're not allowed. <S> Otherwise, if they didn't want to drink, they would say it the other way, "I don't drink". <S> In addition, it's likely to be a short-term rather than a long-term inability, but (depending on the context) it may be impolite to assume. <S> A: <S> Hey, we're all going out after work to get a beer. <S> Want to come? <S> B: <S> Sorry, I can't drink. <S> A: <S> Well, perhaps tomorrow then? <S> B: <S> No, <S> I mean I can't ever . <S> I'm allergic. <S> A: <S> Er ... sorry about that. <S> You can come with us and order something else, if you want? <A> This scenario may tell a lot about the sentence in question. <S> Considering it's about a man cooking for his girlfriend <S> and she says "I wish I ate meat" after being presented with the meal <S> , I would assume she is saying "I wish I ate meat" in the context that she thinks the meal looks good but sadly she does not eat meat so <S> cannot partake in that portion of the meal. <S> I am guessing there would be some emotion expressed on the person's face and some inflection in their voice to convey this underlying meaning. <S> If you could say what movie I could be more specific about it. <S> "I wish I ate meat". <S> would convey a choice not to eat meat. <S> Like a vegan. <S> "I wish I could eat meat". <S> would mean more like they cannot for whatever reason eat the meat. <S> Some religions prevent people from eating meat and that would fit here well. <S> Maybe the choice of the parents restricting her from eating meat. <S> Possible other reason. <S> In both sentences in this scenario I believe both would convey a desire to want to eat the meat but sadly they cannot. <S> Meant as a complement to the cook. <S> Update: <S> In response to your updated question and comment below here is what I have to say about this sentence. <S> @JoelVermish <S> I have not watched that movie <S> but I have seen the trailers for it. <S> That is what we would call a Romantic Comedy AKA "Chick Flick" <S> so I am sure there is a lot of emotion in that movie. <S> That said, I believe it was also meant to be comedic as it is about a women trying to get rid of a guy in 10 days (I think for a book) <S> but instead she falls in love with the person over time. <S> In that case she may also be saying "I wish I eat meat" sarcastically in an attempt to off put the man so he becomes disinterested in her as part of her ploy to get rid of him in 10 days.
| If my assumption about the emotion of the scenario is correct then both sentences would mean roughly the same thing.
|
What's this kind of chicken products package called? What's this kind of chicken products package called? In my language it's simply called " package " (this is the translation), but I'm asking about this specific kind. Someone told me maybe it is called " tray ". Is it what you call it as native English speakers? <Q> If you wanted to get more technical, you might say that it was a shrink-wrapped package . <A> In response to your question what would you tell your friends who you sends to the supermarket to buy some chicken: <S> Most likely I would ask them to get a "package" or several "packages" of (uncooked) chicken. <S> The challenge is that each supermarket might package its chicken in a different way. <S> Some use trays like the one in your picture. <S> Some will sell similar items in bags . <S> Of course, you can also buy whole chickens in various ways. <S> "Package" works because it covers most of the options. <S> It doesn't matter how the chicken is packaged , as long as you bring back one (or more) of those packages . <S> That being said, you'll probably have to explicitly say what part of the chicken you want, and whether you want it with or without bones: <S> Could you pick up a couple of packages of boneless chicken thighs ? <S> Could you pick up a couple of packages of drumsticks and wings ? <S> Could you pick up a whole chicken , but cut into pieces? <S> and also whether you want it raw or cooked -- many supermarkets offer whole cooked chickens for relatively low cost, and your friends might be confused. <S> Could you pick us up <S> a cooked (rotisserie) chicken for dinner? <S> In any case, chicken is normally sold by weight <S> so it's more common to tell someone how much <S> you need, rather than focus on the packaging. <A> The phrase foam tray is generic and encompasses a wide range of applications, not just the tray on which meat and poultry are placed in the refrigerated bins and on the refrigerated shelves of the supermarket. <A> I asked a friend who works in the chicken processing industry (in Pennsylvania, but he ships around the whole USA), and he said that they would call it a tray pack , but most customers would simply say either tray or package .
| Pack or package would be perfectly acceptable.
|
What's the meaning of "joint" here? You have the Diners Club, you sign for it. You go first class in those joints , I know that, yeah." What's the meaning of "joint" here? I checked the O.D. didn't find anything useful... <Q> It's slang from the 30's or 40's. <S> Bars were called gin joints , and the famous quote from Casablanca is Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine. <A> In casual English, joint means something like a place where a bunch of friends meet. <S> It usually includes places like food restaurants, diners and things like that. <S> The reason it's called a joint is because what it does is it literally joins people together when they meet. <S> That's one common interpretation of the idea behind its meaning. <S> In your quote, it probably just means a place . <A> The colloquial term <S> The sleazy bars where down-on-their-luck "private eyes" <S> (detectives for hire) drink in the movies from the 1940s and 1950s are "joints". <S> A greasy-spoon restaurant is a joint. <S> A Michelin 3-star restaurant is not a joint, except when the speaker is being ironic or comical, or when the speaker uses the term "joint" indiscriminately to mean "place" (as not all speakers do). <S> For example, if you say We usually order take-out from a pizza joint a few blocks away. <S> the meaning most native speakers of American English would glean from that statement <S> is that the atmosphere of the pizza place is not very inviting for a sit-down meal there. <S> It might be noisy. <S> The door might open frequently as take-out customers come in and out. <S> The formica tables might be wobbly and they might not be wiped off very well between customers. <S> You might find napkins on the floor. <S> It is not a quaint little neighborhood restaurant with red and white checkered tablecloths that has been run with pride as a family business for 50 years.
| In your example joint means a " place ", like a restaurant or a bar or just some location indoors where you can spend some time. joint is somewhat deprecatory.
|
Should + present infinitive or may + present infinitive? In case of expressing possibilities Tom should know the address. Tom may know the address. In case of expressing possibilities can should and may be interchangeably used?or Is there any striking difference between them? <Q> Tom should know the address. <S> When used to refer to possibility, this statement means there's a good or decent chance that Tom knows the address. <S> There is good reason to think he does know it. <S> Tom may know the address. <S> This statement is neutral. <S> There is a chance that Tom knows the address. <A> "Tom should know the address" expresses, in a polite way, the obligation that Tom has to know the address. <S> However, it is worth mentioning that in spoken English, this is also used to express possibilities. <S> The speaker guesses that Tom knows the address when they use "Tom must know the address". <S> thanks and enjoy learning,Travis <A> In speech, the meaning of should can change depending on where emphasis is placed. <S> With emphasis on 'should', doubt or uncertainty is being expressed: Tom should know the address. <S> Tom probably knows the address, I'm not sure. <S> With emphasis on the verb after 'should', impatience or surprise is being expressed: Tom should know the address. <S> Why is he asking what the address is? <S> I've told him a hundred times! <S> "May" does not carry any such implications, although if said in a doubtful tone, can express uncertainty.
| "Tom may know the address" expresses the possibility of Tom's knowledge of the address.
|
How many titles did Dumbledore hold? ( Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc. , Chf. Warlock, Supreme Mugwump, >International Confed. of Wizards) Is "Order of Merlin, First Class" and "Grand Sorc." one title or two? <Q> Order of Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorc., Chf. <S> Warlock, Supreme Mugwump In English, medals are sometimes given more than one designation: <S> Order of Merlin, First Class [similar to the British usage of a First Class honours' degree] Grand Sorcerer Chief Warlock Mugwump Supreme. <S> My analysis is based on what the OP posted. <S> There are, therefore, four titles. <A> "Order of Merlin, First Class" is likely one single title, because "First Class" usually modifies a title or classification and is not very reasonable on its own. <S> "Grand Sorcerer" is likely a title by itself, but there is nothing intrinsic in the punctuation, grammar, etc. <S> that makes this distinction explicit. <S> However, it fits with the other items that follow, and it seems unlikely that they are all specifiers of "Order of Merlin" like "First Class". <S> "International Confederation of Wizards" is the group of which Dumbledore holds the title "Supreme Mugwump", because it would not be a title on its own. <S> The most reasonable interpretation of the titles would be: Order of Merlin, First Class Grand Sorcerer Chief Warlock Supreme Mugwump, International Confederation of Wizards <S> The list would be more clear if semicolons had been used to separate the titles, which is common with the items of a list contain commas themselves. <S> For example: (Order of Merlin, First Class; Grand Sorc.; Chf. <S> Warlock; Supreme Mugwump, International Confed. <S> of Wizards) <S> For future in-universe questions, it would be better to ask on Science Fiction and Fantasy (i.e. Is "Grand Sorcerer" a title distinct from "Order of Merlin, First Class" in Harry Potter?) <A> It is a single one.
| First Class is an adjective that shows this is the best possible rank one can have in the Order of Merlin and Grand Sorcerer is the actual rank.
|
Difference between 'humid' and 'muggy' Could you let me know the difference between these two adjectives? In my book they seem to be slightly different(by it's not clearly explained) while on the internet most people say that they've the same meaning, just 'muggy' is more colloquial. Could you enlighten me? <Q> muggy is an informal term that refers to the discomfort of humidity. <S> Synonyms would be stifling, airless, oppressive, sticky, clammy. <S> For example, the air in the Pacific Northwest is quite humid, but people who live there do not feel it to be muggy . <A> In science, humidity is the amount of water vapour present in air. <S> When talking about the the way the air feels, "humid" means "wet", and sometimes , in casual usage, warm as well. <S> Muggy (about the air) <S> always means "wet and warm". <S> Humid Muggy <A> According to this website: <S> As adjectives the difference between humid and muggy. <S> is that humid is containing sensible moisture (usually describing air or atmosphere); damp; moist; somewhat wet or watery; as, humid earth; consisting of water or vapor while muggy is humid, or hot and humid. <A> "Muggy" has a connotation of hot, still air, while "humid" doesn't. <S> For example, if the humidity is high but there's a strong breeze, it's humid, but you wouldn't call it muggy. <S> Or for a better example, sometimes in the fall, the air is really still and saturated, and it's too cool to go out in short sleeves, but with a jacket or heavy shirt, you feel sticky and gross because the air is so moist that it's like having a film of water all over you. <S> That's humid, but it isn't muggy.
| humid is, or at least can be, a neutral term that refers to moisture in the air.
|
What's this piece of metal in front of offices doors called? Many offices building as well as governmental offices and building have a piece of metal or PVC (usually golden or silvery but can be in any color) and it has the information about the working hours or other information such as the owner of the office the physician of this clinic etc. It's usually located near the door outside the buildings, for people to see the information about them. How should I refer to it? What is this piece of metal called? Based on my dictionary it's called sign or placard , but based on looking at google photos it looks like a mistake in translation. <Q> A small sign (like on a door) is a "name plate. <S> " <S> A big sign with name of a business or institution on it is just a sign. <S> Most people would just pluralize that as "signs", but a collection of signs might be called "signage" by someone whose job it is to install or design signs. <S> If you want to get Google image results, try "outdoor sign", but no one would be that explicit in conversation. <S> There are more esoteric terms like "shingle" (which even most native speakers will only know from the idiom "hang out your shingle"). <S> There are lots of words for what goes on a sign (logo, emblem, hallmark, etc), but the object is still a sign. <A> They can also be called a company name plaque . <S> But there is no more specific term in general use. <S> If you needed one, you'd call a sign-making company and say "I need a fancy sign with our company name to hang on the exterior wall outside the main entrance." <A> I think the nameplate outside an office or business is called, or used to be called, a "shingle". <S> According to yourdictionary.com , definiton #3 for "shingle" is "a small signboard, esp. <S> that which a physician or lawyer hangs outside his or her office. <S> " They say the word is "informal", but I personally think it is more like "archaic". <S> But I think the shingle doesn't typically include business hours on it. <S> That would be a different sign on the front of the shop, and I don't know the name of that one, or whether it even has a name.
| If you wear it on your body it's a "badge". When you start out in a new business, it is referred to as "hanging out a shingle."
|
can 'police cop' be used together in a sentence? I need a little clarification in here about the usage of Police cop. Is using a ' Police cop ' to define the police personnel grammatically wrong in written English. <Q> like e.g. "navy sailor" or "air force airman" and would not be used by native speakers. <S> However it is not grammatically wrong, just as 'police car' or 'police building' are not 'grammatically' wrong. <S> One way that "police cop" would not be redundant would be if it referred to a specialised police officer whose job was to detect wrongdoing by other police officers. <S> In English usage, redundancy is usually defined as the use of two or more words that say the same thing, but we also use the term to refer to any expression in which a modifier’s meaning is contained in the word it modifies. <S> Redundancies <A> "Police cop" is incorrect. <S> List of alternatives: "The police" is alright. <S> " <S> The Police" is a good rock band. <S> "policeman" "police officer" "cop". <S> Informal usage. <A> It would be very rare that it is right to use this. <S> An example: There is "military police" which handles police situations in the army. <S> You might ask "is this man with the military police" and someone could then answer "no <S> , he is a police cop" to make very clear that he is with the "ordinary" police. <S> In most cases "police cop" will be <S> very redundant and native speakers wouldn't use the term.
| 'Police cop' used as a noun to denote a police officer would be an example of 'redundancy' (saying or writing the same thing twice - a 'cop' is a police officer, so 'a police cop' means 'a police police officer')
|
what does mean "it there"? In the following sentence, it seems it should end up with "like it" or "like there". Why the both of "it" and "there" have come together? I have been to Washington several times, and I like it there . <Q> In the sentence, it does not refer to Washington. <S> So, you shouldn't be interpreting the sentence in this way: <S> ✘ I've been to Washington several times, and I like (Washington) there. <S> Instead, it is a dummy pronoun. <S> From Wikipedia : A dummy pronoun, also called an expletive pronoun or pleonastic pronoun, is a pronoun used to fulfill the syntactical requirements without providing explicit meaning. <S> In the sentence, it does have some meaning, but it's not exactly defined. <S> For a native speaker, the meaning of the sentence is generally the same as: <S> ✔ <S> I've been to Washington several times, and I like (something that exists) there. <S> A conversation could go something like this: <S> "I've been to Washington, and I like it there. <S> " <S> " <S> Oh, really? <S> What's there <S> that you like ?" <S> The use <S> if it is non-specific. <S> It refers to something , but the sentence doesn't clarify what it is. <S> However, it does say that it exists there in Washington. <S> There is also a contrast between here and there (and anywhere else): <S> I hate (the weather) <S> here in Antarctica, <S> but I like (it) <S> there in Washington. <S> The use of (it) has changed from a dummy pronoun to a referential pronoun because the first part of the sentence has actually made it clear what <S> (it) is that's being referenced. <S> But the important part is the contrast between here and there . <S> Compare this with the sentence in which there has been omitted: I've been to Washington several times, and I like it. <S> In this sentence, no dummy pronoun is used. <S> It is a referential pronoun that refers to Washington. <S> Although awkward, the sentence could be rephrased in the following way: I've been to Washington several times, and I like Washington. <S> A similar conversation could be constructed around this: <S> "I've been to Washington, and I like it ." <S> " <S> Oh, really? <S> What do you like about Washington ?" <S> Note the specific difference between this conversation and the earlier one. <S> Whereas <S> it in the first conversation refers to something completely undefined (aside from its existence in Washington), <A> There are, I think, two ways to look at this: <S> There is a concept or idea , <S> something like [x] makes me happy or <S> I am content with [x] , which started off being spelled / <S> pronounced <S> I like [it] , and then got moved into a (grammatically) different situation where "I like it <S> " is really " <S> I am happy", so if you read it simply as though it says …and I am happy there <S> you'll see the it as vestigial (like an appendix) and not really part of the meaning. <S> The it can be like the it in <S> it is raining , i.e. a sort of global, catch-all reference to the milieu of the speaker, i.e. I moved to [place] and <S> conditions there are great for me . <S> Personally I suspect both are true. <A> Following is your answer which I found on web." <S> The use of the pronoun 'it' is called an 'empty' object/subject. <S> We use it as a meaningless subject with expressions that refer to time, weather, temperature, distances, or just the current situation. <S> In the sentence "I like it here", 'it' refers to the situation or the conditions. <S> For example:It's ten o'clock. <S> It's Monday again." <A> This is the same "it" of "It's raining."; and "It's hot today". <S> You could probably say, "I have been to W., and I like it.", "it" being Washington. <S> But "... I like it there. <S> " sounds a little more common to me, and "it", in this case, isn't Washington itself in a concrete sense. <S> I'm pretty sure it's the "it" that describes the environment/ambience/existence in general.
| it in this conversation refers to something about Washington itself .
|
What does "she swore" mean in this sentence and why? I could not find an appropriate meaning of "swear" to explain in the sentence, as it does not make sense in the context . In the dictionary "swear" means: If someone swears, they use language that is considered to be vulgar or offensive, usually because they are angry. If you swear to do something, you promise in a serious way that you will do it If you say that you swear that something is true or that you can swear to it But the context is: "She" is the grandma of Thomas and she practically raised him up ; she missed him so so much that she had been distracted for days since he moved out with his mother, Treena, who went back to university to study. This is the first time Thomas and Treena came back home since they moved out. Therefore, I could not understand why "she swore". Shouldn't she be happy? What does it mean why did she swear? Here is the sentence: On the third Saturday of May, Treena and Thomas came home. My mother was out of the door and up the garden path before they had made it halfway down the street. Thomas, she swore , clutching him to her, had grown several inches in the time they had been away. He had changed, was so grown-up, looked so much the little man. Me Before You by Jojo Moyes could anyone help please? <Q> From Cambridge Dictionary , swear also means: to promise or say firmly that you are telling the truth <S> In this context, she (the grandma) swore that Thomas had grown several inches <S> since she last saw her, i.e., she was sure about it. <A> The sentence is written as indirect speech, which means that it’s a paraphrase of what the grandma said to the narrator. <S> If it was direct speech it might look like this (although I can’t be sure if the tense/pronoun changes are true to the story without further context): <S> “Thomas,” she swore, clutching him to her, “has grown several inches in the time we were away.” <S> “Swore” here means to affirm <S> something is true, which corresponds to the first definition you quoted. <A> This is a fairly common usage in the southern US. <S> You might hear this in a phrase like 'He was so tall I swore he was over seven feet high.'
| In context, it means she was emphatically certain (as you would be if you were to swear to something being true).
|
only too good to be true? Many dictionaries define "only too" as "very." If so, what does "only too" mean in the following? "That was only too good to be true" Does it mean "that was very good to be true"? Or "that could not be true at all"?What is the meaning of "only" here?I'd appreciate your help. <Q> The use of only too is generally a way of reinforcing too . <S> It is far more often used in front of true than of good . <S> People also use so <S> so in the same sense to emphasise a point. <S> They are so so good to us <S> That is so so true of his attitude <S> The more popular expression is only too true , a way of expressing strong agreement with a statement that somebody has made. <S> Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that its use rose in popularity in the second half of the 19th century and declined towards the end of the 20th. <S> In your example <S> too good to be true means that something (generally an offer or a description of a desirable product) is not credible. <S> Hyped up is another way of putting it. <S> Only too good to be true would simply be emphasising the dubious nature of whatever was concerned. <A> The sentence means that it is so good that you can not believe that such situations were possible or can continue. <A> Yes. <S> It means that it could not be true at all. <S> An impossibility. <A> There is nothing wrong with many constructions of only too : <S> ✔ <S> I'm only too happy to help you. <S> ✔ <S> They knew only too well that the bell meant playtime was over. <S> There is also nothing wrong with other words used in front of too good to be true : <S> ✔ <S> That was just too good to be true . <S> ✔ <S> That was simply too good to be true . <S> Both of these sound fine. <S> The first arguably means something that has just crossed the line from believable to unbelievable. <S> Although, in normal usage, it is actually just putting emphasis on something that is too good to be true. <S> But this sounds wrong to me: ? <S> That was only too good to be true . <S> I don't see see how only can be used in this construction and make sense. <S> To me, it has the same meaning as: <S> ✘ <S> That was solely too good to be true . <S> While this is technically grammatical, solely too good (as with only too good ) is somewhat nonsensical—not least of all because it's not used idiomatically. <S> Possibly, you could interpret it as: <S> ✔ <S> On its own, that was too good to be true. <S> Or: <S> ✔ <S> Barring other considerations, that was too good to be true. <S> However, that would mean that you are reinterpreting the syntactic use of only , and changing it from an adverb (that modifies too ) into an implied introductory clause. <S> You'd be replacing what's actually written with something that isn't written at all.
| Too good to be true means that which is very hard to happen, exist or believe.
|
Proper tense in "I've tested the program with this input data and it works" Let's consider the conversation: This program doesn't work with this input data. I've tested the program with this input data and it does work. Is it right to use the present perfect here? Or does the simple past sound more natural? I tested the program with this input data and it does work. I suppose both variants are correct, right? But which one is more natural? <Q> If you had recently tested the program, you would be more likely to say I have tested.... <S> If your statement related back to a test that you had carried out in the past (whether last month, last year or whatever) you are more likely to say I tested.... <S> With the use of the past tense, one frequently gives the approximate date. <S> I tested the programme last week/month/year <S> and it does work. <A> I wouldn't find either statement obviously wrong, or expect a native speaker not to say one of them, but they seem subtly different. <S> To me, saying: I've tested the program with this input data and it does work. <S> emphasises that the program is, right now, in a tested state. <S> Whereas: <S> emphasizes a past event - you testing it. <S> For that reason I'd prefer the first if you wanted to keep the 'and it does work', and simply <S> 'I tested the program with this input data' (or 'I tested the program with this input data and it worked', or 'I tested the program with this input data this morning and it worked') if you were not sure that it still worked now. <S> I speak British English - US English <S> seems to use the present perfect tense less often, so you may get different judgements from Americans. <A> Both are right but to me, this is more natural: <S> I have tested the program with this input data and it works. <A> The perfect aspect is used to indicate the state relative to some other time; in the case of present perfect, that time is now. <S> So "I have tested" implies that while the testing was done in the past, it remains relevant, allowing one to follow with "it works" in the present tense: the act of testing was completed, and remains completed. <S> Using the simple past put the action purely in the past, and doesn't imply anything about the current state; the simple past doesn't have the same connotation of it being completed as the present perfect does. <S> So following it with the present tense is off; it should be " <S> I tested it and it worked". <A> This is a computer-programmer's opinion, rather than a linguists answer , but I would only ever use <S> I tested the program with this input data and it worked . <S> (Emphasis added for clarity.)
| While both tenses are idiomatic and correct, the choice between present perfect and past generally depends on the context. I tested the program with this input data and it does work.
|
"Define what is a" or "define a"? For example, should I say "We must define a dice game" or "we must define what is a dice game"? I am concerned that the first one might be correct, but has a different meaning: define a dice game in particular, not the general concept of dice game. <Q> (We must define) (a dice game) <S> (We must define) <S> (what is a game of dice) <S> "a" dice game, from example 1. could be any dice game. <S> It implies that it is already understood what dice games are in general, and a specific dice game is to be defined. <S> The second example explicitly states that the concept of dice games is to be defined. <S> However, the inference of the first sentence is only implicit. <S> Therefore it would not be incorrect to have a different interpretation of the sentence. <S> There can be no other interpretation of the second example though. <A> We must define what is a dice game. <S> This would be understood as: Of all the games that exist, there are some that can be categorized as being a "dice game. <S> " We must establish a rule that distinguishes any given game as either belonging to this category or not. <S> We must define a dice game <S> This would be understood as: <S> We are going to invent a dice game and describe its rules. <S> OR <S> it could be the same as the first understanding, depending on context or how it is said. <A> I agree with you that "we must define what is ... " doesn't sound right. <S> If you want to define the general concept of "dice game", I think you could just say: We must define "dice game". <S> [no article, and put the phrase in quotes] <S> People who know English well would expect you to say " a dice game" if you were talking about a set of rules for a specific game. <A> About your first wording: We must define a dice game. <S> I would reword that as follows: <S> We must define "dice game." <S> You could also use italics: <S> We must define dice game . <S> When you use an indefinite article (as you did initially), that makes it sounds like you want to write the rules of a new dice game. <S> About your second wording: We must define what is a dice game. <S> I would reorder that sentence: <S> I like that wording better than your original, although it seems rather informal (or conversational). <S> I probably wouldn't use that wording in a technical paper. <S> Other ways we could word <S> this might include: <S> We must say what constitutes a "dice game". <S> We must provide a formal definition for dice game . <S> If the definition is rather short (no more than a single sentence), you could also use a colon, preceded by something like: <S> Here is our definition for dice game : <S> My definition for dice game is: <S> We define "dice game" as:
| We must define what a dice game is.
|
Synonyms to "running joke" Is there a synonym to the phrase "running joke" in any context? I feel like I've heard something like onrunning and I'm not sure if there isn't a connotation of an inside joke , that could serve as a synonym. <Q> The difference between a joke and a running joke is that running jokes occur over a span of time – sometimes for days or weeks, sometimes for months or years. <S> They aren't simply told once and everyone moves on. <S> In fact, people often find them funny largely because they remember the last time people referred to the joke. <S> The difference between a joke and an inside joke is that inside jokes are only funny to people who have certain background information that allows them to understand (and therefore be amused by) the joke. <S> The two are not the same thing, but there can be overlap, in that an inside joke can also become a running joke when it recurs over a long span of time. <S> For example, let's say we had an aunt named Henrietta who liked to take care of stray cats. <S> It started with one cat in 2002, then she found two more two years later, and five years after that she took in a fourth kitten. <S> We may adore and respect Henrietta, but, because she has taken in four cats, perhaps we still like to joke around and call her a "crazy cat lady. <S> " <S> Maybe, every year during the holidays, we ask, "Is the crazy cat lady coming over, too?" <S> Maybe three first three cats have all died and she only has one cat now, but we still call her the "crazy cat lady" because that's the running joke. <S> This could be considered a running joke because we've been calling her the crazy cat lady for several years now. <S> But it might also be considered an inside joke if not many people outside of her immediate family knows about her love for cats. <S> If I went into her workplace, for example, and asked, "Is the crazy cat lady here? <S> " I might get a puzzled look from the receptionist because Henrietta's coworkers are not aware of the longstanding running joke in the family. <A> When a person is a running joke , they've come to be regarded as a fool. <S> Nearly everything they do reinforces this view of them. <S> It's one idiocy after another. <S> Hence "running", as a TV series can be "running" -- episode after episode being aired. <S> When a situation is a running joke, the people who have created it and are perpetuating it are seen as fools. <S> They are not "ha-ha" funny but objects of ongoing ridicule. <S> An inside joke is one that only a small group of people would understand because it has special private meaning. <A> An inside joke is one that is understood only by people "in the know", but may not recur. <S> You may be thinking of An on-going joke which is a piece of recited humour that continues across an entire story line. <S> Whereas <S> an ongoing gag is more a vignette than a recited joke.
| A running joke is a thematic piece of recited humour which continuously recurs over time.
|
*Flung* is Intransitive or Transitive? The impact was such that the canine flung into the air and fell into a drain five meters away. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/noida/bike-rider-booked-for-dogs-death-in-greater-noida/articleshow/67271321.cms In above sentence should we use was flung or only flung ? I think flung is transitive because to flung something we need an object. Hence it should be *canine was flung" is correct. It should be a passive sentence construction. <Q> The impact was such that the canine flung into the air and fell into a drain five meters away. <S> [buzzer, not grammatical] <S> Correction: <S> The impact was such that the canine was flung into the air and fell into a drain five meters away. <S> The impact flung the dog into the air. <S> [ transitive ] <S> The dog was flung into the air by the impact. <S> Principle parts: fling, flung, flung Fling is transitive. <A> There is an intransitive use of the verb, meaning (of a person) to "go quickly and angrily", e.g. "after the argument, Peter flung out of the house", but this is not the meaning in your text. <S> Fling <A> Some English verbs work with both 0 and 1 objects if 0 objects are specified <S> , the meaning is the subject did, or appeared to do, the activity to him/her/itself, or "something made" the subject do the activity <S> The impact was such that the canine flung into the air and fell into a drain five meters away. <S> This is equivalent to saying "The impact made the canine fling into the air." <S> Saying "The impact flung the canine into the air" is also OK. <S> Verbs that don't work like this require passive voice, and you could still use passive voice here if you wanted as well. <S> The impact was such that the canine was flung into the air and fell into a drain five meters away.
| "Fling" used to mean "throw or hurl forcefully" is a transitive verb, so that "was flung" is needed when discussing the fate of the dog.
|
his Grace's personal arrangements Two days before the case was down for hearing the advance reporter of an important syndicate obtained an interview with the Duke for the purpose of gleaning some final grains of information concerning his Grace's personal arrangements during the trial. from The Unkindest Blow , a short story by Saki Why does Saki use "his Grace's " instead of "the Grace's "? What does "personal arrangements" mean? His clothes? <Q> "His Grace" is the Duke. <S> As a sign of courtesy and deference, British nobility and royalty have "forms of address". <S> Dukes are formally addressed as "Your Grace", (e.g. good morning, Your Grace), and when someone is speaking about a duke, they may use "His Grace", (e.g. His Grace is ready for his lunch). <S> These were much more often used 100 years ago when Saki was writing. <S> There may be an element of sarcasm in Saki's use of the form. <S> The Duke's "personal arrangements" are not specified, but could include relatively mundane things such as where he is staying, who is accompanying him, etc. <S> Forms of address <A> Michael Harvey has answered your first question: His Grace is a way of referring to the Duke. <S> Compare her Majesty , a way of referring to the Queen. <S> On your second question, no his "personal arrangements" does not mean his clothes. <S> Its meaning is not precisely defined, but given that this is a divorce case, it is clear that it means something like "how he lives his private life", and especially who he lives it with. <A> The term "his Grace" goes way back to early English. <S> At one time, it was considered rude to address nobility directly. <S> If you were talking to Queen Elizabeth, you couldn't just call her "Elizabeth", and even calling her "Queen" was seen as much too familiar except by other high nobility. <S> Instead, commoners would address a quality the noble possessed as if that were the person. <S> Over time we built up a whole set of standard terms of address for very important people, and it was important to use the correct one. <S> And eventually, you'd use that phrase even when talking about the person. <S> Instead of saying, "Yes, Queen," you'd say, "Yes, your Majesty. <S> " <S> Instead of saying, "The Pope said...", you'd say, "His Holiness said... <S> " (or if there were a lot of people around who could be a 'his holiness', you could say, "His Holiness the Pope said...") <S> We aren't very strict about that sort of thing today, and it only really still is used with reference to particularly important royalty or the high ranks of the Catholic Church (and even then only if you're trying to be polite), or in a historical context. <S> In other words "information concerning the Duke's private life", the things normally kept hidden from the public. <S> Not necessarily because it's bad and he wants it hidden, but just because it's nobody's business. <S> It could include just about anything, like health conditions, whether he's on a diet, what companies he has invested in, where he's living, who he's sleeping with, and so on. <S> In the context, probably the reporter wants to know where the Duke is going to be staying during the trial, which he might be reluctant to share.
| "Personal arrangements" means "the way he arranges his personal life".
|
"The Jesus who said" - why is there a definite article before the proper name "Jesus"? The system doesn't seem to be providing for the well-being of all the people, and that's what makes it, almost in its very nature, something contrary to the Jesus who said, "Blessed are the poor. Woe to the rich." (source: a documentary film) Since normally proper names are not preceded by the definite article, I don't know why in a film a person said "the Jesus". I hear the definite article before Jesus, and the subtitles also confirm that, but I don't know if I heard it wrong, so here is a link to a YouTube video starting at that part of the film . Why is the definite article used here? My hunch is it is to emphasize a particular version, if you will, among different versions of Jesus that preached on the poor and the rich. Are there other examples of the definite article being used before proper names/nouns? <Q> When a person has said many things over the course of their life, those statements may not always be perfectly consonant with one another. <S> Using the definite article <S> the is an acknowledgement of that dissonance or lack of agreement between one statement and another: <S> Where's the President Trump who promised a middle-class tax break? <S> It's as if to say there is more than one version of the person, and the speaker is singling out one of them. <S> P.S. <S> In the specific context of Jesus, he is known only via the biographical traditions that present his life and sayings, and thus there are literally "versions" of Jesus. <S> Sometimes, as Jeff says, the speaker who uses that phrase is promoting the version that they consider the "true" version; at other times it is simply a recognition of there being multiple versions to choose from. <S> I don't think it's possible to say from that brief interview which meaning the bishop has in mind. <S> P.P.S. <S> In the context of the utterance in the video, the restrictive clause "who said 'Blessed are ...'" is part of the specification and essential to the distinguishing of this Jesus from some other Jesus (or Jesuses) who did not say those words. <S> And that need not be taken literally to mean that multiple historical persons named Jesus are being distinguished from one another; it can be simply a manner of speaking, a figurative use of the definite article , just as grandpa can say to Billy who won't eat his Wheaties: <S> Where's the Billy whose favorite cereal is Wheaties? <S> What you make of the statement from that point on (whether it is a comment critical of people who don't really understand the "real" Jesus, or a reference to the fact of there being multiple views of Jesus in the lives that have survived as gospel or multiple views that have resulted from different interpretations thereof) is a matter of cultural interpretation, not of English grammar. <A> There are several cases where proper nouns can take "the" with some examples here . <S> In English, you use the article THE with proper nouns: to emphasize the uniqueness of that entity: <S> e.g. It's THE Barbra Streisand. <S> to specify what singular entity you were referring to: <S> e.g. THE Elvis I got to know was a defeated king. <S> The specific construction "the Jesus who said" could fit into either category. <S> It could be clarifying which Jesus said the quote, including disambiguating between multiple presentations associated with the same physical human being. <S> This is the meaning used in Tᴚoɯɐuo's example , as if there is a Trump who is pro tax breaks and another who isn't delivering them. <S> Alternatively it could presume that the identity in question is perfectly clear and coherent, and be drawing attention to something specific about that person. <S> For example one might say "The President Trump who promised to build a wall can hardly expect a warm welcome in Mexico." <S> As a grammatical question, it's also worth noting that there are other constructions with proper nouns and articles not mentioned in the linked page. <S> Sometimes a definite article is placed between the proper noun and the specification, as in "Pliny the Younger" or "Pope Gregory the Great." <S> (although in these cases the specification might be described as part of the name) <S> If there is an adjective modifying the proper noun in question, then it could take an article and that article could be definite or indefinite. <S> For example "A discouraged Robert was inspired by watching a spider making his web." <S> or "This puzzle was no match for the crafty Daedalus." <A> Your supposition is correct. <S> For Christians, Christianity is supposed to be determined by the meaning of what were the actual words of Jesus. <S> But people differ in how they interpret those words. <S> So the sentence means "something contrary to what I interpret as the meaning of certain words of Jesus." <S> Rhetorically, however, the speaker wants to imply by using the definite article that there is only one correct interpretation, namely the speaker's. <A> I don't think the speaker had any intent to imply that there were multiple versions of Jesus or that Jesus' statements at different times contradicted each other. <S> On the contrary, using the definite article here is a rhetorical device intended to emphasize that (in the speaker's opinion) <S> the same Jesus who made those two statements wouldn't have supported something contrary to the speaker's interpretation of those statements. <S> This is a somewhat common device used for setting up a contrast. <S> In this case, the contrast is between the speaker's interpretation of a couple of quotes from Jesus and what the speaker perceives to be the results of "the system." <S> (I haven't watched the video, but I'm assuming from the context and its title that "the system" is capitalism or at least some attempted implementation thereof.)
| The use of the definite article is a rhetorical device to indicate that what is being said is the truth because truth is necessarily unique whereas error is manifold.
|
What's the plural of "panicky"? I read that panicky refers to a person who panics. What's the plural of that? <Q> panicky is an adjective. <S> Adjectives in English are invariable. <A> The phrase the panicky would mean "everyone who is panicky" or "those who are panicky". <S> You could have a magazine article with this title: <S> Ten ways to make things worse for the panicky or The panicky: how to get them going That is a collective reference. <A> In English, adjectives don't pluralize, but sometimes we use an adjective as if it were a noun to talk about a group of things that have that quality -- which is confusing, I know. <S> For example, "green" is a noun describing a color, but "greens" is often used as a generic term for "green vegetables", "a group of green fields", or some other group or class of thing that are all green. <S> So if a mother tells her child, "You need to eat your greens ", it looks like a plural adjective, but really isn't. <S> Back to your original question, I think probably your definition is slightly wrong. <S> " <S> Panicky" means "being prone to panic", but not a person who does that. <S> So you could have panicky people or panicky cows, but you wouldn't use the word alone to refer to a person with that quality. <S> The exception is the the one <S> Tromano gave -- sometimes we use "the" with an adjective to refer collectively to everyone or everything that has that quality. <S> "A nurse helps the sick " means "all people who are sick". <S> So you could say something like, "The captain's powerful voice and stoic presence helped to calm the panicky while the lifeboats were being prepared." <S> In this case it's short for "the people who were panicky".
| A person who panics can be said to be a panicky person.
|
what's the tense of how about going? So I searched before and found thread are related for my question: Reference: ELL question on "How about going to the cinema tonight?" But it hasn't solved my question. ( by the way is it correct sentence? if I meant that problem not solved in the past but still in the present.) Well, how about going to see her? I can't find the tense and it pretty confused. because I know that, wh- + an auxiliary verb + subject + main verb + ing => Present progressive. I saw going for me it looks related to present progressive, but why the formulation is pretty different? where can I find extra details about this questions style? <Q> There is no tense. <S> going is free of tense and can fit into statements about the future or the past. <S> What shall we do tomorrow? <S> -- How about going to the zoo? <S> or It was so boring when we visited them last week. <S> We couldn't think of anything fun to do. <S> -- How about going to the zoo? <S> Was it closed? <S> Here is a form that cannot be used with a past context but only with the future: What shall we do? <S> -- <S> How about we go to the zoo? <S> or as an alternative to "how about": -- <S> What say we go to the zoo? <A> How about + gerund is a s poken form. <S> Not a written one. <S> It is used to make suggestions in conversation(s) or refer to them. <S> "How about going to a movie?" <S> Please note: <S> going to a movie is a noun phrase. <S> Like: staying home, playing tennis, listening to music. <S> "How about going to a movie?" is semantically equivalent to: "Why don't we go to a movie?". <S> As a form to make suggestions, the meaning is about some future that takes place after the time it is spoken <S> but there is no verb or tense in it per se. <S> As is the case with other gerunds, it can take a possessive pronoun. <S> "Our leaving early is not a problem". <S> " <S> How about our leaving early?" <S> = <S> Why don't we leave early? <A> Let's say someone says this: I'd like to go to the store on 3rd Street. <S> You can suggest a replacement to 3rd Street with how about : <S> How about we go to the one on 4th Street instead. <S> Because we're really modifying the question, we can use a participle / participial phrase. <S> How about going to 4th Street instead? <S> I believe going here is a verbal, not a normal verb per se - and is acting as a participle. <S> When verbs act as modifiers, often participles are used, and they don't have a tense. <S> I think the technical term for this is "adverbial participial phrase" or something like that. <S> Similar in concept to answering <S> Yes or <S> No to questions <S> - these words are adverbs, definitely not complete sentences, but you don't get the entire picture without knowing the question that was asked. <A> How about going to see her? <S> There's not a great deal that can be said about this construction. <S> The idiom "how about" belongs to informal style where it's used to put forward a suggestion. <S> The complement of "about" can be a noun phrase as in "How about another drink", a non-finite (untensed) gerund-participial clause as in your example, or a tensed declarative clause as in "How about we leave the job until next week?"
| It has no tense because the gerund is a noun.
|
What does it mean 'to hit a switch on someone '? My woman claiming that I switched on her Only 'cause I hit a switch on her She wasn't really good at keeping up I don't understand what it means to hit a switch on her, if I get the previous line right that he beat her up while they were in a bed, it have to be associated with sexual violence...Help me please Upd: I have found the same phrase by Rihanna Hit a switch on a fake nigga <Q> The lyrics aren't really grammatical, but basically it means: <S> Only because I hit a switch on her "Hit a switch" is hip-hop slang for having a lot of crazy sex. <A> In my interpretation "switch on somebody" means to cheat (although Ringo's answer is new to me <S> and I cannot ignore that) "hit a switch" might mean to trigger someone, trip someone up - to cause someone to become suspicious, agitated, to drive somebody mad to push someone's buttons, to push someone - to play tricks on someone, <S> make them do something they didn't want to do to push someone's buttons, to make somebody click - to work someone to good effect <S> Again, Ringo's idea is considerable. <S> I haven't heard this term before either. <S> I doubt it's "hip hop" lingo though. <S> If anything, to push someone's neuralgic points. <S> That doesn't mean crazy sex per-se. <S> The truth is, rhymes may be made up and forced and do not always have to be completely meaningful, though, ambiguity can be intended or at least acceptable, e.g. to reach a broader group of listeners. <A> "Hit a switch" ultimately comes from a lowrider/low low/scraper with hydraulics installed. <S> You hit the switch and it gets poppin. <S> Gets bouncing. <S> Hit a switch on someone is to get poppin on them. <S> Often sexually. <S> 6lack says she's claiming that he switched on her because it's pretty common for your partner to think you're having sex someone else if all of a sudden you're having sex like a pornstar or bust a new move. <S> Hence him saying she couldn't keep up. <S> Obviously he knows best but that made perfect sense to me. <S> He's from ATL though and I'm in Cali.
| My woman claiming that I switched on her "Switch" in this sense means that she thinks he has suddenly changed the way he is treating her.
|
Why does "blue" mood, means "sad mood"? Why does " blue mood" means "sad mood"? Why is the color blue associated with sadness? According to Cambridge dictionary " blue " means sad or unhappy. <Q> Nobody is quite sure. <S> The OED says "probably from sense A. 2", and sense A. 2 is: <S> "Of the skin: having a bluish or leaden colour, esp. <S> as a result of reduced circulation or oxygenation of the blood (as in exposure to cold or certain diseases); livid; cyanotic; (also) bruised." <A> From the English Language stack ( https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/41804/origin-of-the-of-the-phrase-feeling-blue ): <S> "Feeling blue" and "feel blue" begin to appear in Google Books publications from the 1830s. <S> Here are two early (and potentially relevant) entries from Francis Grose, A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1785): BLUE, to look blue; to be confounded, terrified, or disappointed. <S> BLUE DEVILS, low spirits. <S> John Barrett, Dictionary of Americanisms, first edition (1848) shows a similar range of meanings in U.S. English slang usage: BLUE. <S> Gloomy, severe; extreme, ultra. BLUE DEVILS. <S> To have the blue devils is to be dispirited. <S> Either term could reasonably be interpreted as providing the immediate referent for early use of the phrase "feeling blue." <S> It doesn't appear that there is consensus on the origin of a "blue mood" or "feeling blue. <S> " It likely has something to do with the idea of blue being a "cold" color -- the opposite of hot red. <A> Etymology online has this sense dating from 1400, and speculates that it could be from the "colour of bruises" sense of the word (that was introduced through Norse). <S> Giving the notion of a "blue and bruised heart". <S> Figurative meaning "sad, sorrowful, afflicted with low spirits" is from c. 1400, perhaps from the "livid" sense and implying a bruised heart or feelings.
| It seems highly likely that the wording arose naturally from earlier slang terms involving the word blue.
|
Should I capitalize because if comes after a question? Can I start a sentence with "because" if it comes after a question mark? Why did I drink? Because I was thirsty. or Why did I drink? because I was thirsty. I know this style of question has been asked before, however I've been told you should never start a sentence with "because". Yet, if a question mark ends a sentence then how can I continue without capitalizing the "b" in because? In this case, should I have to avoid "because" all together and instead write Why did I drink? I was thirsty. <Q> "Because I was thirsty" is not a grammatically complete sentence. <S> The first letter of any sentence should be capitalized, and the first letter of a sentence fragment (such as "because I was thirsty") should be capitalized when it is part of text that otherwise contains sentences. <S> Example with a sentence fragment: <S> Why did I drink? <S> Because I was thirsty. <S> Example with a complete sentence <S> : Because I was thirsty, I drank. <S> The rule against starting a sentence with "because" is a style rule, not a grammar rule. <A> There's one time when you can follow a question mark without capitalsation. <S> It's when you're using quotation marks and your question comes <S> mid-sentence: "Will you still feed me when I'm 64?" asked Paul. <S> And, when using quotation marks, you can also follow a comma with a capitalised word: <S> Paul asked, "Will you still feed me when I'm 64?" <A> Starting a sentence with because isn't often correct as it links two clauses. <S> You could say: I drank because I was thirsty <S> That would be correct.
| However, sentences can sometimes start with "because". Students are told to avoid starting sentences with "because" to improve the quality of their writing, but there is nothing that makes it incorrect.
|
Does saying "have good holidays" sound weird? When you wish someone to have a good weekend, you say, "Have a good weekend!". But what about wishing someone to have good holidays? Does "have good holidays" sound weird? I'm just asking because I have never heard it before. I have only heard "Happy holidays!". <Q> (language is living and changing) <S> If you start saying it maybe be others will say it and it will become used. <S> lot of used habits sound weird! <S> we say „ <S> morning“ and mean „good morning <S> “ <S> but but actually we want to say: I wish you (might/will) have a good morning. <A> It seems to me that it is better to say not "Have good holidays!" , but "Have a good holiday!" . <S> This form is much more natural and common. <A> instead of "Have good holidays." <S> because "Have good holidays" <S> sound weird and very rarely used. <S> Actually I didn't hear it from someone since I born :).
| You can use "Happy holidays!" or "Have a good holiday."
|
"almost lovingly apart" meaning in this context He had run barely a dozen steps when he reached them: Dudley was curled up on the ground, his arms clamped over his face. A second Dementor was crouching low over him, gripping his wrists in its slimy hands, prising them slowly, almost lovingly apart , lowering its hooded head towards Dudley's face as though about to kiss him.... [Excerpt from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K.Rowling ] As I understand, ' apart ' means ' separated ', and ' lovingly ' means " with fondness; with love ". It seems strange when they put together " lovingly apart " in this context. I don't know what it's supposed to mean. How should we understand it? <Q> Here, "lovingly" is not modifying "apart". <S> Instead it is modifying "prising". <S> "Prising" is not a word I'm familiar with, but according to Dictionary.com when used as a verb it is a form of "pry". <S> Additionally, the "them" in the phrase refers to "his wrists" from earlier in the sentence. <S> Thus, I will start with this phrase: Prising his wrists <S> Alone <S> this would be a pretty weird thing to say, but there are some additional adverbs to add clarity! <S> The phrase as a whole follows the form "[Verb]-ing [noun phrase] <S> [adverb(s)]", which I can't really put a name to but is fairly common. <S> Lets add the most useful adverb: Prising his wrists apart <S> "Prising apart" describes a clear and distinct concept from just "prising", so it is very important for actually understanding the sentence. <S> However, the other adverbs don't modify "apart" they modify "prising" and thus can be considered independently of "apart": Prising his wrists slowly <S> You don't seem to have any difficulty with this part, there's no contradiction between "prising" and "slowly". <S> However, the other adverb can also be considered independently: Prising his wrists lovingly <S> This phrase does end up being weird, "prying" and "lovingly" seem like a weird pairing, but grammatically it's fine. <S> " <S> Lovingly" also has a modifier that helps: <S> Prising his wrists almost lovingly With this, the prising is explicitly not loving, but instead is similar to being loving. <S> If "slowly" is included as well <S> then there's even more detail: <S> Prising his wrists slowly, almost lovingly <S> Pairing two modifiers like "X, almost Y" in this way carries an implication that the two are related. <S> Specifically it would most closely be interpreted as "done so slowly that it seemed to be done lovingly". <S> The way the words connect to each other can be made a bit clearer by changing the word order. <S> This phrase has the same meaning as the original: <S> Slowly, almost lovingly prising his wrists apart TL;DR : "Lovingly" modifies "prising", not "apart". <A> The Dementor is moving Dudley's arms apart in order to take Dudley's soul. <S> The word "lovingly" is used to make the scene more frightful to the reader. <S> Note the word "almost" - this means "had it been in another situation, this movement would have looked very loving and gentle". <S> There is a contrast between the horrible situation and the gentle prizing apart of Dudley's arms. <S> There is a horrible scene (a longer version ) in Saving Private Ryan in which a soldier <S> almost lovingly and slowly puts a knife in another soldier during hand-to-hand combat. <A> The indicated phrase means nothing in this context, because that's not really the phrase. <S> What you should be looking at is slowly, almost lovingly . <S> The sentence could have been written with an additional comma after "lovingly", to make it clearer that this is the intended structure of the sentence; but some editors might prefer to avoid that. <A> As others have noted, "almost lovingly" is a parenthetical phrase. <S> This sentence is poetic, but horrible (and an example of why I don't like my native language much). <S> To be unambiguous, the sentence should read: A second Dementor was: <S> crouching low over him; gripping his wrists in its slimy hands; prising them slowly, almost lovingly, apart; lowering its hooded head towards Dudley's face as though about to kiss him… With the added punctuation marks, you can clearly see that the sentence is a list of the actions that the Dementor is performing, and that "almost lovingly" is a parenthetical phrase. <S> But now it seems stiff and formal; the punctuation marks interrupt the flow of the sentence because they not only represent boundaries between grammatical structures but also pauses in the sentence when read aloud. <S> This is an example of a writer forgoing precision for effect. <S> It happens loads in English. <S> If you find part of a sentence that doesn't make sense, treat it as you would a garden-path sentence and assume that you've parsed the sentence wrong.
| It's saying that an action (the prying) is happening so slowly that it almost seems loving, and/or that the action is being done with a degree of delicateness (or apparent delicateness) similar to that of a loving touch.
|
someone is "in/on" high energy I'm so high on energy right now. / I'm so high in energy right now. Everyone at the gym is in high energy. / Everyone at the gym is on high energy. Which one is correct or are they both correct and natural usage? <Q> In addition to rephrasing things, as suggested in the other answers, if you want to keep the word energy , I would use a different form and preposition: <S> I am so full of energy right now. <S> Everyone at the gym is full of energy. <A> I agree with the initial comments. <S> For the first one, instead of using I'm so high on energy right now. <S> I think you'd be more likely to hear <S> a native speaker say: <S> I'm so energetic right now. <S> For the second one, instead of using: Everyone at the gym is in high energy. <S> you might be likely to hear this idiom: <S> Everyone at the gym is in high gear . <S> M-W defines high gear as: <S> high gear <S> a state of intense or maximum activity — usually used with into or in : a project in high gear . <S> while Macmillan says: high gear the state of performing extremely well or extremely quickly <S> The term high-gear isn't necessarily equivalent to "high-energy", but I think they are roughly the same when we are talking about people working out at the gym. <A> There is a fairly common locution "high in energy. <S> " That may have altered in some circles to "in high energy," but I have not heard such a usage. <S> "In high energy engines, heat dispersal is important" is perfectly acceptable, but that usage does not seem to fit your context. <S> "On high energy settings, Model A uses less power than Model B" is also acceptable, but again that usage does not seem to fit your context. <S> Because all three locutions are appropriate in some contexts, ngram will not help determine which is currently idiomatic in a specific context. <S> Based on your examples, I think "high in energy" is what you are looking for.
| Full of energy is a very common expression.
|
Stripped off half its gear/stripped half of its gear Let's say you are selling a game character online equipped with 10 pieces of gear . You posted it trying to sell it online. And then a potential buyer messaged you saying: (after checking if the equipped gear is legit) "Your game character's equipment is not as described, you have stripped off half its gear. " Or "Your game character's equipment is not as described, you have stripped half of its gear. " Is one of these phrases correct? So that it can be used to convey the meaning of what I am trying to say. <Q> To strip off , without a following object, is an idiomatic but informal way of saying to take your clothes off or to remove your clothes . <S> It would normally be interpreted as meaning that you removed all your clothes and were either naked or about to change into something else. <S> He stripped off on the beach and put on his bathing costume. <S> In a more formal situation, take off or remove are more appropriate for clothes and <S> remove for other gear or equipment: <S> In the context you describe, stripped off would be appropriate if you had removed some of the advertised gear or equipment before supplying the product. <S> Likely responses from the buyer might well be: Your game character's equipment is not as described, ..... <S> half of its gear has been stripped off/removed. <S> .... <S> it lacks half its clothes/gear .... <S> it doesn't have half its clothes/gear <S> .... <S> it's come without half its clothes/gear .... <S> it's missing half its clothes/gear. <S> .... <S> it's short of half its clothes/gear <A> You're not getting the verb "to strip" quite right. <S> Using the strip...of idiom would give you this: Your game character's equipment is not as described <S> , you have stripped it of half its gear. <S> This would mean that the seller has removed half the character's gear after snapshotting the stats for the purposes of advertising the sale, but before completing the transfer to the buyer. <A> Intransitive to strip off usually means remove [all of] one's clothes , but when strip is used transitively (with the "object" being either some outer covering being removed, or the thing that covered is removed from), off is often effectively an optional preposition... <S> 1: <S> He used a scraper to strip off the old paint from the wall 2: <S> He used a scraper to strip the old paint from the wall 3: <S> He used a scraper to strip the old paint off the wall ... <S> where all the above are perfectly valid ways of saying the same thing (note that in #1, of primarily couples with strip , but in #3 it couples with the wall as an alternative to from ). <S> But - suppose I wanted to say only half the paint was removed? <S> In that context we also have to note that of is effectively an optional preposition in half of the paint . <S> Arguably this is somewhat unfortunate for learners, but all the examples below are also perfectly valid... 4: <S> He used a scraper to strip off half the old paint from the wall 5: <S> He used a scraper to strip half the old paint from the wall 6: <S> He used a scraper to strip half the old paint off the wall 7: <S> He used a scraper to strip off half of the old paint from the wall 8: <S> He used a scraper to strip half of the old paint from the wall 9: <S> He used a scraper to strip half of the old paint off the wall <S> Technically speaking,... 10: <S> He used a scraper to strip off half of <S> the old paint off the wall ...is also "more or less" valid. <S> But it's very clumsy, so people would rarely use that one. <S> In short, both of OP's possibilities are valid, as are <S> You have stripped off half of its gear (both prepositions) AND ...stripped half its gear (neither preposition).
| The idiom you need is strip...of - that is "to strip [someone] of [something]," which means "to remove, take, or steal something from someone or something, especially in a forceful or brutish manner."
|
Sexual act at illegal age/not of legal age What is the correct word/phrase when teenagers engage in a sexual activity but they are younger than 18 years old (the legal age, most of the time worldwide). Teenagers who engage in a sexual activity at illegal age. , may be heavily influenced by nude images they have seen on televisionv(let's say). Teenagers who engage in a sexual activity not of legal age. Teenagers who engage in sexual activity not at the legal age. When I googled it, the results were "age of consent" popping up... <Q> The expression to be of legal age applies to a range of activities and situations. <S> In general it may be described as <S> ** the age at which a person enters into full adult legal rights and responsibilities <S> ** (Merriam Webster). <S> The specific age varies according to the rights concerned - whether sex, alcohol, arms or driving/flying and other licences. <S> It also differs from country to country and, with regard to some rights, within the states/provinces of a country. <S> Where sex is concerned, certain activities are generally not permitted until those concerned have reached an age where they are thought to be sufficiently informed and responsible - often 16 or 18, although much lower in certain countries and cultures. <S> This is known as the age of consent and may well be lower than the legal age marking full adult rights and responsibilities. <S> So the teenagers would need to be at the age of consent to engage lawfully in a sexual act or in sexual activity (defined to exclude petting and other typical behaviour). <S> If they were too young, they could be said to be below the age of consent , (or specifically where sexual activity is concerned) not at the (required) <S> legal age or not of legal age or below the legal age (but not at illegal age ). <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal%20age <A> We normally say it rather like this: <S> You must be of legal age to sign a contract. <S> That is, the pattern is of legal age + infinitive clause. <S> They are not of legal age to get married. <S> You must be of legal age to drive a car. <S> The age of consent is the age at which a person is legally able to consent to engage in a sexual act. <A> engage in sexual activity as minors. <S> Although in this case, it's a little redundant, as teenagers are usually minors.
| As well as below the legal age (for things in general, like alcohol or adopting) and below the age of consent (specifically for sex), you can refer to people below the age of 18 as minors.
|
What does "I made him a cake" mean? Is it correct sentence below?And what does it mean? Also, how is it working grammatically? I made him a cake. I made a cake for him. I baked a cake using him. (Sounds so horrible!) To me, 1 is more natural but I am not sure.I've never seen that kind of sentence before.Is "I made him a cake" a common sentence used by native speakers? <Q> Your interpretation 1 is correct - I made him a cake means the same as I made a cake for him . <S> There is a subtle difference between <S> I made him a cake and <S> I made a cake for him , though. <S> I made him a cake <S> would indicate that you are making a cake that you will give to him. <S> I made a cake for him could indicate the same, or it could mean that you made a cake on his behalf. <S> Your second interpretation - I baked a cake using him - would probably be phrased as <S> I made him into a cake <A> In English, you will commonly encounter sentences of the form: Subject - Verb - Indirect Object - Direct Object, where the direct object (cake/warning/present) describes "on what" the verb is acting and the indirect object (him) provides a second target, often describing "for what" or "to what" the verb is doing to the direct object. <S> Examples: <S> I - made - him - a cake <S> I - gave - him - a present I - told - him - a story <S> You may be confused because there are many meanings for "make". <S> Going by the definitions at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make : make (3) - to bring into being by forming, shaping, or altering material. <S> Example: <S> I made a cake <S> make (9) - <S> to cause to be or become. <S> Example: <S> I made her happy. <S> So both the interpretations "I made(3) him a cake" (I made a cake, for him) and "I made(9) him a cake" <S> (I transformed him into a cake) are grammatically correct, but you would use your understanding of the context to know that in most cases the speaker meant made(3) and not made(9). <S> To add another example, consider the similar phrase "I'm going to make you a star." <S> Usually you would take that to mean "I will cause you to become a success" but it is not unlikely that "I will cut a star out of paper and hand it to you" <A> Some verbs, (known as ditransitive ) have both a direct and an indirect object, which can be expressed either way round; but if the direct object comes first, the indirect requires its preposition "to": <S> I gave the book to him = <S> I gave him the book. <S> In addition any verb which does not normally take an indirect object can have a benefactive complement introduced by "for", and in many cases this benefactive can come before the direct object in exactly the same way as for ditransitive verbs. <S> Examples: <S> I made/baked him a cake = <S> I made/baked a cake for him. <S> He bought me a book = <S> He bought a book for me. <S> Keep me a seat! = <S> Keep a seat for me. <S> I cut her a slice [of cake] = <S> I cut a slice [of cake] for her. <S> I think there is a semantic restriction that the beneficiary is going to have, or use, or enjoy the result of the action, not just the action happening. <S> So Wash me a cup = <S> Wash a cup for me (that I can use). <S> but I don't think I would say ? <S> Wash me the laundry even though I might say "Wash the laundry for me".
| This is indeed a common construction in English, and would generally be understood.
|
How can I count multiple heating? I found the following sentence: There is too much heating. According to my dictionary, heating is an uncountable noun, so you cannot say heatings . However, it is possible that you have more than one heating in your house. For example you have one in your room, and the other in your living room. In this case, how can you express it? I think when you express two furniture , it should be two pieces of furniture , but how about the case of heating ? <Q> With respect to physical devices, you can't have one or more heatings in your house. <S> In terms of overall heat, you could say: It is too hot. <S> There is too much heat. <S> The temperature is too high. <S> There are too many heaters. <S> It's possible that the word heating could be used in a nonstandard way to describe an event: <S> "Everybody come to my igloo tonight. <S> We're going to have ourselves a good old fashioned heating to warm the place up." <S> "You need to stop holding all of those heatings. <S> Your igloo won't be able to take it much longer and will melt." <S> But that's something very specific (and nonstandard) <S> and it doesn't apply to physical heating devices. <A> You have not provided any context. <S> But it's possible that the author of those words meant that something had been heated too much. <S> Sometimes speakers will say "There is" to mean "in this situation". <S> You can see why the metal has fatigued. <S> There is too much heating. <S> The speaker would mean something like "the metal has been subjected to too much heat". <S> There, heating is understood to be a process. <A> First of all, you don't have different heating in different rooms. <S> You have different heating outlets in different rooms. <S> An outlet is simply the place from where the air comes out. <S> So, if you are talking about two or more rooms, you can say that we have multiple heater outlets in our house. <S> Here is the example of heater outlets. <S> In your question, too much heating simply means that there is more heating and someone needs to reduce the temperature from the heateres installed.
| In terms of "more than one heating," you could say: There are too many sources of heat. Assuming that the word is being used in that specific context, it actually would be possible to turn it into a plural:
|
Why is "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived ..., people would not have been able to categorise him." ungrammatical? Could anyone explain why this sentence is considered ungrammatical? You often hear quite literate people saying hideously ungrammatical things such as: "He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him." Source : Melvyn's rules for the conversation game (article from the Independent ) <Q> First, as others have pointed out in the comments, the sentence uses "who" when it should use "whom." <S> Even native speakers fail to correctly distinguish between "who" and "whom". <S> It is common for "who" to be used in all cases, but this is not recommended in formal speech or writing. <S> I have made that correction throughout the rest of the answer. <S> However, there is a larger issue in the sentence, which I believe is the intended focus in the original source. <S> I think the issue becomes clearer if you omit the nonessential clause "if he had lived in the 19th century". <S> He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise him. <S> One could write "People would not have been able to categorise him." <S> as a complete sentence, or one could write "whom people would not have been able to categorise" as a relative clause describing "person". <S> However, the example sentence combines the two, beginning as a relative clause and ending with another pronoun "him". <S> In this sentence "whom" is already the object of "to categorise". <S> We can remove "him" and reintroduce the nonessential clause to get the correct sentence: <S> He is the kind of person whom, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise. <S> The nonessential clause interrupts the flow of the sentence, which can make it more likely to miss mistakes like this one both in reading and in writing. <S> While the sentence is now correct, an even better sentence might be: <S> He is the kind of person whom people would not have been able to categorise, had he lived in the 19th century. <A> As Tashus says, this breaks the general rule that resumptive pronouns are ungrammatical in English, however, if "You often hear quite literate people saying [this]" (i.e. presumably native speakers who speak a prestige dialect), then this instance is grammatical. <S> The rule needs to adapt to encompass modern usage (I'm reminded of people becrying split infinitives ). <S> Wikipedia goes into more depth about the contexts in which resumptive pronouns are seen as grammatical: ... in English, "relative clauses with resumptive pronouns are officially ungrammatical [...] <S> However, they are in fact not uncommon in speech". <S> However, their grammaticality is influenced by linear distance from the subject, embedded depth, and extractability... <S> In short sentences without a subordinate clause, they are clearly ungrammatical: <S> He's the one who people categorised <S> *him. <S> The exact rules for grammaticality aren't well understood, but broadly, the further the pronoun gets from the subject (e.g. the longer the subordinate clause is), the more acceptable it sounds (at what length is dialect dependent). <S> The following may or may not sound acceptable <S> : He's the one who, had he lived then, people wouldn't've categorised ( <S> *)him. <S> And at the other end we have the example sentence from our "even quite literate people": <S> He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him. <A> He is the kind of person who, if he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorise him. <S> This is a rhetorical device known as anacoluthon . <S> The grammatical structure of the sentence shifts as the sentence is spoken — or, you could view it as, two different sentence structures have been smushed together into a single sentence. <S> (Did you notice, I did it there. <S> And (arguably) again!) <S> The two sentence structures smushed into this one sentence <S> are (with the primary subject/verb in bold): <S> He is the kind of person who would not have been categorizable by anyone in the 19th century. <S> If he had lived in the 19th century, people would not have been able to categorize him. <S> The actual sentence spoken ends up smushing the two grammatical sentences together, typically with a moment of grammatical confusion (indicated by a comma or dash) in the middle. <S> Wikipedia gives several examples of anacoluthon in English, including Milton's Had ye been there – for what could that have done? <S> The two sentence structures smushed up here <S> are <S> Had ye been there, you could have done something. <S> (Well, actually, no, nothing— never mind.) <S> It's okay that you weren't there, for what could that have done? <S> The implication is that the speaker changes his mind halfway through the line. <S> In your original example, the speaker has not changed his mind about what he wants to say; he's just made a little tweak to <S> how he wants to say it. <S> For an extreme example — in which the extreme disorder of the words does (well, is implied to) reflect the extreme disorder of ideas behind them — <S> look at Fred Armisen's "Nicholas Fehn" character on Saturday Night Live . <S> https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/760657101404327936 <S> You know, it's— <S> it's the reason... <S> I wake up— I wake up, like, <S> anybody — I was taught... <S> Every— well, most Americans, if you— Education. <S> Any— any border, if Helsinki, if Oslo— I think— any publication, we would— isn't it integral, isn't it the most important— it's the substance , the very idea , that we can unite, that makes me feel, personally—
| In a relative clause, resumptive pronouns are generally not seen as grammatical, however their level of grammaticality improves as they get farther from the head.
|
Why isn't "a single + noun" a tautological repeat? By definition, single means (1) : consisting of or having only one part, feature, or portion (2) : consisting of one as opposed to or in contrast with many (3) : consisting of only one in number by Merriam-Webster So why do we still say "a single rose" "hold to a single ideal" Not "single rose" "hold to single ideal" <Q> Repetition can be used for emphasis. <S> The indefinite article "a" does imply that there is only one [thing](otherwise you would normally use no article and a plural noun). <S> So maybe you could say "single" is redundant in some sentences. <S> But people do use it for emphasis when they want to make an explicit point that there is only one [thing]. <S> Perhaps the word "single" could be left out in some situations, but the article "a" is a feature of the language, and you can't leave that word out (as you seem to suggest.) <S> If you feel "a single" is repetitive, then leave out the "single". <S> The "a" isn't optional. <A> Single serves the same role here that any other adjective would do, whether we are talking about a single rose, a solitary rose, a red rose or any other rose. <S> Introducing an adjective to qualify the rose does not change the need for the article <S> a (or the ) <S> The role of single is to emphasise that there are no other roses, not to replace the article. <S> It makes the difference between statements such as: <S> a pupil raised her hand and a single pupil raised her hand . <S> The adjective changes the nuance. <S> The emphasis moves from the raising of the hand to the fact that only a single pupil does so. <S> The same is true for saying a rose stood in the vase and a single rose stood in the vase . <S> The same rule applies regardless of whether you are talking about a rose, an ideal or any other noun. <A> We can say things like "six single roses" to mean something like six roses, but none of them grouped together . <S> Since there's nothing redundant about "six single roses", there's nothing redundant about "one single rose" or "a single rose". <S> However, that doesn't mean that the adjective "single" is a good determiner. <S> We use some other word to fill the determiner role when that role is appropriate: a single rose, the single rose, this single rose, whichever single rose, and so on. <A> Just because the meanings of two words overlap, that doesn't mean they are redundant. <S> "single" is adjective that merely indicates singularity. <S> "a" is an article that indicates singularity and indefiniteness, and is a determiner. <S> So "single" provides only one out of three of the roles of "a". <S> You can also say "the single rose", and that would mean something different from "a single rose", so "a" adds meaning.
| It's hard to describe the meaning of "single" without using the word "one".
|
should I use ‘the gym’ or ‘a gym’? A: Where are you going? B: I am going to the/a gym. (first time ever B has mentioned the 'gym' to A) My intuition tells me that I should use 'the'. But the 'gym' is an new information for A. So should it be 'a gym' or 'the gym' in the conversation? <Q> Interesting question, and so much is dependent on usage. <S> For example, on might say either I'm looking for a restroom. <S> I'm looking for the restroom. <S> but specifically would only say I'm looking for the Gents. <S> (BrE) <S> In the normal course of conversation, A would say to B <S> I'm going to the gym. <S> since (s)he is habitually going to a specific place, <S> whether or not already known by B. Whereas, if A was looking for a gym to join, (s)he would say I'm going to go look for a gym to join. <S> (a specifc gym has not been determined) <S> but if (s)he was looking for a specific gym to meet friends <S> I'm going to look for the gym where we are meeting. <S> (a specific gym has already been determined) <S> Sometimes use of a vs <S> the is not determined by specificity P1: <S> "You have a phone message from this morning." <S> P2: " <S> What is the message?" <S> In this example, the " a " in the first line refers to the number of messages, and the " the " in the second line refers to the specific message. <A> Unfortunately, in English there are many exceptions to the so-called rules. <S> Usually we use the definite article to indicate a specific instance of the type of thing we're describing: <S> I ate the apple that you were saving. <S> Sometimes, we use the definite article to mean the exact opposite, that is, an unspecified instance of the type of thing described: <S> Ex: <S> I took a walk in the woods - the woods does not designate a specific area, but actually refers to a wooded area whose location is not pertinent <S> I have to stop at the store on my way home <S> - the store really means any old store, it doesn't matter which . <S> Every Friday, I go to the cinema - Which cinema? <S> Any cinema. <S> Whenever I'm at the beach, I build a sandcastle - The speaker would not mean "whenever I'm at this one specific beach I build a sandcastle," but instead "any time I'm at any beach, I build a sandcastle." <S> I try to go to the gym every day of the week. <S> I go to a gym near my office during the week, and one near my house on the weekend - Here the gym clearly cannot refer to a specific gym, because two different locations are mentioned. <S> All of these examples use the definite article, but they describe a generic location, or a generic activity. " <S> Going to the gym" can sometimes mean moving your body through space such that you transport yourself to a specific building, which is a specific gym. <S> But just as often (or perhaps more often) it means working out at some unspecified gym. <S> The real trouble is, some generic locations/activities use the definite article and some use no article, e.g. <S> I'm going to school , <S> I'm going to work , <S> I'm going home , <S> I go to university , <S> I'm going to practice , etc. <S> How do you know which is which? <S> Memorization. <A> Whether the information is "new" or "old" to the listener doesn't trump other considerations. <S> It is just one of the many contexts that can cause speakers to choose the definite article over the indefinite article, or vice versa. <S> Going to the gym can simply be a way of referring to the familiar activity of exercising at a place devoted to exercise. <S> It need not refer to a particular place, though it can. <S> A person who started going to the gym when they got their first job three years earlier, a job which has required them to relocate to five different cities in that space of three years, might say: I've been going to the gym for three years. <S> even though five different gyms are involved. <S> The reference is to the familiar activity. <A> I am going to the gym. <S> Is correct in my opinion because "the" Is a definite article. <S> "The <S> gym" Means particular gym <S> you go. <S> Where as "a gym" <S> Does not define to which gym you are going. <A> Like you might say, Excuse me, I’m looking for the restroom in a restaurant where you only expect there to be one, or <S> you might say, Excuse me, I’m looking for a restroom in an airport where you expect there to be more than one. <S> Anyways, in this context, “the” just implies a specific gym they are talking about, therefore “the” is more appropriate. <S> But “a” could also be used if there are more than one in the area this conversation is taking place.
| In general “the” implies a specific noun or something that is the only one in a specific place.
|
What's the difference between "understand" and "comprehend"? Henry could not comprehend the message. Henry could not understand the message. Are those sentences the same in meaning perfectly? <Q> From the Merriam-Webster definition of understand : <S> UNDERSTAND may, however, stress the fact of having attained a firm mental grasp of something // <S> orders that were fully understood and promptly obeyed // <S> COMPREHEND may stress the process of coming to grips with something intellectually // <S> I have trouble comprehending your reasons for doing this. <S> That is, both words mean "grasp the meaning of," but in some cases understand stresses the final result, while comprehend stresses the process of getting there. <S> Most people use these words interchangeably, so this difference in stress isn't really apparent in isolated sentences like your examples, but in a larger context, choosing one word over the other could be appropriate. <S> For example: <S> Even though I tried to explain it to him for at least fifteen minutes in a dozen different ways, Henry could not comprehend the message. <S> [stresses the process of trying and failing to comprehend] Because Henry could not understand the message, he never returned my phone call. <S> [stresses the result of the misunderstanding] <A> Rarely are two synonyms "the same in meaning perfectly". <S> You've provided no additional context, so it will be natural for the reader to imagine some. <S> I can think of a few different ways a sentence like this might be used. <S> The message was sent in French, and Henry doesn't speak French. <S> Therefore, Henry could not understand the message. <S> The message was sent of over the radio, but the reception was very poor, and the message was garbled. <S> Therefore, Henny could not understand the message. <S> The message was about calculus, and Henry has never taken any math higher than geometry. <S> Therefore, Henry could not understand the message. <S> The message was from Henry's lover, announcing that she wants to leave him. <S> Henry thought their relationship was very solid; this pronouncement caught him totally by surprise. <S> Therefore, Henry is having trouble comprehending the message. <S> I think both words could be used in all four contexts, but I still maintain there are some contexts where a writer might find one word might be a little bit more suitable than the other. <S> As a footnote, even though my answer differs from Lorel's answer, I'm still largely in agreement with that answer, too. <S> As Lorel says, it takes a lot of work to "imagine some quirky nuance" where one word might work better than the other, and, as Lorel also states, "generally those two sentences mean exactly the same thing." <S> But it's worth pointing out that there, depending on the context, one synonym might seem more fitting than the other, depending on why the message is so difficult to understand or comprehend. <A> They are the same. <S> Even if some people may imagine some personal quirky nuances to distinguish between the two words in meaning, generally those two sentences mean exactly the same thing. <A> Look at the association of comprehend with "comprehensive" -- full, encompassing. " <S> Comprehend" has the connotation of full understanding. <S> The Spanish verb "comprender" is translated to English as "to understand", by the way. <S> So that suggests how close these words are in ultimate meaning, despite different origins. <S> Vocabulary.com notes the following: The English "comprehend" originates from the Latin comprehendere , which means “catch" or "seize." <S> So there's the aspect of a comprehending being a process -- grasping something to eventually understand it. <S> Secondary meanings of "comprehend" are closer to "encompass" or "hold." <A> Understanding an order will cause one to follow it with no need of it's origin or finality. <S> Comprehending an order will cause one to use discernment in the purpose of it's origin and finalization. <S> Comprehension tends to encompass the full knowledge of a situation. <S> One can say I do not fully understand, while saying I comprehend means you thoroughly understand. <S> Most people understand English very few comprehend the meanings of the words. <A> I understood every word of what he was saying <S> but I did not comprehend the message he was conveying. <S> To me this shows the difference
| UNDERSTAND and COMPREHEND are very often interchangeable.
|
"you can" vs "you cannot" How to understanding? What is difference? When I try accept my answer, I seen a prompt: You can accept your own answer in 2 days This sentence make sense to me as miswritten for: You cannot accept your own answer in 2 days I post this question on meta.stackexchange.com but I get lot votes down, all people say that sentence (prompt) is correct and proper. So You cannot accept your own answer in 2 days vs You can accept your own answer in 2 days , what is difference? how to understanding such difference? The context: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/322278/seem-miswritten-prompt-when-i-accept-my-answer-within-2-days <Q> "You can accept your own answer in two days" means "in two days' time, you will be able to accept your own answer". <S> "You cannot accept your own answer in two days" means "in two days' time, you will still be unable to accept your own answer". <S> "Cannot" is the opposite of "can", after all. <S> Other sentences equivalent to the SE rule include "you cannot accept your own answer within two days [of posting it]", "you cannot accept your own answer for two days [after posting it]", and "you must wait two days before you can accept your own answer". <S> Your error appears to be in your interpretation of "in two days", rather than your understanding of "can" versus "cannot". <A> Prepositions are tricky. <S> You can accept your own answer in two days. <S> You can accept your own answer at the passing of two days. <S> The first sentence here is natural and common. <S> The second is clumsy and strange, but it has the same meaning. <S> The preposition "in" typically refers to some sort of container. <S> If I say "the gift is in a box", you understand that the box contains the gift. <S> Regarding this ordinary usage, "in a box" and "within a box" mean pretty much the same thing. <S> When we use the preposition "in" with a period of time, we do not typically treat that period of time as a container. <S> When we say things like "in a minute" or "in two days", we mean at that point in time at the end of the period . <S> If I'm speaking literally and precisely, "I'll do it in a minute" usually means that first a minute will pass, and then I'll start to do it. <S> * <S> In contrast, "I'll do it within a minute <S> " does treat the period of time as a container. <S> Here, whatever I'm doing is contained by the minute, and I should be done before that minute passes. <S> You can accept your own answer in two days. <S> You can accept your own answer within two days. <S> The two sentences above have completely different meanings. <S> The fist refers to that point in time at the end of two days. <S> The second refers to some point in time contained by those two days. <S> You can accept your own answer in two days. <S> You cannot accept your own answer within two days. <S> These two sentences have very similar meanings. <S> In the first, accepting your own answer is possible at the end of the period. <S> In the second, accepting your own answer is impossible inside the period. <S> _______________ <S> * <S> Oddly enough, we often treat past-tense periods as containers, even with the preposition "in". <S> "I did it in a minute" and "I did it within a minute <S> " can mean the same thing. <S> Prepositions are tricky. <A> I think the current prompt is correct. <S> You can accept your own answer in 2 days <S> In means here: <S> You can accept your own answer after 2 days – or – <S> As noted in the comments, you probably seem to confuse in and within . <S> You cannot accept your answer in 2 days <S> For me this reads as " <S> In exactly 2 days it is not possible to accept your answer. <S> It is at every other moment". <S> If you want to use cannot you should use for : <S> You cannot accept your answer for / within 2 days
| You can accept your own answer 2 days in from now In this context, "in two days" means at the point in time two days from now, not the entire span between now and then.
|
Word for an amount of money that is possible to pay but is not reasonable Suppose that paying k$ for something (e.g., a house) is possible for me (I have that amount of money), but considering other factors (e.g., I may be able to spend it in a better way), I think it is not reasonable to pay that. Assume that the price is not high, but when considering all factors, I think that spending that amount of money somewhere else may be a better decision If I say that "It is not possible for me to pay it", the listener may think that I do not have that amount of money. How can I say such a sentence so that the reader knows that I think paying that money is not reasonable for me? Can I use the word reasonable itself: "It is not reasonable for me to pay it"? Is there a better word? <Q> Editing my original answer, since it seems that I misunderstood your question. <S> Unreasonable by itself is probably not precise enough since it fails to differentiate between situations where the price is intrinsically unreasonable (no one should be expected to pay that price) and ones where it's unreasonable for you to make this purchase at this time (because there are wiser uses of your money). <S> In fact, this ambiguity is what led me to misunderstand your question. <S> If the price is intrinsically unreasonable, then the price is exorbitant . <S> If the price is reasonable, but it's unreasonable for you to make this purchase at this time, then here are a couple of options: <S> The purchase is frivolous or the item is a frivolity . <S> This would not often be used for an expensive item like a house, unless you are rich enough that buying the house has very little impact on your financial security. <S> It is more often used for smaller purchases like new clothing that you don't actually need. <S> That is, the price might be a fair price for the purchase, but it shows lack of judgment for you to make this purchase. <S> For example: I love that house that's for sale down the street. <S> I could certainly afford it, but it would be imprudent for me to buy it now when I should be saving up for my children's college education. <A> It seems to me as if you're not saying that the amount of money is unreasonable, rather that making the choice to spend your money on it would not be wise : 1 <S> a : characterized by wisdom : <S> marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment <S> b : <S> exercising or showing sound judgment : <S> PRUDENT // <S> a wise investor <S> Or, in reverse, it would be an unwise choice. <A> Typical expressions for this situations refer to the offer rather than just the amount of money. <S> You can say "it's not worth that much" (or as Mr. Trump would put it: it's a bad deal). <S> A stronger colloquial expression is "it's a ripoff".
| Making the purchase could be imprudent (or "not prudent"), meaning lacking in good judgment.
|
Are there synonym phrases for "It is/was exactly the opposite!" The question is quite straightforward - I did not include my research as it only resulted in synonyms for the word "opposite". The context is that something is completely different to what you expected it to be and suddenly you feel the urge to exclaim: "Oh, that's exactly the opposite". Or even if you are arguing with someone and they have a completely different idea of what the situation is, so you want to tell them that everything is... well, exactly the opposite, ha-ha! Thank you for helping me in advance! #NonNative <Q> I like the expression <S> au contraire . <S> Though, to be completely frank with you, this one is not super common in everyday conversational English <S> (I have a feeling that only very good and eloquent speakers of English would use this expression). <S> The phrase au contraire , as you might have already guessed, is an expression of French origin and it basically (even literally) means on the contrary or on the opposite or adverse side . <S> Here's a typical usage example: <S> You think that because I'm a rock musician, I'm dumb <S> and I don't understand anything about classical music. <S> Au contraire! <S> I do enjoy listening to Mozart and Bach a lot. <S> In fact, when I was a kid, I went to music school for a number of years where I learned how to play piano and other orchestral instruments. <S> The expression, by the way, has exactly that exclamatory feel to it that you're looking for. <A> If you are looking for an idiomatic expression you may say that it is just the other way round : <S> (Collins Dictionary) <A> I would say something like " You (got / have) it backward. " <S> Strangely, this phrase isn't referenced in any dictionary or at any English usage site. <S> That aside, I was able to find a lot of hits for it (something I've heard all the time), but I couldn't find any that were authoritative enough to give a link to. <S> The meaning is really no different than the standard definition of <S> backward itself: <S> [Merriam-Webster] <S> 2 <S> a : <S> in a reverse or contrary direction or way // <S> Count backward from 10.
| You use the other way around or the other way round to refer to the opposite of what you have just said.
|
Does the phrasal verb "stare down" imply that you are trying to intimidate? Does it? What should you say if you just want to say you're staring without looking away without wanting to intimidate the person you are staring? I found the following definition and I thought it implied the intention of intimidating: [stare someone down/out] to look at someone for so long that they have to look away <Q> You can just say "stare", which can mean looking in surprise or in disbelief. <S> There is also the verb gaze <S> The Oxford Dictionary has this definition: <S> Look steadily and intently, especially in admiration, surprise, or thought. <S> which you can use without any sense of intimidation. <A> Yes, "stare down" as phrasal verb implies intimidation or a challenge. <S> (In other contexts, the words "stare down" be adjacent but not used as a phrasal verb, such as "Why do you stare down the road whenever I ask you a question?") <S> You can use different prepositions to imply different types of staring. <S> " <S> Stare at" does not imply intimidation. <S> You can also forgo the preposition and just "stare". <A> I would say that your assumption is correct: <S> the phrasal verb stare down <S> is indeed used when there is some kind of intimidation going on. <S> If you want to talk about someone staring without any kind of standoff or intimidation, you could simply use stare at , instead of stare down . <S> If you are casting a more probing look, where you are trying to study something carefully, you can also use stare into . <S> Lovers generally stare into each others' eyes, not merely at each others' eyes. <S> If two people are staring at each other, each hoping to outlast the other, but it's simply a playful game rather than opposing glares of intimidation, that is sometimes called a blinking contest (or staring contest ).
| You can also use "stare through", which usually means that someone is looking in the direction of something but seemingly not paying attention to it. It is the "down" that makes "stare down" intimidating.
|
Is the sentence "I'm strange to this neighbourhood" correct? I don't know which to choose, "new" or "strange" to complete the following sentence. I'm _____ to this neighbourhood. A correct answer seems to be "new", but why is "strange" wrong? <Q> I'm _____ to this neighbourhood. <S> Because the sentence has been constructed for you, you should be able to see that it describes your relationship to the neighbourhood, not the other way around. <S> Saying " I'm strange to this neighbourhood " would mean that it is <S> you who is strange, not the neighbourhood. <S> The word "neighbourhood" describes an area, and although it is characterised by having people live there and is sometimes used idiomatically to refer to a community of people, technically it does <S> not mean the people itself (otherwise you would never hear terms such as " an abandoned neighbourhood "). <S> That would be the "community". <S> A community could find you strange, but I don't feel it is technically correct to say that a geographical area finds you strange. <S> You could say: This neighbourhood is strange to me . <S> Because the sentence has been reversed it shows that the neighbourhood seems strange to you because you are unfamiliar with it. <S> You could also say: I'm a stranger to this neighbourhood. <S> or I'm unfamiliar with this neighbourhood. <S> The answer to your 'fill-in-the-blank' question though has to be: <S> I'm new to this neighbourhood. <A> Two different meanings <S> "I'm new to this neighbourhood" means that you recently arrived there. <S> "I'm strange to this neighbourhood" means that you are strange, odd, peculiar, curious, or unusual in the opinions of people in the neighbourhood. <S> At least it means that you are different than the usual person in the neighbourhood. <S> You could say I'm a stranger to this neighbourhood, which means people in the neighbourhood don't know you yet, or don't trust you yet, or they don't consider you one of their own. <A> It is not incorrect but it's pretty uncommon and <S> a lot of native speakers would be somewhat confused by this usage. <S> It's something you would typically only find in print written at a college or above reading level. <S> The form of 'strange' is this: Merriam-Webster <S> strange <S> 1.b <S> not native to or naturally belonging in a place : of external origin, kind, or character ' <S> The Free Dictionary' includes a usage example: <S> strange 1.b <S> Not of one's own or a particular locality, environment, or kind; not native <S> : came across a flower that was strange to the region . <S> An example of this usage can be found in this transcript from a US congressional hearing : While the various species might or might not be strange to the region, it was certainly exceedingly strange to find them appearing in very large populations during the first three months of the year, ... <S> At oxforddictionaries.com <S> It is described as archaic. <S> Based on comments, this is still understood in Britain to be normal usage <S> so I'm not sure why it is described that way. <S> ‘I am strange to the work’ The option 'new' in this sentence is a very common usage which is why it's selected. <S> It's the better answer but <S> 'strange' isn't really incorrect here.
| The option "strange" is not correct because "strange" in the context of being somewhere new means "unusual" or "odd" because of your own unfamiliarity with it.
|
Meaning of the statement with the phrase "until after" Here it is: Understood and mastered means that: During the pull from the floor, the bar never leaves the skin of your legs. Your elbows stay straight until after the jump. Does that mean that elbows must be straight until the jump, and after it, or that they must be straight until the jump, but it is normal to bend them after it? <Q> <A> 'Until after' means until the given moment, including the moment. <S> There's a state (something that lasts quite long, 'elbows straight') and a moment/event (a short thing, 'the jump'). <S> Without the qualifier, it's unclear if the 'state' may end right before or during the short 'event'. ' <S> You must wear the badges until after you cleared the security checkpoint' - means you can take them off once you've been allowed through. <S> If it was 'You must wear the badges until the security checkpoint' someone may take their badge off right as they enter the checkpoint. <A> Are you quoting from " Starting Strength - Basic Barbell Training " by Mark Rippetoe? <S> You could include that reference in your question. <S> Notice that it includes photos. <S> According to those images, it seems that you have to maintain your elbows straight until the beginning of the jump <S> but you have to bend them if you want to put the bar over your shoulders. <S> I guess that you start jumping and simultaneously <S> you start pulling. <S> But I'm no expert in that field. <S> I didn't exactly know when you decide that a jump has finished so you can do something after it. <S> When you are at the uppest point in the air or when you have returned to the floor?
| Once the jump has been made, it's okay to bend your elbows.
|
Is the word "all" singular or plural? For example, is the following sentence correct? All is well! If it is correct, then it means that "all" is singular. Then how come the phrase All hail Caesar is used because it suggests that "all" is plural that's why it takes hail and not hails. <Q> I had originally provided a comment to an answer (which is now deleted) saying that all can be either singular or plural. <S> But that's not really correct. <S> As a comment, I didn't have space to explain it properly. <S> All is used along with a subject that is either singular or plural. <S> I ate ( all / most / some / part) of the cake . <S> That is all. <S> All of the cars are white. <S> According to Merriam-Webster, all can be an adjective, adverb, or pronoun, and it can be used in sentences that involve singular nouns or plural nouns. <S> It can also be a noun itself. <S> When it is, it's considered to be singular. <S> Whether it's used in a sentence with a singular subject or a plural subject is contextual. <S> All is well. <S> Here, it's used in a singular construction. <S> It's being used in the same sense as everything would be: <S> Everything is well. <S> On the other hand, this would also be acceptable, if not common: <S> All (of them) are well. <S> In this case (assuming of them is not actually present in the sentence), all is being used as a pronoun in place of something like: <S> Things are well. <S> People are well. <S> Or, depending on how you look at it, it's not a pronoun but an adjective for something that simply isn't present: <S> All things are well. <S> All people are well. <S> All hail Caesar! <S> The verb form really has nothing to do with a singular or plural subject in this sentence. <S> What this sentence is actually saying is: All (of you <S> should / must) <S> hail Caesar! <S> While the sentence is implicitly talking about the plural you , hail is the conjugation used for both the singular and plural form of you . <A> When all is used with a plural noun, it means every, and the verb agrees: All the cities were represented at the meeting. <S> When all is used with a singular noun, with or without of, it means entire and takes a singular verb: All the city was in mourning. <A> Is the word "all" singular or plural? <S> No, it isn't. <S> The word "all" does not have a grammatical number, which means that it does not conflict with either a singular or a plural referent. <S> All is well. <S> In this sentence, the referent of "all" is singular. <S> It agrees with the form "is". <S> The only thing that marks grammatical number in that sentence is the verb form, so we must assume that "all" has a singular referent in this sentence. <S> All are well. <S> In this sentence, the only thing that marks grammatical number is the verb form "are". <S> We must assume that "all" has a plural referent here. <S> Only a plural referent would agree with "are". <S> If the question is "how is everything?", one sensible answer is "all is well". <S> In this case, "all" refers to everything, which is a singular idea. <S> If the question question is "how is your family?", one sensible answer is "all are well". <S> Here, "all" refers to the members of the family, which is a plural idea. <S> The totality is good. <S> The individuals are good. <S> The word "all" might refer to either.
| Sometimes, all is used in a sentence with a subject that's considered singular, and sometimes in a sentence with a subject that's considered plural.
|
What does it mean when the wife in the picture says "I wear the brains in the family."? I saw this picture on the internet, and I can't really understand the meaning of "I wear the brains in the family" used by the wife in the picture. I know the husband said "I wear the pants in the family' means that he is in charge in the family. So the wife responds to him by saying she wears the brains in the family. Does it mean that she is the head of the family? <Q> The image depicts the woman mocking the man by using the form of his idiomatic expression to return fire, claiming that she's the intelligent one in the family in a comedic way. <S> It's not correct usually to say "I wear the brains in this council", for example, but in this specific case, parallelism is used with the first sentence to provide comedic relief. <S> For reference, English is my first language <S> and I've been speaking it my whole life. <S> I believe that often English learners take this comedic style too literally, missing the parallelism in the sentences that creates the humor. <S> I respectfully disagree with any claims otherwise. <A> "I wear the brains" doesn't make any literal sense. <S> What she means is that she is the one who has the brains (i.e., she's the smart one) <S> but she says it in a way that mirrors the words used by her husband, just because it sounds better. <A> The whole point of this joke is that it is a parody of the oft-heard English saying, "to wear the pants in a relationship" ; the cartoon is, amongst many things, mocking the idea that there is, can be or should be a "dominant" or "most important" part of any relationship, or indeed in any human collaboration. <S> "To wear the pants in a relationship" , in my experience, is used in English most often in the following three contexts: (1) to be (literal meaning) <S> the male in a heterosexual relationship or, more generally, (2) to be (metaphorical meaning) a "dominant" partner or even (satirical meaning) (3) to have an overswollen sense of one's individual importance in a collaboration and probably a disregard for other people's contributions to that collaboration. <S> Usages (2) and (3) are often alike when used in the third person, in that they both often have a strong whiff that the "pants wearer" is disrespectful of and lacking acknowledgement for the others who contribute to the relationship, be it a couple or otherwise. <S> So, although one can't be exactly sure what a cartoonist is getting at, a likely implication of what's going on here is that the man is trying to "pull rank" ( i.e. claim authority to have the final say on a decision), possibly because he happens to be the person who has the paid job in the family. <S> The lady is making the point that it takes waaay more than money earning to make any endeavor to work, especially an emotional relationship. <S> Indeed, her expression and the poignant paraphrasing of the dictum probably says she feels severely overstressed and overladen at having to be the one who always has to take this responsibility.
| She is "wearing the brains", in other words, she is constantly thinking and planning how how family finances are going to meet the couple's needs and avoiding financial disaster, which is no trivial job.
|
Is it "be silent about" or "be silent on"? So I wonder if it is more natural, for US speakers, to say "The writing is silent about this possibility" or to say "The writing is silent on this possibility"? <Q> Either is correct and either is, I think, common. <S> Personally, as a US speaker, I would prefer "silent on", although I would probably be more likely to use "silent as to" than either. <S> The google ngram viewer shows "silent on" as slightly more popular than "silent about", without much difference between British and American English. <S> American English: British English: <A> More correct would be : <S> Silent in this case van often be replaced by the adjective "mute". <S> "Silent" tends to create awkward sentences when used to describe one's nonverbal actions, but when used well can create an eloquent context, as it's uncommon and roundabout. <A> We normally use silent on with the present tense to say that a text (or an author) doesn't address a particular topic in any way: <S> The article is silent on the issue of trade imbalance. <S> whereas with silent about <S> it is normal to use any tense, and the statement is normally made about people: <S> The sellers had been silent about the zoning restrictions on the property. <S> I am qualifying these remarks with the word normally because you will surely find exceptions to this general trend. <S> A careful writer, however, wouldn't use "silent about" in the text/author context, and in a conversation about some mundane transaction the more formal silent on is not likely to be used either.
| "The writer is silent on the topic of" "Is silent about" is awkward; better is "remains silent about" or "silent as to".
|
Is "Over how many days is your coughing problem now?" correctly phrased? How do ask the duration in days of person's coughing in English? Let's say you have a friend who have been constantly coughing for several days until now. You asked: Over how many days is/are your coughing problem now? Is this the correct way of asking that? <Q> The idiomatic expression for inquiring about a duration is "how long"; you might ask your friend, "How long have you had this cough?" <A> The present perfect progressive construction would be perfect for this context. <S> This construction is used for ongoing action in the past that continues right up to the present, has recently finished, or will continue beyond the present. <S> It is particularly common when asking or stating the duration of an ongoing action. <S> Here are some examples: <S> Q: <S> Over how many days have you been coughing now? <S> A: I have been coughing for three days. <S> or Q: <S> Over how many days has your coughing problem been occurring ? <S> A: <S> It has been occurring over three days. <A> “How Long” “How long have you had that cough?” is something you might ask a friend in casual conversation when you notice him coughing. <S> Doctors, on the other hand, often ask “When did that cough start?” <S> In either case, while “coughing” is the correct verb, many native speakers (American English) will refer to someone’s cough as something they have rather than something they’re doing, but there are plenty of exceptions. <S> “Over what period of time” is not ungrammatical, but sounds stilted and odd in conversation. <S> “I have been coughing for over a week” or <S> “I started coughing a few days ago” are typical replies, as this sort of question rarely calls for a precise answer unless asked by a healthcare provider. <S> Conversational Example <S> The following illustrates this usage in informal, conversational English. <S> Adam: <S> Hi, Betty. <S> Wow, that’s a nasty cough you have there. <S> How long have you had it? <S> Betty: Just a few days. <S> I’m feeling better already. <S> Formal writing or doctor/patient conversations may certainly require more precision and fewer sentence fragments, but “how long” is still likely to be the most common phrase you encounter.
| “How long” and “how long ago” are very common phrases for asking about duration or onset of something.
|
A dog followed the man into the store A dog followed the man into the store. Is it only me who thinks the sentence above means both? A dog was walking behind the man into the store. The man got into the store by the following of a dog. I think it's possible the sentence means both, although the second version sounds very weird, but anyways, it can be interpreted the 2nd way. <Q> Your conjecture is invalid. <S> Follow takes an object and an optional locative complement designating the destination or path of movement. <S> But it never has a causative sense: the subject does not cause the object to move. <A> No, the second meaning does not work. <S> The word follow cannot have that meaning. <S> For contrast, let's look at a different sentence: <S> A dog chased the man into the store. <S> This sentence <S> can have two different interpretations: <S> The man caused the dog to enter the store. <S> (The man chose to run into the store, and the dog ran in behind him.) <S> The dog caused the man to enter the store. <S> (The man was running to get away from the dog, and the path away from the dog led into the store.) <S> Why can this sentence have more than one interpretation? <S> Because the word chase has more than one meaning, and the sentence does not make it absolutely clear which meaning should apply. <S> chase - verb <S> (1) transitive verb 1 : a : to follow rapidly : PURSUE // <S> a dog chasing a rabbit ... 4 : to cause to depart or flee : DRIVE // <S> chase the dog out of the garden ... ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chase ) <S> The first interpretation uses definition 1a. <S> The second interpretation uses definition 4. <S> For the purposes of our discussion, definition 4 is the more interesting definition. <S> This definition describes a particular kind of relationship between the subject of the verb ( dog ) and the object of the verb ( man ), where the action of the subject is causing a certain behavior in the object. <S> (That behavior is "running away".) <S> In short, definition 4 is the only reason we can say that the dog caused the man to do something. <S> If the word chase did not have definition 4, then we could not interpret the sentence that way. <S> Now, if we look at the definitions for the word follow in the dictionary , do we see any definitions similar to chase 's definition 4? <S> That is, do we see a definition where the action of the subject is causing a certain behavior in the object? <S> No, we do not. <S> There is no definition of follow that describes a situation where the dog is causing the man to enter the store. <A> I don't know what you mean <S> by the second sentence, it makes no sense to me. <S> The dog is walking behind the man. <A> You are correct that your second sentence "sounds very weird". <S> That is because it makes no sense . <S> It seems to suggest that the man somehow got into the store (was allowed to enter) by "the following of a dog" ( because he was followed by a dog), which is just plain crazy, unless the shop only allows humans to enter if a dog goes in after them. <S> Maybe you mean "the man went into the store, followed by a dog". <S> We can use "follow" a number of ways: e.g. to literally move along behind someone or something, or to happen after something else, or to sympathise with and admire (of a leader). <S> Follow <A> There are verbs that describe an action of a subject causing an object to enter into something: I forced a square peg into a round hole. <S> The students moved their possessions into the dormitory. <S> The board of directors forced the company president into retirement. <S> The general sent two divisions into the valley. <S> The mermaids lured sailors into the ocean. <S> The artists fastened the painting into its frame. <S> He poked his head into the room. <S> She pushed him into the water. <S> You have painted yourself into a corner. <S> The child cajoled her parents into buying candy. <S> Some of those meanings of "into" are more abstract than others, but in all cases the verb is understood as causing the thing described in the "into" phrase. <S> But plenty of verbs do not have this construction. <S> For example, it is not possible for me to stand myself into unconsciousness, even if I cause myself to fall unconscious by standing in a bad posture for a long time. <S> I cannot know a book into a library, <S> even if I am responsible for purchasing books for the library and knowing the book caused me to buy it. <S> Perhaps the man went into the store in hopes of getting away from the dog that was following him, and therefore the dog caused the man to enter the store by following him. <S> But that fact is not a meaning of the sentence, "The dog followed the man into the store. <S> " <S> We do not use the construction followed into to indicate causation. <A> You may, however, have been thinking of a similar phrasing that would be correct, although still unusual. <S> The dog-following man entered the store. <S> This makes sense and would be inline with your second interpretation. <S> However, it's kind of hard to come up with a situation where I would actually use it. <S> Maybe in a story about a man who saw a stray dog and decided to follow it to see where it went? <A> Punctuation is important. <S> With careful punctuation, it is possible to twist the sentence to match your second meaning: <S> A dog, followed the man - into the store <S> However, this requires an unnatural form of the language, and is likely to only be used either poetically, or in writing to emphasise that English is not a character's primary language. <S> Sound like Yoda <S> , you will. <S> Compare with this famous example, used in teaching English language <S> : Caesar entered on his head his helmet in his eye a steely glint in his hand his sword saying nothing <S> Now, punctuate it: <S> Caesar entered - on his head, his helmet; in his eye, a steely glint; in his hand, his sword - saying nothing.
| As others have said, your second interpretation is incorrect. The sentence you are asking about means: a man walks into the store and is followed by a dog.
|
Why is my hair wet? I have finished washing my hair and it is still wet. Why is my hair wet? Because I have washed it. (focus is on the final result) Because I have been washing it. (focus is on the action) To me they are both possible because the recently finished action leads to the result = wet hair. So what do you think? Which one is preferable? <Q> It is also possible to use simple past <S> Because I washed it (five minutes ago); I just washed it. <S> or past <S> continuous <S> Because I was washing it. <S> All possible, all correct. <S> Not much difference in meaning. <A> I believe you understand the difference between the two verb forms quite well. <S> I think for washing one's hair, a focus on the action of washing one's hair would be rather unusual. <S> So the most natural conversation would be: <S> Why is your hair wet? <S> Because I've washed it. <S> But for other scenarios, the focus on the action would be completely natural. <S> So the following conversation would usually use the past continuous tense: <S> Why are your shoes all muddy? <S> Because I've been walking in the woods. <S> Maybe the reason for the difference is that most people wash their hair in order to get clean hair, while many people walk in the woods because they enjoy the walk. <S> Both verb forms are grammatical for both situations, and probably wouldn't strike a native English speaker hearing them as unusual. <A> I don't believe the set-up here. <S> Who wants to know? <S> If it is the person asking the question, they would know whether or not they have been washing their hair recently. <S> Otherwise, the question reads like some kind of riddle, or possibly a rhetorical question. <S> If the real intended question here is: "Why is your hair wet?" <S> then "Because I have washed it" without further context might possibly be OK as an answer, but only because the listener will mentally interpolate the word "just". <S> They would need to make such an interpolation because the statement "I have washed my hair" is true of pretty much every human being on the planet who has hair to wash. <S> The statement therefore contains literally no information without further context. <S> It would be easy to think of circumstances in which that truthful answer might not in fact account for the hair being wet now : " <S> I was just skinny-dipping in the pool with your wife", for example. <S> Consider, for example, both of the following statements that are in fact true of me: "I have shaved my chin" <S> "I have a full beard". <S> There is a difference in meaning between the two formulations in the OP's question. <S> That difference might not matter in some circumstances but would in others.
| Both are possible, with very little difference in meaning.
|
Why we use 'no sooner' instead of 'not sooner'? I think 'not sooner than' is a right form and 'no sooner than' seens pretty odd to me. Does anyone know where the phrase 'no sooner than' came from? Is it just a tradition? <Q> "Sooner" is a comparative adverb . <S> It is not correct to say "not sooner than" because a comparison is not binary, unlike situations where something either is or is not . <S> There may be a whole range of specific times down to the millisecond between two points. <S> The phrase you may use instead if you want to say something must not occur until a specific time is " not before ". <S> Examples: <S> You may open this gift <S> no sooner than December 25th. <S> You may open this gift but not before December 25th. <S> It isn't just "sooner" that you use this way: <S> The oven should be no hotter than 180 degrees. <S> The oven temperature should not be above 180 degrees. <A> Just a guess, it probably evolved over time, but if you don't use the " than " then <S> No sooner had he returned home that it started to rain is correct, but not Not sooner had he returned home that it started to rain <A> The structure no sooner...than can be used If the second event occurs immediately after the first, and it introduces the event that occurred first. <S> Beginning a sentence with the negative word no , the structure requires putting the auxiliary verb before the subject: <S> No sooner had I arrived <S> /did I arrive at the station than the train came. <S> This means that I arrived first and the train right after me. <S> The source
| You use it when you are not placing two things before or after one another but comparing their timing.
|
What's the cream or powder that removes hair called? I know there's a powder or cream that removes the hair (mainly from face) without any need to usage of blade. It's a chemical shaving. Now, I thought it is called "shaving cream" or "shaving powder", but according to Wikipedia these names refer to those powders or cream facilitate shaving so it's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the one that shaves without any further need to use blade. <Q> The word you want is depilatory . <S> Here's a defintion from M-W : : an agent for removing hair, wool, or bristles <S> And the origin from Etymonline : <S> c. 1600, "having the property of removing hair from the skin," from French dépilatorie (adj.), from Latin depilatus " <S> having one's hair plucked," from de- "completely" (see de-) + <S> pilatus , past participle of pilare <S> "deprive of hair," from pilus "hair" (see pile (n.3)). <S> Earlier in same sense was Depilative . <S> As a noun, "application used to remove hair without injuring the skin," from c. 1600, from French <S> dépilatorie (n.). <S> In addition, should you choose to enter this word in a search engine, you will discover many advertisements for creams, lotions, and so on which accomplish this task with varying degrees of reputibility. <A> For instance, this site's headline: The 5 Best Hair Removal Creams <S> The powder form is also called "shaving powder", even though it's used instead of shaving. <S> For instance, this product: Magic Shaving Powder Red ("Magic" is the brand name, not a suggestion that it works using supernatural means). <A> In the US, the brand name Nair is sometimes used as a generic term for this (especially the cream, and especially by women). <S> Compare "Kleenex" used for any facial tissue. <S> A couple of examples, as a verb and a noun: <S> [A different product] makes the hair grow back thinner softer and slower where i would need to nair before about once every 2 to 3 days pushing it at 3 <S> i need to nair about once every 5 days with this. <S> ( Amazon review of other product) <S> Is nair/hair remover safe for repeated use? <S> . <S> . . . Right now I use the CVS generic for nair with aloe and lanolin, is that safe to use every couple weeks (over my full torso and arms/legs, obvs avoiding crotch and face)? <S> ( Reddit thread )
| While, "depilatory" is the fancy, technical name for this, it's also often called just "hair removal cream".
|
How do we say "placed my thumb inside a hose" while inverting the word order of thumb and hose? He placed the hose around his thumb? I can't really think of an idiomatic way of saying it. Is it just me? I am trying to think of a good phrasal verb for this. <Q> I placed my thumb inside a hose. <S> To invert it, you would use something like this: Inside a hose, I placed my thumb. <S> Note, however, that even though the syntax works, the inverted sentence is awkward. <S> People would not normally use that phrasing. <S> It also lends itself to misinterpretation. <S> Even though it wouldn't make sense, it might be thought to mean when I was inside a hose, I placed my thumb. <S> In order to avoid such confusion, a slight change would be required: <S> Inside a hose did I place my thumb. <S> This is less awkward, but it sounds archaic or poetic. <S> That may be fine in the right context, but it's not a natural sentence in general. <S> In short, I don't think there is an idiomatic way of expressing the inversion of the original. <A> I put my thumb inside a hose. <S> If you invert the action, it becomes <S> I placed a hose on my thumb. <A> I stuck my thumb up the [vacuum cleaner] hose to clean out a dust ball. <S> But there's no inversion, I'm afraid. <S> stick something up something <S> [stick one's finger up one's nose]. <S> I can't "feel" the around option at all. <S> The idiomatic usage here is: to stick something up something; often to describe putting a finger into or up a bodily orifice. <S> Sorry, it can get somewhat gross. <S> But it can also be totally fine, as well <S> : He stuck his finger in the pie and shoved the piece into his mouth. <A> The hose he placed around his thumb. <S> The tip of his thumb he placed inside the hose to spray the water farther. <S> The hose he placed around his thumb, but why we couldn't say.
| You could also say His thumb he placed inside the hose.
|
How to understand this question 'what did you shop for?' I clearly understand the meaning of 'what did you shop?' But I don't understand this 'for' at the end. <Q> There is a subtle difference between the verb "shop" by itself, and the phrasal verb "shop for". <S> In the context of ordinary commerce: By itself, "shop" simply implies the activity of going out and (potentially) buying things from shops . <S> Example: <S> Yesterday we went shopping <S> (= <S> we had no specific purchase in mind) <S> Yesterday we went shopping for <S> [warm winter coats for the kids] <S> You cannot ask "What did you shop? <S> " if you want to know the intended purchase. <S> Instead you must ask "what did you shop for ?" <S> However you may ask more general questions such as: <S> When did you shop? <S> Where <S> did you shop? <S> Who <S> did you shop with? <S> or other questions that may not directly relate to the intended items. <S> Side Note: "Shop" has other, colloquial, and relatively uncommon definitions. <S> For these, "What did you shop? <S> " might be fine. <A> Shop is an intransitive verb: it does not take an object. <S> The things we intend to purchase are expressed with a preposition phrase headed by for : <S> We shopped for clothes at Marks & Spencer. <S> Consequently, when you ask your respondent to name the thing or things they intended to purchase, the interrogative ( what ) must be cast as the object of for . <S> When the interrogtative is fronted it may carry the preposition with it ('pied-piping' <S> ) — For what did you shop? <S> —or the preposition may be left in place ('stranded'): <S> What <S> did you shop for ? <S> Pied-piping is preferred in formal registers, stranding in informal registers. <A> Without any other context, shop in your first sentence can have an ambiguous meaning. <S> What did you shop? <S> The use of a preposition clarifies the intended sense of the word. <S> What did you shop for (this Christmas)? <S> This is asking what you purchased. <S> It's the more common of possible meanings, but it's not the only one. <S> What did you shop around (to the executives)? <S> Here, it's asking what you were trying to sell . <S> The expression shopping something around is often used in the sense of trying to market an idea or product. <S> What did you shop out (of the picture)? <S> Here, it's being used in the colloquial sense of Photoshop, the popular graphic-editing application. <S> It might be styled as Shop or 'shop , but often isn't. <S> This sentence is asking what element was removed from a picture. <S> In each case, the use of a preposition makes the intended meaning of shop clear, distinguishing it from other interpretations. <S> As I mentioned, context can also make it clear, and often context means you don't have to use a preposition. <S> But without context, a preposition will aid in the prevention of any misinterpretation.
| "Shop for" instead implies the activity of buying some specific item from the shops.
|
Do natives say "I'll be happy to be proven otherwise"? While I'll be happy to be proven otherwise , it should be pretty clear by now that no such thing exists. Do native speakers say "I'll be happy to be proven otherwise" ? <Q> I think if someone says, "I'll be happy to be proven otherwise," they are mixing up A) <S> "I'll be happy to be proven wrong," and B) <S> "I'll be happy if it proves to be otherwise." <S> Both of those expressions convey pretty much the same idea. <S> But to really be right, you ought to stick with either A) or B). <S> The combination, "... happy to be proven otherwise," doesn't make a lot of sense. <S> While it sort of sounds familiar at first, if you think about it, it's not really right. <S> It would mean that the person himself was proved to be "otherwise," (whatever that might mean.) <A> First, proved is somewhat more common than proven according Ngram, but proven is certainly acceptable. <S> (This may be a regional difference. <S> Certainly where I live <S> proven is very common.) <S> Second, While I'll be happy to be proven otherwise... is the kind of error that happens frequently in speech. <S> People start by thinking one thing and then think of an alternative. <S> What comes out is a mix that is wrong, but native speakers will figure it out unconsciously. <S> People who do not take the time to write carefully will then write this sort of thing in more formal situations. <S> So what thoughts were scrambled? <S> Although I'll be happy if it is proved/proven otherwise, ... <S> where "it" is whatever proposition is being discussed, is being confused with Although I'll be happy to be proved/proven wrong, ... <S> A person cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise; it is a meaningless idea. <S> But people can be wrong. <A> The other answers are good in terms of the overall question. <S> (As a Canadian, perhaps with more US influence in this case, I'm more likely to say proven than proved .) <S> But I wanted to mention something that hasn't been brought up yet. <S> I think it's generally more common for people to say I'd be happy than it is for them to say I'll be happy , <S> particularly if what's under discussion is only a possibility rather than a certainty. <S> Let's say I've bought a lottery ticket: <S> ✔ <S> I'd be happy to win. <S> ✘ <S> I'll be happy to win. <S> Normally, people would not use <S> will in this case. <S> Instead, they would use would . <S> In the case of your example sentence, which wording is used would be based on the person's assumption of likelihood of being proven wrong. <S> If it's probable that they are wrong, then they'd use I'll ; otherwise, I think they would be more likely to use <S> I'd . <S> Since this sentence concludes with "it should be pretty clear by now that no such thing exists," the speaker would normally choose <S> I'd . <S> Google Books NGram Viewer suggests this too:
| A native speaker might very well say something like that, or even write it in a casual situation.
|
Can "Madame" be used instead of "Madam"? In President Trump's letter to Speaker Pelosi , he addressed Pelosi as "Madame Speaker". The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Madame Speaker: However, in an episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert , Colbert mentioned that "Madame" with the "e" is incorrect. "Trump made a mistake in the very first line by misspelling Pelosi's name. He wrote 'Dear Madame Speaker'. Nancy Pelosi is actually 'Madam Speaker' without the 'e'". Personally, I am accustomed to using "Madam" but is "Madame" with the 'e' still correct? And is it commonly used in the United States? <Q> Merriam-Webster defines madame as: [...] <S> a title equivalent to Mrs. for a married woman not of English-speaking nationality [emphasis mine]. <S> I suspect this dates back to the days when French was the official language of international diplomacy, which began around the 14th century all the way to through post-WWII period when English started taking over. <S> You do still see remnants of this literal lingua franca in settings like the Olympics, where all announcements are made in English, French, and the language of the host country. <S> So Jiang Qing , the wife of Mao Zedong, was often referred to as Madame Mao , because this would have been the form of address in formal diplomatic settings. <S> Again, French isn't the dominant diplomatic language today, so you'd probably be less likely to hear Madame <S> used for a contemporary political figure. <S> Even putting aside the decline in the use of French, when talking about internal politics, the rules of international diplomacy shouldn't apply. <S> As English-speakers, we should use Madam as an honorific for an English-speaking person. <S> I could imagine Madame <S> being used as a joke to invoke the old-fashioned, very formal international diplomacy mood in a sarcastic way. <S> If done deliberately, it has a little bit of the same effect of calling a non-royal person "your majesty" sarcastically, although it's not nearly as strong or insulting (a lot would depend on tone of voice if it were spoken). <S> This is one reason that people are drawing attention to this particular usage by the President - it does have a possibility of a tiny hint of sarcasm, although it could also just be an unintentional error. <A> Google Books claims almost half a million written instances of madam speaker (matching all permutations of capital/lower case M/S ), compared to just 2300 hits for madame speaker . <S> Where the term is specifically part of a French woman's "name" (as in Madame Bovary ), it would be normal to include that extra e (as the French themselves do). <S> When it's a "gender-specific" alternative to "adverbial" Mister as a term of address (as in Mister Speaker, Mr President ), or <S> Dear Sir/Madam <S> introducing a letter or email, you probably shouldn't include it. <A> Colbert had it correct.. <S> Madam e refers to a married French lady but can also be used slightly more broadly when referring to a older lady of distinction of non-British, non-American heritage and in that case it is independent of marital status. <S> "Madam" can also refer to the highest ranking woman in a house, so where you would say "Is the Master of the House home?" <S> for a man you would say "Is the Madam of the house home? <S> " but this usage is old fashioned now and would be markedly odd. <A> Better watch out with the use of "Madam", which is sometimes used to designate the lady who runs a brothel. " <S> Madame" is safer in this respect.
| In this case the word is being used to to feminize an American gender neutral rank "Speaker" and is referring to an American woman so "Madam Speaker" is the correct usage.
|
Would it be "went to sleep at one yesterday" or ”...today"? My brother was saying that is grammatically correct to say he went to sleep at one today because it was after 12 o' clock, but I say it should be he went to sleep at one o'clock yesterday . Which one of us is correct? <Q> This is not a matter of grammar but of semantics and idiom. <S> I went to bed at one o'clock this morning . <A> Good question! <S> I agree with the comment that choosing "last night" or "this morning" is a matter of emphasis - If you want to stress that it was inconvenient or unusual for you, I'd suggest using "this morning"; if you were out with friends or it's normal for you to go to sleep in the early AM hours, <S> I'd suggest using "last night". <S> As a matter of personal convention, I use 5am as the cutoff between "last night" and "this morning". <S> At 5am <S> it's unambiguously the morning or a new day, but 2 or 3am could easily still be considered a continuation or part of the same night that technically ended after 11:59pm <A> rexkogitans's comment to your question is correct. <S> What you're asking is not an issue with the sentence's structure, and is not a question about grammar. <S> Most people will say that the day starts at midnight (12:00am). <S> Some religious groups have been known to say that a new day starts at sundown, which would make this question moot. <S> Presuming that you accept that the new day starts at midnight, the technically correct answer is that 1:00 am was from today. <S> However, if the person normally starts sleeping somewhere from 8pm-11:30pm, and simply did an unusual thing by starting sleep later on this particular night, then some people might say "I didn't go to bed last night until 1 am". <S> Even though this wasn't actually "last night", that is when the person started the sleep session that would typically have started last night, so people might decide to use words that act that way. <S> While such a choice of words would be considered technically inaccurate, I have certainly heard people talk that way. <S> I side with your brother, but many people would understand what you mean, and there's a good chance that it wouldn't cause much confusion.
| I don't think most native speakers would use either "today" or "yesterday"; we'd say I went to bed at one o'clock last night or
|
How to understand "Don't you go feeling guilty!" in this context Over the next few days Harry could not help noticing that there was one person within number twelve, Grimmauld Place, who did not seem wholly overjoyed that he would be returning to Hogwarts. Sirius had put up a very good show of happiness on first hearing the news, wringing Harry's hand and beaming just like the rest of them. Soon, however, he was moodier and surlier than before, talking less to everybody, even Harry, and spending increasing amounts of time shut up in his mother's room with Buckbeak. " Don't you go feeling guilty! " said Hermione sternly, after Harry had confided some of his feelings to her and Ron while they scrubbed out a mouldy cupboard on the third floor a few days later. "You belong at Hogwarts and Sirius knows it. Personally, I think he's being selfish." Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix I think "Don't you go feeling guilty!" here is an imperative sentence. But I would expect an imperative sentence go something like: "Don't go feeling guilty, you!". The structure of "Don't you go feeling guilty!" is more like a rhetorical question. Is it a normal form of an imperative sentence? How should we understand it correctly in this context? <Q> You are right to understand it as an imperative sentence that specifies, instead of implies, the subject. <S> The formulation tends to come across as excited or dramatic because the unnecessary pronoun adds emphasis. <S> The structure that you expect ("Imperative, person addressed!") is typical if you're using a person's name or title, but is unusual when using the pronoun "you." <S> With the pronoun "you" the common form is "Don't you [do x]... <S> " Some frequent examples: "Don't you dare," "Don't you worry" and "Don't you cry." <S> Sometimes both the pronoun and a name/title can be included. <S> "Don't you worry, mom! <S> I already did all my homework!" <A> I think that @Katy has explained very well that it's an imperative. <S> Let me quote a reference for completeness. <S> According to the Cambridge Dictionary : <S> Imperatives with subject pronouns. <S> For emphasis , we can use you in an imperative clause: [a student and a teacher] <S> A: Can I leave the room? <S> B: <S> No. <S> You stay here. <S> In negative imperatives of this type, you comes after don’t: Maria, don’t you try to pay for this. <S> I invited you for lunch <S> and I insist on paying. <S> Let's answer your questions <S> It may share the structure of a question in relation with the order of the elements: auxiliary verb, subject and main verb; but it's not a question at all. <S> Is it a normal form of an imperative sentence? <S> Yes, it is. <S> How should we understand it correctly in this context? <S> Hermione is exhorting Harry not to feel guilty. <A> This is an older form of the imperative which has become a kind of fossilized pattern in that construction "Don't you go [verb]ing". <S> Compare from Shakespeare's King Lear : <S> Sit you down, father. <S> Rest you. <S> or Two Gentlemen of Verona : <S> Here, take you this. <S> or from William Congreve's Love for Love (1695) <S> Hold, hold. <S> Don't you go yet. <S> In conversation, depending on which word receives emphasis, the negative applies to the action or to you : <S> Don't you go doubting me now. <S> (like the others who are doubting me) <S> Don't you go doubting me now. <S> (don't become doubtful of me) <A> 'Do not you go feeling guilty.' <S> Here, do is not a question. <S> And go <S> is a state of being, not a movement. <S> " Preform not you entering into a specified state of guilt. <S> " <S> go : 4. <S> enter into a specified state do 1. <S> preform
| The structure of "Don't you go feeling guilty!" is more like a rhetorical question
|
A word for "a means of getting a job over reliable candidates" I want the word that means "a means of getting a job over reliable candidates", but I'm going to explain it here again in an example. The example: If X and Y applied to a job, and X happened to have a relative that works in the company they applied to it, while Y knows no one in that company, but he has very high qualifications over X. However, X got the job nonetheless since he had a _____. X could have got the job by other means like he knows the manager there, for example. Thus, it is not only relatives related. I thought of "means" and "intermediate" but the results I got didn't confirm my thoughts. Means Intermediate <Q> You could say that X had an in : in noun 2: influence, pull • enjoyed some sort of in with the commandant — Henriette Roosenburg definition from m-w.com <A> According to The Free Dictionary , definition #6, you can use the word connection : A person, especially one of influence or importance, with whom one is associated, as by kinship or common interests: used her connections to land a job. <S> Consequently, X used their connections to land the job. <A> "Nepotism" indicates favoritism due to a familial relationship. <S> If some other relationship is involved X got the job due to favoritism. <A> One possibility is "the inside track." <S> inside track <S> noun an advantageous competitive position <S> Example: "The owner's son has the inside track for the job." <S> From Merriam-Webster.com <S> The advantage of having the inside track doesn't necessarily need to be a connection or relationship to a particular person. <S> It could also be better qualifications, familiarity with an institution or system, or something else that puts a person in a better position than someone they're competing with. <S> According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the meaning comes from horse racing, where the horse on the inside part of a curved track has to travel a shorter distance on each lap than the horses further away from the center. <A> It's not a single word, but "friend at court" suggests that the relative at the company, while not a decision maker themselves, promoted them over the more qualified candidate. <A> X got the job nonetheless since he had a leg up on Y. <S> Or, X got the job nonetheless since he had the favor of the employers (political influence) <S> Also, X got the job nonetheless due to politics <S> (Politics is here used in opposition to merits).
| X got the job due to nepotism.
|
"risk of cancer" or "cancer risk"? I would like to know if I should use "risk of cancer" or "cancer risk" is sentences such as the following (I've seen both of these "risk terms" being used in academic writing): Smoking is associated with greater risk of cancer. Smoking is associated with greater cancer risk. <Q> Smoking is associated with greater risk of cancer. <S> Smoking is associated with greater cancer risk. <S> The word "greater" implies a comparison. <S> Therefore, hopefully, these sentences are embedded in a context where you are comparing smoking with other risk-associated activities. <S> "Both working in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, and smoking, are dangerous activities. <S> However, smoking is associated with (a) greater risk of cancer." <S> Adding the article "a" could be advisable. <S> Other than that, both phrases should be alright. <A> They are generally synonymous but you could use one or the other depending on which aspect, the risk or the cancer, you would like the reader to focus on. <S> Flying has a very small risk....of cancer. <S> emphasizes the small risk, in this case of cancer. <S> Skydiving has a very small cancer risk. <S> emphasizes that cancer is not common to skydiving, but other risks may be. <A> Yet—what may matter-- the usage frequency of the former is almost three times higher than that of the latter. <S> In my opinion, even if there are any distinctions to be made between them, they are too small and overfine to be of any, much less vital importance to a learner.
| From the examples of the usage presented in the Google Books, I've drawn a conclusion that both "greater risk of cancer" and "greater cancer risk" in similar contexts are used interchangeably, with or without the "a" article.
|
"I was bought potatoes" is it possible to say so? Is it possible in any way, maybe colloquial style, to say: "I was bought potatoes" with the sense that someone bought me potatoes. Or is it completely incorrect with grammar and thus a blatant mistake? <Q> Most fluent speakers would be able to work out what you meant, but this isn't a very common usage, and some might get confused. <S> Someone bought me potatoes. <S> (You could also say "somebody".) <S> The exceptions would mostly be poetry. <A> The expression is fine, and not particularly colloquial. <S> Many native speakers dislike the passive voice, though. <S> One could say "I was treated kindly by my aunt and uncle when I stayed with them. <S> I was allowed to watch TV until late in the evening, and I was bought candy every Saturday". <A> I was bought potatoes (by someone). <S> The sentence is understandable, but it's a bit unusual or weird. <S> It's more idiomatic and common if you say: <S> Someone bought you potatoes = <S> Someone bought potatoes for you. <S> The above sentences are in the active voice. <S> If you want to use the passive voice, though less common, you can say: Potatoes were bought for you by someone. <S> This sentence in the passive voice is more idiomatic than "I was bought potatoes by someone". <A> Or say, "Someone bought potatoes for me." <S> so you don't sound weird, because such usage is unusual, and, unless you are an advanced English speaker, you might be considered to be speaking blunder! <A> I would go with either someone bought me potatoes or <S> I was given potatoes (potentially with details such as that someone had bought ). <S> You lose the meaning of buying with money, but you retain the meaning of getting it from someone else.
| In almost all contexts it's better to say it the way you explained it: Simply say, "Someone bought me potatoes."
|
epithet vs teknonymy... which one is correct? What is difference between 'epithet' and 'Teknonymy'? Are they same? Which one of the two relates to ancestors? The name with which one is known but that name is of one of his children, what do we call this in English? e.g. Arabic name: Abu Abdullah. Abdullah is the name of the son of the man who is known as Abu Abdullah. <Q> Epithet is a much more general word than teknonym . <S> In reference to names, the term epithet is usually used for something like "the Terrible" in <S> "Ivan the Terrible"; in Arabic names, "bin Musa" would usually be called a patronym and not an epithet . <S> The problem is that we don't have a common term in English to describe "abu Abdullah"; epithet is slightly misleading, although technically accurate, and teknonym is a more specific term that hardly anybody will know the meaning of. <A> "Abu Abdullah" is an example of a teknonym. <S> But teknonyms are not generally used in English. <S> The word teknonym is exceedingly rare and limited to scientific studies of naming practices around the world. <S> "Epithet" is rather more common, and can apply to an individual (She's Mary-who-makes-the-tea) "who makes the tea" is her epithet. <S> It can also apply to groups <A> An example from Arabic history is Harun al-Rashid . <S> Teknonymy is the practice (or habit or tradition) of calling people by reference to a child's name. <S> See Teknonym on Wiktionary.
| To be specific, an epithet is derived from some characteristic, a patronym is derived from your father's name, a matronym is derived from your mother's name, and a teknonym is derived from the name of one of your children. An epithet is a title that is added to a name and is so associated with it that it becomes part of the name. Teknonym is a name based on teknonymy such as Abu Abdullah (but not all Kunyas; Abu Bakr is not a teknonym).
|
You're my friend for all / whole my life Which of the two quantifiers is the correct one in the following context? a) You're my friend for whole my life. b) You're my friend for all my life. The meaning is to say that this is the friend forever but using these words - plus minus. <Q> OP has remarked that the intended meaning is <S> I just made a friend <S> and I'm making a promise about the future. <S> So neither of the stated sentences is correct, perhaps one of these <S> You will be my friend for my whole life. <S> You will be my friend for the rest of my life. <A> Grammar for a statement to someone about the future. <S> A friend you have just made: 1) - You are my friend and will be [for] my whole life or [for] all my life. <S> [notice the and] 2) - You will be my friend [for] my whole life or [for] all my life. <S> A friend you already have: 3) <S> - You've been my friend [for] my whole life or [for] all my life. <S> [notice the lack of and and that the preposition for calls for a present prefect. <S> The "for" can be implied. <S> [for whole my life is not grammatical] for my whole life or for all my life are grammatical and invariable. <S> The preposition for is optional. <S> There is also: lifelong friend 4) [a simple statement] <S> : You are my friend for life [now]. <S> That statement is future directed. <S> It should noted that saying 4) is a performative utterance. <S> Something happens that causes you to say that performatively. <S> For example, someone does you a huge favor. <S> So, you give them a gift and say: You are my friend for life. <S> That implies: <S> You are [now] my friend for life. <S> And the reason is the favor that was done. <A> Of the two options you've presented, I think this one sounds okay: <S> You're my friend for all my life . <S> but we need to transpose two words for the second one: <S> You're my friend for my whole life . <S> Idiomatically, though, I think most native speakers would simply say: <S> You're a friend for life. <S> Here's why: <S> When speaking to the friend, we can simply say "a friend" instead of "my friend". <S> The "my" is implied, because "a friend" is taken to mean "a friend of mine" when we tell a friend, "You're a friend," as in: <S> You're a friend I can count on. <S> The expression "for life" is a concise, idiomatic way to say, "for my entire life", as in: He was sentenced to prison for life . <A> I believe you can say: You've been a friend for life. <S> You've been a friend my whole life. <S> Note that you use the present perfect tense, because he was and still is a friend.
| You've been a friend for all my life.
|
What is the meaning of the phrase "tack against"? I have come across it in this video . It is at 4 minute and 28 second. Along the way we are also going to try to understand some of what is wrong with the way our information feeds are currently working and how we can tack against prevailing winds of misinformation. What is the meaning of the phrase "tack against" here? <Q> The speaker is using a metaphor, regarding how they can progress despite the problem of misinformation. <A> Tack against prevailing winds is a nautical sailing term. <S> Sailing against the wind is very difficult for a sailing ship – the force of the wind prevents the sails from moving the ship in that direction. <S> Sails on sailboats <S> can be shifted so that they can still get motive thrust from the wind within a range of degrees towards the wind, though (it depends on ship and sail design). <S> So an old sailing trick is to sail at an angle as close to the wind you can manage – and then after a little bit switch course to the mirror opposite angle against the wind. <S> The net result is a zigzag course roughly against the prevailing wind. <S> That zigzagging known as "Tacking". <S> Its certainly slower than sailing with the wind – but it does allow you to make headway if you need to be traveling in the direction the wind is blowing from. <A> From M-W: <S> Tack: c) to follow a course against the wind by a series of tacks. <A> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacking_(sailing) <S> Tacking is sometimes confused with beating to windward, which is a process of beating a course upwind and generally implies (but does not require) actually coming about. <S> In the accompanying figure, the boat is seen to tack three times while beating to windward. <S> That is, beating windward is a process in which one moves towards the wind, but also has a sideways component to one's velocity. <S> Tacking is the process by which one changes the direction of that sideways component, allowing one to have the sideways components cancel out and have a total movement that is directly into the wind. <S> While in sailing, "tacking" refers specifically to the act of changing direction (a technique that is just one part of moving windward, and is used for movements other than moving windward), in general usage it tends to be used to refer to the entire process of moving windward, or, as in this example, metaphorically moving in a direction opposite to some prevailing tendency.
| Tacking is a sailing technique that allows you to sail against the direction of the wind.
|
"A dreadful five minutes" - what about the article? In a BBC One show Would I Lie To You the host says "Gary [...] has had to endure a dreadful five minutes." ( video on Youtube ). I'm curious about the indefinite article, since I've never seen it used in this situation where it clearly refers to the plural of five minutes, and not, for example, a five minute walk . This usage of an a contradicts what I've been taught (in my learner's book the sentence would go "Gary has had to endure dreadful five minutes"). The only thing I can think of is that the dreadful five minutes itself is a description of a singular event/entity, in which case I'd be happy for a name or designation of this language construct (and perhaps even some further examples of it). <Q> "Gary [...] has had to endure a dreadful five minutes." <S> in this five minutes has become a single item a single collection of minutes. <S> A single dreadful block of five minutes. <S> Here are more examples <S> A collection of painted blue houses A miserable 30 minutes of rain. <S> A [descriptive word] [time period] rest of sentence. <A> The indefinite article is here because the "five minutes" referred to is a actually a description of a single time span (which consists of 5 minutes) rather than a plural, it's confusing because of the use of "minutes" but it effectively is the same as saying Gary [...] has had to endure a dreadful period of time lasting five minutes. <S> (which would be far too cumbersome to actually say) <S> Another way to think about it is to change to something that doesn't use a plural word in describing the singular, a crowd is multiple people for example but is itself a singular: <S> The band played to a crowd <A> This only happens when an adjective comes before the number. <S> Using an indefinite article (a / an) immediately before a number, or an adjective without an article is grammatically incorrect as shown below, although using the definite article (the) can work in either case: endure a dreadful five minutes <S> *endure dreadful five minutes <S> *endure a five dreadful minutes <S> endure five dreadful minutes <S> The definite article (the) allows the adjective on either side of the number: <S> endure the dreadful five minutes <S> endure the five dreadful minutes <S> As shown above, the order of the adjective and the number has to reverse when an indefinite article (a / an) is added. <S> Note that you can't replace the indefinite article with "one" or any other number: <S> *endure one dreadful five minutes <S> *endure two dreadful five minutes <S> This can be analysed as a form of ellipsis (leaving something out): endure a dreadful (period of) five minutes endure (a period of) five dreadful minutes endure the dreadful (period of) five minutes <S> endure the (period of) five dreadful minutes <S> In all cases "period of" comes immediately before "five (dreadful) minutes". <S> The indefinite article requires something to attach to, either "dreadful" or "period of". <S> If neither are there, "a" must not be used either. <S> This is not the case for "the", which can still be present without the adjective or the noun which ends up being left out, as long as there is something else it can attach to ("five (dreadful) minutes" or just "dreadful").
| Using an indefinite article suggests that there are multiple instances of "five dreadful minutes".
|
How to understand "for what he tells me is the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time" in this context "Mr Filch, the caretaker, has asked me, for what he tells me is the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time , to remind you all that magic is not permitted in corridors between classes, nor are a number of other things, all of which can be checked on the extensive list now fastened to Mr Filch's office door. ..." (Dumbledore) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix As I understand, it means: it took Mr Filch 460 seconds to tell all those regulations . I'm not sure if I get it right. I don't quite understand the grammar as well. <Q> Filch (probably exaggerating) told Dumbledore that this warning had been issued 461 times previously and nonetheless needed to be issued again. <A> this is second the number for what he tells me is the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time, or using digits for what he tells me is the 462nd time, <S> It means Mr Filch has told them 462 times now that magic is not to be used in the corridors. <S> And the very precise number means that Mr Filch has been counting. <A> The other answers are quite correct. <S> I am adding this just to make another (permanent) observation rather than leaving it in a comment. <S> If the sentence actually were describing seconds themselves, rather than a count of occurrences, then the phrase would have likely been written like this: the four-hundred-and-sixtieth second Not the change from sixty to sixtieth , the dropping of the hyphen before second , and the dropping of time after second . <S> It's because it wasn't written this way that you can tell the use of second is being used as part of an adjectival phrase modifying time rather than as a noun that is itself being modified. <A> We can break down the sentence to make it simpler, as there are quite a few phrases inserted that are not part of the essential idea. <S> Mr Filch , the caretaker, has asked me , for what he tells me is the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time, to remind you all ... <S> The words in bold are the important words. <S> By removing the other words we end up with a simple statement: Mr Filch has asked me to remind you all... <S> The words we eliminated are just there to provide certain background information. <S> If we want to know who Mr Filch is we can restore the phrase the caretaker . <S> If we want to know how many times Mr Filch has made this request we can restore the phrase for the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time . <S> If we want to know how Dumbledore knew that it was the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time we can restore the phrase what he tells me is . <S> The phrase four-hundred-and-sixty-second time which might have confused you, is referring to the number of times the request has been made. <S> The word second is not being used as the unit of time passage; rather it is the last digit of the number 462. <S> To make this simpler we could imagine it with a less complex number. <S> If the request had only been made on four previous occasions, the sentence would instead read: <S> Mr Filch, the caretaker, has asked me, for what he tells me is the fifth time, to remind you all... <S> Here there is no confusion because fifth is not a homonym like second is.
| In this case the four-hundred-and-sixty-second time is not a measure of time but a count of times, the 462 nd time .
|
What are the relevant adjectives for the noun, "Paradise"? In my religion it is believed that Staff of Moses came on the earth from Paradise. My question is, what is the adjective of the word Paradise? Like something that belongs to the world is called worldly, one from earth is called earthly. <Q> Technically speaking, that would be paradisiacal or paradisal : adjective of, like, or befitting paradise. <S> But I can't say that these two words by any means are common. <S> Example sentence (you can find other examples on the two pages I provided above): <S> Whatever the causes were, the earth has returned to paradisiacal conditions. <A> I would first ask where you are getting the word "paradise" from - is this a translation of a word you use in your faith? <S> In most Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) <S> the distinction between physical and spiritual realms are described as heaven and earth , so the adjectives to describe things from each of these would be " heavenly " and " earthly ". <S> The word "wordly" carries a slightly different meaning to "earthly". <S> "Earth" is the name for our planet and so usually describes the place we live; the "world" more often describes Earth and the people in it , and so "wordly" tends to describe something or someone that has seen or been exposed to a lot of human experience. <S> The word "paradise" in English is used to describe different things in different faiths. <S> In Christianity, it is not usually used to describe heaven. <S> The original garden of Eden on earth was described as a paradise, and the term is used secularly to describe "perfect", untouched parts of Earth today. <S> In Islam though, "paradise" is the word in English used to describe an "afterlife" for humans which I understand is said to be not of this world, so I would assume it is "heavenly". <S> I don't believe the adjectives "paradisaic" or "paradisaical" are what you are looking for, as these describe something that is like paradise, not from it. <S> Although "Paradise" in certain faiths may refer to a specific place, by the rules of English it really refers to a condition , which is why there is no adjective to say that something or someone is from there. <S> By comparison, an ancient Graeco-Roman name for heaven "Elysium" is sometimes translated as "paradise", and because Elysium is the name of a specific paradise, something or someone from Elysium is described as "Elysian". <S> An example of this in French is the Parisian street Avenue des Champs-Élysées , which means Elysian fields . <S> If on the other hand you believe that this "paradise" was a place on earth, is there a specific name for that paradise? <S> For example, if you believe it was the Garden of Eden then it would be " Edenic ". <A> The adjective heavenly is the proper counterpart to worldly . <S> Another possibility to consider, though not as an adjective for the Staff of Moses, is unworldly . <S> The celibate ascetics in the desert lived unworldly lives. <S> It refers to a retreat from society and its daily concerns, and from bodily needs. <S> The adjective otherworldly refers to the spiritual realm. <S> The adjective divine means "godly" or "pertaining to (a) god" or "belonging to (a) god". <S> The adjective God-given refers to that which has been given by God.
| If you are trying to say that something has come from heaven, I suspect the word you need is "heavenly".
|
Is "Not even an inch" considered a correct phrase? I found the idiom "not move/budge/change an inch" used when talking about something that won't change as someone's stubborn opinion. Example from Cambridge Dictionary : She's definite that she wants to do it, and she'll not give an inch , however hard you try to persuade her. I want to use it for this dialogue: So, you haven't changed your mind, have you? Not even an inch. I'm not sure of the phrase. But I want it to mean as the idiom above. I didn't use the idiom instead as I don't find it makes a good fit in the sentence with its current construction. Thus, is the phrase (not even an inch) correct and deliver the meaning I mentioned above? If not, how to achieve the meaning by using the idiom, if possible? <Q> Although the expression not even an inch is perfectly idiomatic, it doesn't fit well into your proposed dialogue. <S> The origin is the idea of soldiers holding the line against an enemy - of not yielding to an attack. <S> The problem is that the two metaphors ( changing your mind and moving an inch ) don't fit easily together in this construction. <S> And it's not clear whether the response Not even an inch is from the questioner or the person to whom the question is addressed. <S> Alternatives, depending on your intention, might be: <S> So, you haven't changed your mind, have you? <S> Not at all! <S> In no way! <S> Certainly not! <S> Otherwise you need to rephrase things: <S> So you are not ready to change you mind, to give a little ground? <S> Not even an inch! <A> This conversation would work: <S> So, you haven't changed your mind? <S> --No <S> , I haven't moved | <S> budged | retreated an inch. <S> You need some verb relating to physical space in order to use an inch idiomatically. <S> That verb could appear in the question or in the answer. <S> There's no way I can get you to come a little closer to our way of thinking? <S> -- Not an inch. <S> For example, this would not be idiomatic: <S> I hadn't seen her for thirty years. <S> What was amazing, she hadn't changed an inch. <A> As a middle-aged native English speaker (US), the intent of your dialog was clear to me <S> and I understood the reference to not giving an inch. <S> So, you haven't changed your mind, have you? <S> Not even an inch. <S> You could even shorten the response to Not an inch. <S> I would consider this somewhat informal in tone. <S> Other ways of having the same conversation (if you were willing to drop the "not give an inch" reference) might be <S> So, you haven't changed your mind, have you? <S> Nope. <S> No. <S> Not a bit. <A> I'd agree with the other answers - the metaphor is more having to do with distance, but it works. <S> I'd recommend: "Not one bit. <S> " That is as strong as "not an inch" but doesn't have the connotation of distance. <A> As another answer says, for the idiom to work the change has to be at least metaphorically capable of motion: <S> This is good: <S> So, you haven't changed your position , have you? <S> Not even an inch. <S> A general purpose thing-you-haven't-done is the iota , a greek letter meaning "tiny thing" idiomatically in English <S> So, you haven't changed your mind , have you? <S> Not one iota Or "Not a jot", derived from "iota".
| "Not a bit" might be safer but it's a bit more bland and less firm than "not an inch".
|
Where is the subject of the question ""How many people are in your family?"? What is the subject of the question? "How many people are in your family?" What is the rule this question was formed with?I mean, as I know, usually, to form a question with verb to be we have such a structure: Wh + To be (auxiliary) + subject + object ? I assume that subject in the question is "family" ? But what is the "people" then? I am sure that the question is grammatically correct but just curious which rule does this question follow? Wanna find info on the internet to read about it, but dunno what to google. Is it a subject question? Thanks in advance. <Q> How many people are in your family? <S> is really, in standard English: <S> How many people are there in your family? <S> There are six people in my family. <S> Proof of this fact is that, the answer to the question: How many people are in your family? <S> cannot be: Six people are in my family. <S> That is not idiomatic because a native speaker just wouldn't say that except in some limited circumstances, but not in general when discussing how many members a family has. <S> Compare this question about the number of family members to a question about where people are: How many people are in the garden? <S> Ten people are in the garden. <S> "in the garden" is a location. <S> For the "family" question ("How many people are in your family?", family is not a location. <S> That's why it sounds funny to say: "Ten people are in my family." <S> and it sounds natural to say: "There are ten people in my family". <S> How many people is a noun phrase. <S> Alternative way to pose the question: How many family members do you have? <S> This pattern uses: There are, There is, and the question forms. <S> There is and There are are used as existential clauses to show the existence of something: <S> existential clauses <S> There in "There is" and "There are" is called a dummy subject. <S> Another example: it. <S> It is an interesting movie. <S> "it" is a dummy subject. <A> Your question follows How many + NOUN + VERB pattern. <S> How many people(NOUN) <S> are(VERB) in your family? <S> How many people is the subject of the sentence asking the number of people in your family . <S> Source Clarification : <S> In the above image, How many people is labeled as NOUN as their standard; however, it is a NOUN PHRASE (a phrase being used as NOUN )! <S> In order to see whether the question was a "Wh + To be (auxiliary) + subject + object?", note that there is need of there in your sentence as follows, "How many people are there in your family?". <S> Now see that "How many people are there ?" <S> would also be grammatical, however it would further create a question of Where . <S> The " in your family " (prepositional) phrase answers <S> Where and thence family is not the subject of the sentence. <A> I am not native English speaker, so please take what I say with a bit of salt ;) <S> My logic would be that people is the subject. <S> How many is an attribute of people . <S> Similar with: <S> 15 people are in the family. <S> Many and 15 are definitely not nouns - they just add extra information to the noun - quantity information in this case. <S> However, it is one of the more difficult grammar questions, I agree.
| Many people are in the family.
|
Can "strong" be used as a noun? I see the word "strong" refers to a group of army in two contexts: In this post : We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand strong In this context the word "strong" refers to the subscribers of the subreddit. In this game : Here we go loading up for a huge strong Here the word refers to a group of army about to be dropped to the opponent's base. But Oxford Dictionaries doesn't count this as a meaning of the word. Is this the case the dictionary hasn't caught up the usage of the word? Can it be used as a noun? <Q> In your first example, "strong" is an adjective. <S> The writer is not saying that the "sub" is made up of 600,000 "strongs". <S> He's saying that it is strong. <S> How strong? <S> 600,000 strong. <S> It's like saying "Bob is six feet tall" or "The river is 20 miles long." <S> He is attaching a number to an adjective. <S> I have no idea what the writer in the second example is trying to say. <S> Perhaps he didn't finish the sentence; he meant "loading up for a huge strong ATTACK" or some such. <S> As given, the quote is not grammatically correct and doesn't make sense. <A> Although "strong" may look like a noun in "... <S> a hundred thousand strong ", it still acts as an adjective phrase modifying "sub". <S> This idiomatic expression is much the same as any other adjective such as "many" or "large": <S> The khan's army was large <S> The khan's army was a hundred thousand strong . <S> "Strong" does sound like a noun in the second sentence, but if so is probably jargon specific to players of Starcraft. <S> That being said, it's possible the commentator misspoke and meant to say "throng" , or that it's a slang abbreviation for "a strong counterattack". <S> Or (as choster mentions) it could be "drop" -- the video is edited at that point so the word is garbled. <S> That sounds more reasonable for the context. <S> Otherwise I can think of no common use of "strong" as a noun, although of course you can always make up your own if it fits the context. <A> I'm not able to comment, so I'm putting this in an answer. <S> In your second source, the caster actually says "loading up for a huge DROP". <S> A drop being a piece of jargon referring to the fact that these units will shortly be dropped into the opponent's base. <S> I can see how if you are primed to hear strong, you might hear strong instead. <A> In the first example, "of six hundred thousand strong" is incorrect. <S> It should be <S> We're now a sub of nearly six hundred thousand. <S> It could also be <S> We're now a sub that is nearly six hundred thousand strong <S> The construction "of 600,000 strong" is becoming more common because the idiom itself is somewhat uncommon, but it is not the traditional form of this expression. <S> I also note that you seem to have overlooked something in your Oxford dictionaries link, namely sense four: <S> Used after a number to indicate the size of a group. <S> ‘a hostile crowd several thousands strong’ <A> Just as in "ten foot tall " the word tall means "in height", and in the phrase "six feet deep " the word <S> deep means "in depth" <S> , in the phrase "an army ten-thousand strong " the word strong means "in strength". <S> Strong is misused in your second example. <A> Yes. <S> It is common for the two halves of the length of a sword's blade to be described as the 'forte' and the 'foible', or the 'strong' and the 'weak'. <S> When parrying, the strong of your own blade should be used against the opponent's weak. <S> Fencers of all stripes will as happily refer to a sword's 'forte' or 'strong' as an actual thing as they would <S> it's grip or guard. <S> (Grip and guard, interestingly, being both nouns and verbs.) <S> Use of the English or not depends on whether the individual prefers their turn of phrase at that moment to be functional or flowery. <S> But, yes - if grip, guard, or pommel can be a noun then so can strong. <A> In the second example, it seems that it is actually "huge drop". <S> The "huge" is stressed so <S> /g/ <S> combines with /d/ <S> to become an /s/. <S> Meanwhile, "drop" is spoken fleetingly, so maybe the /p/ sound is swallowed. <S> Just my guess. <A> Yes, it can be used as a noun, but not in the examples you give. <S> In instances like "the strong eat the weak" or "only the strong survive <S> " it is a nominalized adjective . <S> As wikipedia notes, this is "an adjective that has undergone nominalization, and is thus used as a noun." <S> Nominalized adjectives are commonly used to indicate a specific group of people, such as the rich, the poor, the weak, or the strong. <S> The entry for nominalization explains a bit about the process and includes more examples if you'd like further reading. <A> It seems like everyone kind of beat this to the ground. <S> If you can put 'the' in front of a word, it is a NOUN. <S> If you can say that he/ <S> she <S> /it is ___. <S> Then it is an ADJECTIVE.
| I don't recall ever reading or hearing "strong" used as a noun in a coherent sentence.
|
Should it be ice cream or ice cream's Should it be...Using heavy whipping cream will make the ice cream’s texture creamier ORUsing heavy whipping cream will make the ice cream texture creamier. Is there another way to word this? <Q> You can use either the ice cream texture or the ice cream's texture (and you can hyphenate to ice-cream if you want; both orthographies are fine). <S> If you don't include the possessive (and most people don't ), you're actually using the word(s) <S> ice-cream as a noun adjunct (a noun functioning as a pre-modifier in a noun phrase). <S> This is perfectly natural in English. <S> But it's not really a "problem" anyway. <A> Use the 's version <S> You are talking about the texture of the ice cream. <S> By using ice cream's you are indicating possession. <S> That is, the texture is that of (belongs to) the ice cream. <A> I suspect it's confusing because "ice cream" is two words. <S> As a counter example, suppose there is just one word: Using heavy cream will thicken the soup('s) texture. <S> Here the possessive soup's may be more natural; however, as FumbleFingers mentions, the compound noun soup texture is not wrong. <S> In the end it's really a question of which sounds better to you. <S> Personally, I would either go with the possessive ice cream's , or rephrase the sentence.
| To avoid the problem completely, you could always rephrase to the texture of the ice-cream .
|
What does "retreats" mean here? I've come across with the sentence below: We’re also doing counter clockwise retreats around the world... using research-proven techniques to help people live boldly. There ara some meanings for the word retreat as a noun in Longman dictionary: A.a movement away B.a movement away from someone or something C.beat a retreat D.when you change your mind about something because your idea wasunpopular or too difficult E.a place you can go to that is quiet or safe F.a period of time that you spend praying or studying religion in aquiet place G.a situation in which the value of shares etc falls to a lower level I think that the best choice is F, but I'm not sure. So, could you tell me please what it means here? The fuller text is: Over nearly four decades, Ellen Langer’s research on mindfulness has greatly influenced thinking across a range of fields, from behavioral economics to positive psychology. It reveals that by paying attention to what’s going on around us, instead of operating on auto-pilot, we can reduce stress, unlock creativity, and boost performance. Her “counterclockwise” experiments, for example, demonstrated that elderly men could improve their health by simply acting as if it were 20 years earlier. In this interview with senior editor Alison Beard, Langer applies her thinking to leadership and management in an age of increasing chaos. [...] The Langer Mindfulness Institute works in three arenas: health, aging, and the workplace. In health we want to see just how far we can push the mindbody notion. Years ago we did studies on chambermaids (who lost weight after being told their work was exercise) and vision (where people did better on eye tests that had them work up from large letters at the bottom to small ones at the top, creating the expectation that they would be able to read them). Now we’re trying a mindfulness cure on many diseases that people think are uncontrollable to see if we can at least ameliorate the symptoms. We’re also doing counter clockwise retreats around the world, starting in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, using research-proven techniques to help people live boldly. Mindfulness in the Age of Complexity An interview with Ellen Langer by Alison Beard https://hbr.org/2014/03/mindfulness-in-the-age-of-complexity <Q> This sounds to me like a health retreat (or wellness retreat ), which would align with the gray areas between meanings E (a place you can go to that is quiet or safe) and F (a period of time that you spend in a quiet place) in Longman. <S> One health and fitness website asks this question in its title: <S> What is the Difference Between a Health Retreat Versus a Wellness Hotel? <S> and then answers that question by saying: Generally, a wellness hotel is a luxury hotel that offers wellness facilities, such as a spa or fitness centre. <S> A health retreat, however, offers a purposefully designed programme of therapies and activities, guided by leading health and fitness experts. <S> The website goes on to say that: On a health retreat, the focus is your personal healing and renewal <S> On a health retreat, a personalised diet will be tailored to your personal goals and body’s needs, following professional consultations a wellness retreat offers the continued presence and guidance of wellness experts through a focused programme <S> This is not a definitive definition; these are simply one organization's take on what a health retreat should encompass. <S> Generally speaking, a retreat is: a brief time away from somewhere you usually spend a lot of time (e.g., away from home, or away from the office) a chance to focus your mind and your energies a chance to grow personally or as a team <S> I think those are the kinds of activities most people associate with a retreat , as opposed to a getaway or a vacation (which would in general be much less structured). <S> A similar website says: <S> A wellness retreat is a getaway where you have access to resources that better your physical, mental or spiritual state. <S> Most wellness retreats happen in stunning natural surroundings [that] help you relax and unwind. <S> Instead of a vacation where you come back even more exhausted by all you did, a health retreat aims for you to leave the experience feeling recharged and energized. <A> "Retreat" is a common term in the personal / professional development industry. <S> It is an event, attended by some number of (usually paying) participants, frequently at some comfortable location (like a resort) <S> that is secluded in some way from regular life, and normally involves some kind of focused training. <S> At any given time there are perhaps hundreds or thousands of retreats happening throughout the world. <S> A search on Google for "retreats near me" turns up this website which links to various categories: Yoga Retreats, Spiritual/Religious Retreats, Health/Wellness Retreats , and Nature/Adventure Retreats . <S> Specific examples: <S> Rejuvenate Detox Cleansing Fast Retreat (an event which you do not eat and are not provided food, but take supplements that "cleanse" your body) Wine Country Yoga and Wellness Retreat (an event which includes yoga, healthy food, and wine tasting) <S> Women's Spirit and Nature <S> Quest ("A spiritual journey to find the clarity of Your Soul Calling") <S> and so on. <S> "Counter-clockwise retreat" is just a marketing phrase. <S> It's nothing more than a clever title for these specific retreats that purport to "turn back the clock", i.e., "help you look and/or feel younger." <A> That's a very confusing sentence <S> and I (a native speaker) am not 100% certain what is intended. <S> I think you're right about choosing selection F (although in my experience, the word isn't limited to religious experiences). <S> Google's definition #3 for the noun "retreat" is: a quiet or secluded place in which one can rest and relax. <S> The thing that makes this sentence confusing is the "counter-clockwise" part. <S> I don't know in what way a retreat can be "counter-clockwise" but my guess is that "counter-clockwise retreats around the world" means that they are holding retreats around the world, sequentially in a counter-clockwise order. <S> So now you might ask, "what does counter-clockwise mean on the spherical Earth? <S> " My best guess is that it means west-to-east (counter-clockwise when looking down at Earth from above the north pole). <S> So they'll be starting in Mexico and proceeding eastward around the world holding retreats. <S> Or at least that's what it seems like to me.
| The term "retreat" therefore plays off of the meaning of "a movement away from" in that it's held in a place where you withdraw from your usual daily stresses, and can concentrate on whatever is the focus of the event.
|
How do you describe the following spot? Actually, i work at a supermarket, so when a customer asks me about a specific product, i struggle to describe this spot, which is at the back end of the isle. Sometimes i say, it is on the corner of the isle. So, imagine you are with a customer standing down this isle, what would you say to point him to the product where the directions are? <Q> The way you described it as being the "end of the aisle" is correct; I would probably say something like: <S> It is at the end of the aisle, between Aisles 1 and 2. <S> or, It is at the end of Aisle 1, in the back (or front) of the store. <S> It also depends on how you number your aisles. <S> If you number each side of the aisle differently, you may want to say two aisle numbers, for example, between aisle 1 and 2 ; if you number the actual shelf part of the aisle one number, you can say the end of Aisle (number) . <S> and then perhaps give some directional indicators (front of the store, back of the store, facing the cash register, etc). <A> In both the USA and Britain, the structure arrowed in the picture is known by supermarket equipment suppliers, shopfitters, and retail staff as either an "end of aisle gondola" or "endcap". <S> Probably most customers would not recognise these terms and think of it simply as "shelves at the end of an aisle" . <S> The Secrets of our Supermarkets <A> Maybe at the outer end of the aisle would do. <S> If I were directed to "the end of the aisle", I'd probably stop when I reached the end and would not make the turn out into the cross-aisle.
| In your case, since one side is A and the other side is B, and the actual shelves with stuff on them have numerical numbers, I would say: It is at the end of Aisle 3.
|
What part of speech is "passes" in this context Harry and Ron had so far managed to scrape passes in this subject only by copying Hermione's notes before exams; she alone seemed able to resist the soporific power of Binns's voice. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I feel " scrape passes " is more like a compound word here, so it could be written as ' scrape-passes '. What the part of speech is "passes" if we don't take it as a compound word? <Q> This is probably not a compound word. <S> It comes from the notion of "barely scraping by" (to do something with great difficulty, see the definition [verb 4] ). <S> In this context, passes or pass if singular is just a simple way to say "a passing grade", which is used a noun. <A> to scrape (something) means to manage to win or to get something <S> The team scraped a narrow victory last year . <S> I just scraped a pass in the exam. <S> to scrape - verb a pass - noun <A> According to the Cambridge Dictionary manage to succeed in doing or dealing with something, especially something difficult [ + to infinitive ] <S> Did you manage to get any bread? <S> In your sentence manage <S> applies to an infinitive: <S> scrape scrape to succeed in getting or achieving something , but <S> with difficulty or by a very small amount <S> What's that something achieved by Harry and Ron? <S> Passes had managed to scrape passes - [verb] + to + infinitive + object . <S> @Tᴚoɯɐuo has pointed that this verb is intransitive but is being used transitively here, which is unusual, at least to my AmE ear. <S> This might be a BrE slang usage <S> According to the Oxford Dictionary pass [noun] <S> A success in an examination, test, or course. <S> The whole sentence means that they passed the exams but with low qualifications. <S> Notice what I highlighted above: <S> by a very small amount.
| "Scrape passes" in this context most likely means "to barely pass [an exam or course]".
|
How should I interpret "between Neville and Ron" in the context of this Harry Potter passage? They (Hermione and Ron) did not stop arguing all the way down to Snape's dungeon, which gave Harry plenty of time to reflect that between Neville and Ron he would be lucky ever to have two minutes of conversation with Cho that he could look back on without wanting to leave the country. Harry Potter I don't understand "between Neville and Ron" in this context. Can someone help to explain it in the context? <Q> Compare: Between school and my job, <S> I don't have much time for anything else. <S> The phrase means "given the combined (encroachments or demands of) school and my job" there is no time left over for other activities. <S> So, in your example, it would be "given the combined (encroachments or demands of) Neville and Ron" a good two-minute conversation with Cho <S> was unlikely. <S> The nature of those encroachments or demands is supplied by context. <S> For example, it could be that the two of them, whether individually or as a duo, were monopolizing Cho's time, or monopolizing Harry's time, or that they were goofing off with each other so that there were constant hijinks and never a quiet moment where Harry could talk with Cho. <S> Whatever. <S> You'd have to look to the wider context in the book to get a sense of how Ron and Neville were interfering in this. <A> According to the Oxford Dictionary between [preposition] <S> By combining the resources or actions of ( two or more people or other entities) I didn't remember what's happening exactly at that point of the book <S> but it may mean that if you add [ combine ] the time that Harry spends with Neville plus the time that Harry spends with Ron [ two people ] <S> then he would be lucky ever to have two minutes of conversation with Cho . <S> I want to remark that the relevant part in relation with your question is combine whatever they both are doing. <S> What they are doing exactly is not present in your excerpt. <S> Probably in the context of the book the whole sentence is not about Neville and Ron wasting Harry's time <S> but they are combining their actions somehow to prevent Harry for having a conversation with Cho. <A> In the context of the book, if memory serves, Cho came upon Harry while he was sitting with Neville on the Hogwarts Express just after Neville's Mimbulus mimbletonia exploded, covering Harry in stinksap, which he found embarrassing. <S> Later, Ron angrily challenges Cho on her support of a Quidditch team and picks a fight with her, also embarrassing Harry. <S> It is not necessarily implying that Neville and Ron are working together to embarrass him (or that they are even doing it intentionally) but that their combined actions are making it impossible for him to have a positive conversation with Cho.
| In your quote, Harry is saying that because of Neville and Ron combined, it seems that every time he tries to talk to Cho, he is embarrassed.
|
Have or get someone What should be used,If a person is trying to have someone ,like date that person,be with that person at any cost,sort of like a psycho-lover? He’s trying to get me/have me but I'm not really interested in him,he's a psycho and could go to any extent to be with me.(This is a fake context,though true in serials) What should be used "have/get"? If not what could be used instead? Maybe,that person could actually kill someone or do anything to be that person. I know that sounds dramatic, but in this not so normal context,would get/have sound natural. The person might even be working out a plan/strategy. (Serial inspired,not true) <Q> "Get" is not necessarily incorrect, but it should be considered more informal compared to pursue, and you should probably use get with : <S> He is trying to get with me, but I am not interested in him. <S> "get me" wouldn't be incorrect grammatically, but it's a little awkward and ambiguous about the romantic sense. <S> This is because while people say "Go get her!" to mean to pursue another person, it's rarely used to refer to yourself (in my experience). <S> Instead, "Get me" is often used in the sense of "get me to ": <S> He is trying to get me to do something. <S> " Pursue " can mean to pursue (1) <S> someone romantically or in terms of romantic pursuits: He is trying to pursue me, but I am not interested in him. / <S> He is trying to pursue me romantically , but I am not interested in him. <S> Woo means "to sue for the affection of and usually marriage with ", and similar words : <S> He is trying to woo me, but I am not interested in him. <S> Woo is more formal than pursue. <S> If you want to go more simple and straightforward, you can say " wants to date ": <S> He wants to date me, but I am not interested in him. <S> This is also generally interpreted to be in the romantic sense: He wants to be with me , but I am not interested in him. <S> These are more common in spoken English. <S> or even say he's interested and you're not: <S> He is interested in me romantically, but I am not interested in him. <S> Edit: I saw your edit to your question. <S> You could add would do anything to to indicate desperation as in: He would do anything to be with me, but I am not interested in him. <S> He would do anything to date me, but I am not interested in him. <A> The relationship between "get" and "have" is so obvious to a native speaker that we may have trouble actually seeing it clearly. <S> I don't know technical terms to explain it, but I would put it thus... <S> "To have" is essentially a verb describing state, like "to be". <S> Indeed, these may be considered two verbs that provide examples of the same relationship. <S> If you are not rich, you may become rich, and then you are rich. <S> If you do not have something, you may get it, and then you will have it. <S> You may come across a rather hackneyed phrase, where someone (usually a man) is so fixatedly attracted by someone else (usually a woman), he says "I must have her!" <S> This indicates that he wishes to be in the state of possessing the woman (an awful way of thinking about relationships, but there you go). <S> In order to enter that state, he has to "get her", and thus a foil in some work of fiction might then ask "well, what are you going to do to get her?" <S> People in real life rarely talk like that, though they might think like that. <S> Now, dialectal usage has the expression "get with". <S> To get with someone is to become romantically involved in some way - <S> the first example that comes to mind is the song No Scrubs by TLC, back in the 90s - "Wanna get with me with no money <S> / <S> Oh no, I don't want no scrub" . <S> I've not personally come across a similar usage that elides (misses out as implied) <S> the "with", <S> but it wouldn't surprise me. <S> On the other hand, it could simply be reflecting a possessive attitude. <S> In any case, whether it reflects the idea of possession or the dialect "get with" expression, "get" represents a progressive action or a change in state, while "have" represents a steady state. <A> or He is trying to ask me out on a date, <S> but I'm not interested in him since he's not my type. <S> Edit 1 <S> Based on your scenario, you could say He is trying to take me out on a date, but I'm not interested in him since I do not feel safe/secure around him.
| You could say this: He is trying to take me out on a date, but I'm not interested in him since he's not my type. "To get" is a verb describing action, like "to become".
|
Meaning of three mounths ahead The captain put his arms around the girl’s shoulders. They talked about their wedding, three months ahead . He had not, after all, ever broken their engagement. Dose it mean: They talked about their wedding that happened three mounths ago <Q> The wedding was planned to happen three months in the future . <A> In English † <S> the past is metaphorically said to lie "behind" the speaker and the future is said to lie "in front of" the speaker, so forward and ahead <S> —both designating the spatial or temporal direction you are facing—refer to the future. <S> † <S> And many other languages, but not all. <S> Speakers of Aymara, for instance, think of the past as lying in front of them, because it is "visible", while the unknowable future lies behind them. <A> three months... into the future Months is spelled months, not mounths. <S> In this quote, they are talking about their wedding that is going to happen in three months. <S> It is three months into the future . <S> If they were talking about three months ago, it would say, "three months behind." <S> Another way to say your excerpt with the same meaning: The captain put his arms around the girl’s shoulders. <S> They talked about their wedding, to happen in three months . <S> He had not, after all, ever broken their engagement. <S> The captain and the girl are engaged and never stopped being engaged (never broke their engagement). <S> They will get married in three months. <S> Now they are talking about their upcoming wedding.
| The captain and the girl plan to marry three months after the event currently being narrated. The definition of ahead can mean in the future : in, into, or for the future
|
Can you say that 'something is rated lower'? Is it correct to say that 'something is rated lower' ? I think you should be able to say that 'something was given a lower rate' but I am not too sure what about the first option. I guess you would need an adverb rather than an adjective but what adverb would that be in such a case - ' lowly '? Appreciate any help <Q> Yes, you can absolutely say that something or someone is rated lower . <S> See this headline from the New York Times: "Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says" (source from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/us/harvard-asian-enrollment-applicants.html ) <S> " Rated lower " will typically be followed by a description of the quality being rated. <S> You may also see: "This movie is lower-rated than the others." <S> Both rated lower and lower-rated imply a comparison to something else. <S> For a sentence without that implied comparison, I would expect "low-rated" or "has low ratings. <S> " In my experience, "lowly" is slightly unusual, possibly because of its primary adjectival meaning of "low in status." <A> Assuming you are talking about the "rating" of something (in other words a "grade" or judgment about how it compares to other things in its category), then you would use "rating" instead of "rate" in your second example: 'something was given a lower rating ' Your first example sounds fine: ' <S> something is rated lower' "Lower" is, as you say, an adjective , but that is what you want in this situation. <S> "To be rated" is a so-called "linking verb" like "to be", "to seem", or "to become". <S> A linking verb links the subject ("something" in this example) to an adjective ("lower") which describes that subject. <S> You can read about this type of sentence in this "softschools "article about predicate adjectives. <A> Keep in mind most of the time <S> it is a comparison <S> so it even if it is grammaticaly correct to say <S> "Something is rated lower." <S> It may sounds weird to stop the sentance here without adding another point of comparison.
| If you want to talk about rating, you would rather say: 'something is rated lower than something else' For instance when talking about a movie: 'The last Iron man was rated lower than Hunger Games 2, I now understand why!'
|
What is the difference between would + verb and had been + verb-ing? What is the difference between these two sentences:1. He would dance well when he was 10 years old.2. He had been dancing well when he was 10 years old. <Q> "Would" in this context indicates an ongoing action. <S> In other words, as a 10-year-old, he always danced well. " <S> Had been" implies up until a certain point in the past after the action (in this case, dancing). <S> I would expect sentence 2 to be followed by something like " <S> But that year, he became self-conscious and stopped being able to dance like he used to. <S> " You need a second past event that the "had been" (past perfect) comes before. <A> Your first sentence strikes my ear as marginal. <S> When using would to refer to a regular practice in the past, modifiers typically describe aspects of the practice not judgments made about it, like well . <S> He would dance on his hind legs when he was a puppy <S> but we cannot get him to do any tricks now that he is an older dog. <S> Your second sentence is also marginal, since with the past perfect continuous we need some sort of justification for the past perfect tense: He had been dancing well for almost half his life when he was ten years old, having begun at the age of five. <A> They're both very odd things to say as sentences on their own, but... <S> So, you might say "He would dance well when he was ten years old, but when he was five he moved clumsily." <S> Had been dancing is past perfect progressive. <S> The "past perfect" bit means that it is in the past of when you are talking about. <S> He had danced would be past perfect without being progressive, and "he had danced well when he was ten years old, but by fifteen he refused to dance" would be a perfectly good sentence. <S> However, "had been dancing" requires some more to justify the progressive, such as "he had been dancing well for several years when he was ten years old". <S> At that point, all the dancing is in the past from the "when he was ten years old", so you don't need anything else for it to be in the past from. <S> Past progressive, "was dancing", is used to say something about how the person was dancing at the time, or just to say that they were generally doing something - "at age ten, he was dancing" suggests that he was inclined to dance from time to time, while "at age ten, he was dancing well" suggests that when he danced at that age, he danced well. <A> Habitual Aspect: <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_markers_of_habitual_aspect <S> This is formed from two parts: <S> would + past. <S> In English “would” is a modal verb so it must occur with another verb (though the other verb might merely be implied—as in German). <S> Would + verb + description of past <S> The meaning is that the verb (dancing) is something that happened in a regular pattern in the past. <S> Plusquamperfect: <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms#Past_perfect_progressive <S> In the past an action occurred. <S> This action (dancing) happened before some other action but we haven’t said what the second action was. <S> We also don’t know for sure when the dancing ended. <S> It ended before or after or during the other action. <S> You will likely need a preposition or another sentence to completely explain the sequence of events. <S> When + other action—> possible end of dancing when other action starts. <S> Until + other action — <S> > dancing ends at start of other action. <S> When + other action. <S> Conjunction/adverb + continuation of dance/dancing <S> —> <S> Dancing continues after other action/event.
| Would for things in the past is used for things in the future of when you are talking about.
|
What's the correct variant I'm making slides for my colleagues that summarize some of my experience in our domain. The team is international and I am not a native English speaker. One of the slides should contain ten tips a about processing speedup. And processing is a noun here — it means the act of transforming the information. How do I say that correctly in English: 10 Tips for Speedup Processing 10 Tips for Processing Speedup 10 Tips for Speedup the Processing ??? <Q> The correct choice out of the three is 10 Tips for Processing Speedup <S> In this construction, the speedup is what the tips are for and processing <S> is what the speedup affects. <S> As mentioned in Patrick Hughes's answer, <S> "10 Tips To Speed Up Processing" is another option, it's equivalent in meaning to the one above. <S> As for the other two: <S> 10 Tips for Speedup Processing would mean that the tips are for processing of the speedup, and while grammatically correct it's not what you mean. <S> 10 Tips for Speedup <S> the Processing is grammatically incorrect. <A> You say you are trying to speed up some data processing. <S> It is common in IT to use what are normally verbs as nouns and to use nouns as if they were adjectives. <S> There are, however, problems with your options. <S> As I understand you, it is this latter meaning you are trying to convey. <S> “10 tips for speedup processing” reads to me as meaning that you are trying to process speedup. <S> So that will not do. <S> “10 tips for speedup the processing” is grammatically incorrect. <S> The word for in this context demands the noun phrase ‘ speeding up <S> But 3 is your best option, if you correct it in the way I suggest. <S> By the way, your English is mostly good. <A> None of the above. <S> The correct way to convey what you want is Ten tips to speed up prices-sing
| 10 tips for processing speedup could either be 10 tips for processing a speedup or it could be read as 10 tips for speeding up processing .
|
We're waiting in a BIG or LONG queue? What's the idiomatic adjective for the noun " queue "? I waited there in a very long queue. or I waited there in a very big queue. Or maybe something else? <Q> A "queue" is, by definition, line-shaped, therefore it makes sense to define it by its length rather than its size . <S> So "a long queue". <S> In contrast, a "crowd" is kind of blob-shaped, so you would say "a big/large crowd". <A> I can't argue with the logic of previous answers, preferring 'Long'. <S> But, as a native English speaker, I have to say that 'a big queue' would raise no eyebrows. <A> Either one is fine to my British ears. <A> As this NGram query shows, long is the right answer. <S> This doesn't tell you why or even how to remember it , but I agree with Andrew's answer that long tends to be used for one-dimensional objects and <S> big and large for higher dimensions. <S> An area can be long but not big; take the country Chile as an example. <S> It's long, and big when compared to my backyard but rather small next to its neighbour Argentina. <A> Only "half-native" here <S> but just today I used "big queue" and it certainly did not raise any eyebrows among the "full-natives" around me. <S> Additionally to the previous answers I'd say that "big" can be understood as a "category" containing "long" and other "shapes" of "big". <S> Therefore you could always use the superordinate "big" to replace any of the "subordinate" and more specific forms of "big".
| Because of the physical shape of queues, any big queue has to be long, so the words have equivalent meaning in this case.
|
What is the difference between these sentences? Which sentence is correct? What is the difference between this sentences?: 1) "Where do your parents live?" 2) "Where is your parents live?" Which one is correct? <Q> The first sentence is correct, the second one isn't, it is not grammatical. <S> You could say: Where are your parents living? <S> if the parents are temporarily living somewhere. <S> If they have been living somewhere for a while and they will continue to live there in the future, use: <S> Where do your parents live? <A> Sentence 1 is correct. <S> Sentence 2 is incorrect. <S> Sentence 2 is incorrect for 2 reasons. <S> You should use <S> are here. <S> Second, we use the word <S> do when asking about 'how' or 'where' or 'when' objects perform their action. <S> For instance, the sentence Your parents do live in London becomes the question Where do your parents live? <A> Sentence 1 is OK, sentence 2 needs a correction like this: <S> Where is your parents' home ?
| First, "your parents" is a plural noun, so is is the incorrect version of the verb to be .
|
Does "I've temporarily suspended" mean that I did it? I use "I've temporarily suspended activity on SOru" in my profile description. And I've thought that it means that "I'm not active on site anymore". But one guy said that I'm wrong, and told me that it means that "someone banned the account". I've thought that if he is correct there should be passive voice and the sentence will look like "My activity has temporarily been suspended on SOru". So, what's the correct form? <Q> Grammatically you're correct, you're saying that you have done something. <S> However, your choice of words is unfortunate since suspend and suspension are often used for involuntary suspension too. <S> Taking Wiktionary as a source: <S> suspend 7. <S> To debar, or cause to withdraw temporarily, from any privilege, from the execution of an office, from the enjoyment of income, etc. <S> to suspend a student from college; to suspend a member of a club suspension 5. <S> The temporary barring of a person from a workplace, society, etc. <S> pending investigation into alleged misconduct. <S> Your phrasing is close to something like "[the account] has been temporarily suspended" which would not sound at all unusual in a case where the account had been frozen by the system or its administrator. <S> You could make your intent clearer with something like "I've temporarily stopped using [this account/service]" or "I don't currently/actively use [this account/service]". <A> If somebody or something else made that happen, you could say "I have been suspended on SOru". <S> Compare: <S> "I've burned my house down. <S> " I have personally started a fire in my house which burned it down. <S> "My house has been burned down. <S> " Someone or something has started a fire in my house which burned it down. <A> There is also a possibility that someone might misread " <S> I've temporarily suspended..." as " <S> I'm temporarily suspended..." <S> - I suspect that's what that one guy did. <S> Although the sentence would be ungrammatical as I'm temporarily suspended activity on SOru <S> people's interpretation of what that means might be established before they have finished reading the whole sentence. <A> Active voice: I've temporarily suspended activity on SOru. <S> That means you did it yourself. <S> It has the same meaning as: I've temporarily suspended my own activity on SOru. <S> Passive voice: I've been temporarily suspended on SOru. <S> Someone else did it, but you didn't say who. <S> It has the same meaning as: <S> I've been temporarily suspended on SOru by someone . <S> State: <S> I'm temporarily suspended on SOru. <S> You are in the state of being suspended. <S> It's not clear who did it. <S> It has the same meaning as: <S> My activity is temporarily suspended on SOru. <S> "To suspend" some one is more common than "to suspend" some thing , and that might account for the confusion too. <S> Your original sentence is fine, because you said what you were suspending (activity). <A> I can read your sentence in two ways without really trying too hard, the phrase.. <S> temporarily suspended activity .. <S> can be read both in a verby sense and a nouny sense. <S> The meaning slightly changes when you read it as either one or the other. <S> This isn't something others here have mentioned... <S> In the verby sense it says what you expect, that you have done something, and that thing you've done is temporarily suspended your active participation. <S> In the nouny sense, the meaning changes to something akin to "I own some activity that is suspended". <S> This is, imo, why your reader is so convinced that this is what you meant. <S> The key problem here is that "activity" is both a thing that exists as data on the website, and can also mean your active participation on that website . <S> This is what can confuse the matter. <S> He didn't misread it <S> , he didn't misinterpret, he did fail to realise your intended meaning though. <S> The truth is your sentence has ambiguity because the word "activity" is ambiguous in its definition. <S> I suspect people here will use a dictionary to prove me wrong, but the fact is that activity is a word commonly used in software circles and can mean more than one thing at once. <S> For example; "I went to the history page on the website to look at my activity info." <S> Your activity is both what you've done, and the data contained on the website, very ambiguous... <S> To answer your actual question, I would either avoid the word activity or give it a better qualification, for example; <S> "I've temporarily suspended my activity on SOru" better yet; <S> "I've temporarily suspended my active participation on SOru"
| "I've (I have) [done something]" is used when the speaker is saying that he or she has personally done something. "I've temporarily suspended activity on SOru" means that you, yourself, ceased activity on SOru (it was your action).
|
How to use conditional "if" in this situation? Which one of those 2 versions is the corrent one?1. "If I wanted to tell you who I am, I'd have done it already."2. "If I had wanted to tell you who I am, I'd have done it already." <Q> I believe both sentences to be correct. <S> Unreal condition in the present with an unreal past result : If - past simple, would have + past participle <S> If I wanted to tell you who I am, I would have done it already." <S> Unreal condition in the past : <S> If - past perfect, would have + past participle <S> If I had wanted to tell you who I am, I would have done it." <A> If I wanted to tell you who I am, I'd have done it already. <A> The first would be the correct one, as implies more present tense, i.e. a current wanting. <S> If I wanted to tell you who I am, I'd have done it already. <S> The second version could also be correct, but being based in the past, wouldn't require the word "already": <S> If I had wanted to tell you who I am, I'd have done it.
| I believe the most common use would be:
|
One word to describe over/underweight Is there a word to describe either under or overweight? I simply want a single word that would mean "this is the amount that is - or + the normal weight range". I am thinking of either 'deviation' or 'discrepancy', any of them is good for this usage? The word will be followed by a number with a sign (+,-). <Q> This table shows the mass of each loaf of bread, and the deviation from the weight claimed on the label shape mass deviation round <S> 450g <S> +50 tin <S> 780g <S> -20 <S> In general writing, you should rephrase: <S> The first loaf was fifty grams heavier than the weight claimed on the packaging, but the second was 20 grams lighter. <S> You can say "The first loaf deviated by +50g" <S> but this is not a common way to express this. <S> This gets socially complex if you start talking about people. <S> Weight is something that people see as being personal to them. <S> The same language of "deviation" is possible, but be aware that some will find this insulting. <A> So, deviation is a reasonably correct use of a statistical term. <S> It refers to the difference between an observed value and some reference value - usually the reference value is the mean, but not always. <S> All we have here is a reference value that's actually a range, but it isn't much of a stretch. <S> On the other hand, depending on the audience you may wish to avoid that term for this particular value. <S> If it's being used by the public, the lack of statistical education would likely mean some would take it as being insulting, that being overweight or underweight is "deviant" in a moralistic sense. <S> A brief bit of digging suggests that any other term would be a much more novel coining, however. <S> If the audience is statisticians or clinicians, you can definitely use deviation, but you should take clear to carefully define it before use (if this is for a document) or in unavoidable bits of user interface (if this is for software). <A> I don't agree with "deviation" because, in mathematics, deviation is a measure of difference between a specific value and some other value. <S> You are talking about a value being outside of a range . <S> In statistics, deviation is often used to define a range - for example, if you take a single value such as a mean average, you can define a range by calculating several standard deviations above and below that value. <S> As you already have a range defined, this term is not only gramatically inappropriate, but to anyone with a knowledge of statistics or mathematics it is just confusing. <S> "Discrepancy" is not appropriate <S> either I'm afraid - it also refers to the difference between two specific numbers, but also implies a mistake . <S> I'm not sure that you will find a suitable single word for this context. <S> If you are trying to avoid the terms "overweight" and "underweight", you would be better referring to your range by name (for example, BMI, if that is the range you are using) and simply say that someone is "above" or "below" that range. <S> If you must have a single term, perhaps "out-of-range"?
| As a heading in a table, deviation works well, provided there is context to support it:
|
Infinitive form and what it modifies The leader created a term which the members of their group would use to describe people who had never contributed to the community. The infinitive clause " to describe people ... to the community" confuses me.What is the function of the infinitive in this context and what are the possible interpretations? I think there are three possibilities here, but I am not sure which is correct. 1)Is the infinitive an adverb modifying the verb "created" , Then it probably might mean that: The leader created a term in order to describe those people. Can it possibly be interpreted this way? 2)or is it part of the relative clause leads by "which" and modify the verb "use", making it an adverb or a complement? Then it means: the members of their group would use the term created by the leader to describe those people. 3)or the infinitive is an adjective modifying the noun "term", which adds extra information to the "term" Then it means: the leader created a term which describes those people. <Q> The leader created a term which the members of their group would use ____ to describe people who had never contributed to the community. <S> The infinitival clause is a purpose adjunct in clause structure. <S> The gap notation '___' represents the direct object "term", so we understand that the leader created a term, and members of their group would use that term in order to describe people who had never contributed to the community. <S> Essentially, the clause modifies the VP "would use the term". <A> The subject of 'use' here is the "members of their group", the object is the term that has been created, and the "to describe..." is an adverbial of purpose, I think (it's certainly an adverbial). <A> I think the meaning of the sentence would be the same in all three of your proposed interpretations. <S> But if you are interested in analyzing the grammar just to see how the words interact with each other, then here goes: 1) Does "to describe" go with "created"? <S> No . <S> Because "to describe" is too far away from "created", and there is another verb ("used") in between. <S> If the author had meant to say that, he should have written something like this: " <S> There was a term that the leader created to describe people who ..." 2) Does "to describe" go with "use"? <S> Yes, because it follows "use" immediately. <S> I wouldn't call it an adverb though. <S> It is still the infinitive form of a verb. <S> It makes up a compound verb along with "use", "use to describe ..." 3) Does "to describe" modify "term"? <S> No . <S> If that was the author's intent, he should have put commas around "which the members of their group would use" so that phrase would become a parenthetical aside and a second modifier of "term". <S> In other words, "The leader created a term, which the members of their group would use, to describe people who had never contributed to the community. <S> That is an interesting exercise, but please note that all 3 of these possibilities result in statements meaning the exact same thing.
| It is modifying "use".
|
Better version of "the best thing I ever did in 2018 is I came to USA" What can I do to the following sentence, which one I should choose, and can I delete the I in the sentence? the best thing I ever did/done in 2018 was/is (I) came to USA <Q> The Simple Past , as used below, is idiomatic and common among American and British English speakers Coming to <S> the USA was the best thing I ever did <S> The definite article "the" is always required whenever we speak about the United States of America even when it is abbreviated ( <S> the USA <S> also the US). <S> By saying "I ever did" the speaker is referring to their entire lifetime. <S> The Present Perfect could also be used but <S> the auxiliary have is necessary to construct the phrase correctly. <S> The best thing I have <S> ever done <S> was <S> come to the USA <S> After expressions such as "have ever done" and "all I did" the verb that follows can be in the bare infinitive (without "to") or to-infinitive. <S> All I did was <S> come to the USA (completely different meaning) <S> The best thing I ever did was to come to the USA <S> If nominating a year is essential then eliminate "ever" and instead say The best thing I did in 2018 was to come to the USA <S> Coming to the US was the best thing I did in 2018 <A> Except for the unidiomatic combination of ever ... in 2018 your sentence is grammatical and idiomatic; it is in a conversational, not a formal, register. <S> Perhaps you meant to say the following? <S> The best thing I ever did is, I came to the USA in 2018. <S> ever means "throughout all time" or "in my entire life", so <S> it can't be coupled with a phrase that runs counter to that meaning. <A> Logically, 'ever' and 'in 2018' don't go together. <S> So you should pick only one of them. <S> And I think it's redundant to repeat "I" as in <S> "I came..." because you already said "I did" at the outset. <S> So you can choose any one of these: <S> The best thing I did in 2008 was come to the U.S. <S> The best thing I ever did was come to the U.S. (in 2018.) <S> The best thing I've ever done is come to the U.S. (in 2018.) <A> Saying something like "I ever did" and then narrowing it down to a year doesn't make much sense. <A> What is the "thing" that you did? <S> The "thing" is "coming to USA" not " <S> I came to..."
| Instead, you could say something like, "The best thing I did in 2018 was I came to the USA"
|
To what extent is a tense mismatch allowed? A tree stood in the middle of the plain, around which the children play. A tree stood in the middle of the plain around which the children played. I thought these two are near synonymous, with the first one meaning that the children play there to this day on a recurrent basis, and the other meaning that they used to play there, but no longer. So are these two sentences grammatically correct, and more importantly the first one with a tense mismatch correct? I don't know why, but someone told me there shouldn't be a tense mismatch in the same sentence. I don't think this is true. <Q> It is not true that all verbs in a sentence must have the same tense. <S> A tree stands in the middle of the plain, around which the children played. <S> The verb tenses here sound fine. <S> It means that the tree is there now and has been there for a long time, and in the past children used to play around it <S> (but they don't play there now). <S> Picky people might claim that since "around which" follows directly after "the plain", it sounds like its object is "the plain", and not "the tree". <S> In that case the children would be playing "around the plain." <S> But assuming you mean the children to be playing around the trunk of the tree, it is confusing to hear <S> A tree stood in the middle of the plain, around which the children play. <S> not because of the mismatch in verb tense, but because we imagine the present-day children playing around a tree which is not there now. <S> However, if you really do mean to have the children playing around on the plain (and not around the tree), you should phrase their location in a slightly different way. <S> A tree stood in the middle of the plain on which the children play. <S> or A tree stood in the middle of the plain where the children play. <A> The mismatch in the first one does sounds awkward to me. <S> If you want to avoid the mismatch, you could rewrite it as: <S> A tree stands in the middle of the plain, around which the children play. <A> In creative writing, any imaginable tense mismatch is "allowed" as long as it fits the context. <S> However, your sentence is odd because there is no context to explain the mismatch. <S> If this is a typical past-tense narrative, then it makes no sense to use the present tense without justifying the use of the present tense in some way. <S> For example: A tree stood in the middle of the plain, the kind of tree around which children like to play <S> In this case the present tense makes sense because the description of the tree is timeless . <S> It's not saying that children are playing there, merely that they might choose to play there now and then. <S> Note <S> also I changed it from "the children" to just "children". <S> The definite article specifies a particular group of children who exist in the the time frame of the standing tree. <S> In this case it's confusing to talk about them in a timeless way, because it's not clear from the limited context when or where they exist. <S> Assuming this is a typical narrative in either the present or the past tense, then then tenses should match: <S> The tree stands/stood and the children play/played around it. <S> It is possible to write a story <S> in which the time frame is all jumbled, where you might mix past and present tenses in clever ways. <S> But this is not typical, difficult to do well, and likely to confuse the reader. <S> In more formal, expository writing, you should avoid clever writing tricks like this, as your goal is either to inform or persuade, and anything that might confuse the reader will usually detract from this goal.
| If you mean to indicate two different time frames in the same sentence, then the verb tenses should reflect the meaning, and they don't have to match.
|
If both gold and golden refer to "made of gold", how do I choose? I always thought that if something is made of gold, it is a gold thing, if it looks like gold but might not be, it is golden. But looking in the dictionary, I can see I was wrong. In the Cambridge dictionary, for both gold and golden it reads: made of gold, or the colour of gold For "golden" it reads in also: made of gold Example sentences for gold: She always does her presents up beautifully in gold and silver paper. She was wearing a gold Lurex top with a pink mini skirt. There are a couple of fish with blue markings, and a few more with gold stripes down the side. I understand in those examples "gold" refers to the color but why it is not golden? How would the meaning change if I put "golden" there? How to tell which one should I use? <Q> I think the choice of " gold " and not " golden " in those examples has to do with parallelism. <S> Other things are being described by color as well--the gold top and the pink skirt, the blue and gold fish. <S> Gold is the name of the color, so in a list of colors, gold is the preferred form. <S> The meaning doesn't necessarily change if you say golden instead, it just makes the sentence less parallel. <A> As an American English speaker, I use gold and golden interchangeably, except in common phrases, like "silver and gold" (or "gold and silver") are often paired, you could say "golden and silvery" but that sounds odd to me. <S> If you are using the word "gold" to describe something that is not made of gold, then it's like a metaphor, you are evoking the metal (not just the color) -- the princess with the golden hair vs the princess with hair of gold. <S> (Gold-haired princess would also be correct.) <S> That said, I hear "gold" more often used to describe gold-colored than "golden" -- the distinction is not very significant. <A> @Katy has the answer for your example sentences. <S> Examples: golden goosegolden handshakegolden opportunitygolden age <S> Otherwise, gold is shorter and more common.
| Golden tends to be used metaphorically, and it should be used when the object cannot possibly be made of gold.
|
What does it mean? "She is the last person who you would have down as a cheat." I have seen this sentence on a newspaper. It is about a case in which a husband is worried about his wife cheating on him...". Here is sentence: "... I love her so much. I honestly thought she was my rock. She is the last person who you would have down as a cheat ...." I did not quite understand the relative clause and am confused about the usage of " would have down " in the sentence, because it does not seem like any other structure of conditionals. And I have never seen such a usage of " WOULD HAVE DOWN ". It seems like conditionals type 3 , but then " down " should be a verb. And if it is conditionals type 2 , then " to have down " should be a verb, which I don't think is true. So, I am confused. What is the verb in the sentence? Is it " to have down " or is it " down "? In other words, what does " would have down " mean here? Is it something like: 1- "If you had come to the wedding, you " WOULD HAVE SEEN " John. ("see" is the verb here. So does "WOULD HAVE DOWN" in the sentence have the same function as " WOULD HAVE SEEN " in this sentence? 2- Or is " DOWN " an noun such as "We WOULD HAVE DINNER together, if you had come to the restaurant yesterday." (So is " WOULD HAVE DOWN " the same as "W OULD HAVE DINNER " in this sentence? Shortly, what does the sentence mean and is the " WOULD HAVE DOWN " structure a conditionals 2 or a conditionals 3 ? Regards Here is the link I have seen the sentence: https://www.thesun.co.uk/dear-deidre/8338205/fiancee-raped-drunk-pals-brother-invited-wedding/ <Q> The role played by down here has various names in various grammatical traditions: adverb, particle, locative, preposition. <S> I think of it as an "intransitive preposition", a preposition which stands on its own as a preposition phrase, without an "object". <S> The sense of down is the same as you see in these constructions: <S> I wrote him down as a "maybe". <S> Put me down for a $100 donation. <S> John's completely down with moving the meeting up a day. <S> In all these the metaphor is approximately "entered on a list"; it's an idiom that goes back at least to Shakespeare: <S> My tables—meet <S> it is <S> I set it down <S> That one may smile and smile and be a villain. <S> So the husband is saying that his wife is the last person you would ever have on your list of people likely to cheat. <A> In UK casual speech and writing, to "have someone down" as something is to believe that the person is capable of doing something, or likely to do something. <S> I never had him down as a thief = <S> I never thought he was a thief. <S> I always had him down as a decent person = <S> I always believed he was a decent person. <A> She is the last person who you would have down as a cheat. <S> Let's parse the sentence. <S> There are two phrases used in the sentence, i.e: Be the last person. <S> Have someone down as. <S> You use the former phrase to make a strong negative statement. <S> For example: He is the last person I would ask to help me. <S> The sentence means that he is the most unlikely person whom I would ask to help me or, in other words, I would not ask him to help me at all. <S> As for the latter phrase, you use it to say that you think of someone as a particular type or class of person. <S> Some people use "put" instead of "have" in the phrase i.e. put someone down as. <S> /you would n not think of her as a cheat at all.
| So the sentence means that she is the most unlikely person of whom you would think as a cheat
|
Use passive in the past Is it possible to tell: They have begun (to) being checked. ? The meaning: The police started to check people some time ago. But I can not mention "police" in the sentence. <Q> In the first place, begin takes two sorts of complement, which you may have confused: a gerund-participle clause: begin checking a marked infinitive clause: begin to check <S> Be careful not to combine the two forms <S> : begin to checking is impossible! <S> In the second place, They have begun does not designate a "past" event: it is a present <S> tense, the present perfect , which designates a current state which originated in a past event. <S> The meaning of a perfect construction (and consequently the propriety of using it) depends on the context, including the verbs involved. <S> This gets very tricky with begin , which has two different senses: It can mean to start an undifferentiated atelic activity (e.g., "start studying") which continues indefinitely, or It can mean to start an evolving telic activity (e.g., "start learning") which "grows" toward completion. <S> Without more context it's not clear which meaning you intend here. <S> I suspect you mean the first: checking started some time ago (and presumably continues today). <S> If that's the case, begin designates an event which happened entirely in the past; it is only the checking which continues. <S> Accordingly you should use the simple past: <S> Police began [checking/to check] people, or in the passive <S> People began [being/to be] checked. <S> But it is also possible that you mean the second: the police started their checking activity in the past but are still in process of extending that to all the people involved. <S> In that case you would properly use the present perfect: <S> Police have begun [checking/to check] people, or in the passive <S> People have begun [being/to be] checked. <S> Note, by the way, that these examples do not exhaust all the contexts in which the contrast between simple past and present perfect arises. <S> This is a very complicated matter. <A> "They have begun (to) being checked" is incorrect. <S> If "they" refers to the subject being checked by the police, you could say: They have begun to be checked. <S> If "they" actually refers to the police carrying out the check, you could say: They have begun to check. <S> Both these statements assume that you have previously established who "they" are, who or what is being checked, and what that check entails. <A> "They have begun to be checked [by the police]" is a well-formed past passive sentence (with or without "by the police"). <S> "They have begun being checked" is probably fine as well. <S> Edit : I discussed emending your text in a way that doesn't work, but there is no need for that discussion, so I have removed it.
| "They were being checked [by the police]" is also fine.
|
You eliminated me(game) ,out We were playing. So a girl got eliminated.(out). What's a more natural to say that? Why did you out me? I mean doesn't "eliminate" sounds a bit formal. I know "out me" sounds unnatural. What would you use? <Q> In British English there is the word knockout , see the Oxford Dictionary . <S> A tournament in which the loser in each round is eliminated. <S> So it isn't just used in a boxing match, when the opponent is floored. <S> One example given is: They qualify from their group but fall to Argentina in the first round of knockout matches after a penalty shoot-out. <S> So you could say The girl was knocked out of the game. <S> The girl could ask Why was I knocked out of the game? <A> However, I will note that "out me" does not sound unnatural, it just means something completely different . <S> The be 'outed' means to have something you were keeping secret revealed. <S> This is by contrast with "coming out" for voluntarily revealing something you were keeping secret. <S> Most often, in my experience, it's used about sexual orientation and gender identity stuff ("coming out as gay"). <S> If you don't qualify it usually means something of that sort, but one can also "come out as a liberal" to one's conservative family, for example. <A> She’s out! <S> is the normal expression. <S> It’s actually pretty ubiquitous, since it’s used in many different sports and even some video games. <S> Dodgeball? <S> You know the rules and maybe you saw the movie starring Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller in 2004. <S> But the concept is pretty simple — throw the ball at your opponent and if you hit him or her, they're out of the match. <S> https://www.postbulletin.com/sports/localsports/this-dodgeball-is-for-adults/article_906e0cb8-04f0-5823-8269-05e9ee94e28a.html <S> Missing the ball this way is called a “strike” and in baseball three strikes means you are out ! <S> https://blogs.transparent.com/english/three-strikes-and-youre-out/ <S> On its face, "HQ Trivia" is a simple, multiple-choice trivia game. <S> You watch a host as he/she rattles off question after question - <S> if you get the answer right, you get to keep playing. <S> Miss one, and you're out . <S> https://www.businessinsider.com/best-video-games-2017-12
| I agree with @WeatherVane that you want "knocked out" if you want something that sounds more casual.
|
Why does the phrase "drop dead gorgeous" mean "very gorgeous"? I came across the phrase Drop Dead Gorgeous which means very gorgeous or good-looking . Why does the above phrase have this meaning? How do the given words relate to the meaning? <Q> A first degree paraphrase of: <S> This person is drop dead gorgeous. <S> is: <S> This person is so gorgeous that I could drop dead. <S> That is, "drop dead" <S> is a description of the reaction of onlookers: they could drop dead due to the shock of seeing such a gorgeous person. <S> There are other similar expressions in English: <S> shockingly , stunningly , and they are all tied to physical reactions that onlookers could experience (and display). <S> Imagine a teenage popstar walking down a mall, and the ripples it would create in the crowd: jaws dropping, eyes bugging out, fingers pointing, people stopping to look, fans fainting, ... <A> Drop dead works as an intensifier in this phrase. <S> The reference to death isn't literal; it's a hyperbolic expression meant to emphasize how incredibly stunning the speaker finds the person being described. <S> It's thematically akin to phrases like "I am so [adjective] <S> I could die" (common examples: "hungry," "happy") or "I'm bored to death." <A> But I'm unable to find any reference to this. <A> Compare "Heart-stoppingly beautiful", with the same meaning and the same metaphor of killing the viewer. <S> With heart-stopping it's clearly referring to excitement/rising blood pressure.
| I used to think that the phrase 'Drop dead gorgeous' was Victorian in origin, due to the Victorian habit of using mercury and arsenic in their beauty products and thus killing the person using them.
|
adjective clause and the object in the sentence The mosquito moment is the part of the presentation people remember the most in the conference. people remember the most is an adjective clause, so is placing that or which in front of it optional? And does the PP in the conference go with the adjective clause or say it's part of the adjective clause, is that right? And what is the object of the verb remember , is it the phrase the mosquito moment (seems a bit far) or the phrase which precedes it the presentation ? I was told that adjective clause modifies the thing that precedes the clause, does that rule always apply? <Q> That as a relative pronoun: The relative pronoun that can be left out when it is the object in a relative clause. <S> This is the woman (that) we were talking about <S> And, therefore, your sentence need not include that/which as follows; <S> The mosquito moment is the part of the presentation (that) <S> people remember the most in the conference. <S> The above sentence could have multiple contexts of which here are two; <S> The mosquito moment is the thing (object of remember ) which people remember the most . <S> the part of the presentation is the thing (object of remember ) which people remember the most . <S> An adjective clause modifies often the thing that precedes it, but there also the cases like linking verbs and Demonstrative Pronoun when that does not hold. <A> The mosquito moment is the part of the presentation [people remember the most in the conference]. <S> The relativised element is object of the relative clause <S> so, yes, it is omissible. <S> The antecedent of the omitted relative word is the nominal “part of the presentation". <S> The PP is an adjunct, an omissible element in the relative clause. <S> The object of “remember” is “part of the presentation”, which is co-referenced to the subject NP “mosquito moment” <A> Starting with your last questions first: The object of the verb "remember" is "part", "the part [of the presentation]", and "of the presentation" is a prepositional phrase used to modify "part" (clarifying what kind of part is meant). <S> The second prepositional phrase in the sentence ("in the conference"), could either be considered part of the clause beginning with "people remember....", or it could be understood as a separate, additional modifier of "part". <S> There really isn't much difference in meaning between those two interpretations. <S> As to your first question, about whether that or which is optional: in your sentence, "that" or "which" can be omitted before the clause "people remember the most". <S> This is common in normal idiomatic English. <S> Also, according to englishgrammar.org : <S> The relative pronoun that can be left out when it is the object in a relative clause. <S> Here is the example they give, <S> This is the woman that we were talking about. <S> OR <S> This is the woman we were talking about. <S> Their example is analogous to the sentence about the mosquito moment, so we do not need to use "that" or "which". <S> It is true that the same website also states, as given in Zeeshan Ali's answer, That cannot be dropped after nouns. <S> ( same source ) Since "woman" is a noun, I am confused by their apparently contradictory rules.
| I would go with common usage, and say that the sentence you quote is correct.
|
Correct structure of a sentence with "Have got" how do I ask a question "What do you usually have in your bag when you go to the beach?" using "have got" for possession? Is it correct? "What have you usually got in your bag when you go to the beach"? Got or get ? This confuses. <Q> Yes, it's correct; it should be got , not get . <S> Here are some excerpts from an article at BBC World <S> that's based on a post from Roger Woodham <S> (emphasis is in the original): <S> When we are talking about possession, relationships, illnesses and characteristics of people or things we can use either have or have got . <S> The have got forms are more common in an informal style. <S> Note that have got <S> is NOT the present perfect of get . <S> It goes on to say: in informal speech we often switch from one form to the other: - How many subsidiaries does your company have? <S> - It has two. <S> - How many sisters do you have? <S> - I’ve got three (sisters). <S> - Do you all have your own bedrooms? <S> - Sue’s got her own bedroom, but neither Debbie nor I have. <S> We have to share. <S> (Note in this last example that have to is used as an alternative to must because the need to share is imposed on the sisters.) <S> - Have you got a new car, Paul? <S> - Yes I have. <S> I bought it last week. <S> - Has it got air conditioning? <S> - No it hasn’t. <S> But it’s got a CD player. <S> - Do you have very many CDs? <S> - I’ve got hundreds. <S> Also from Merriam Webster's definition of have got : : have —used in present tense situations usually in informal writing and in ordinary speech. <S> // <S> I sent the package to him yesterday. <S> I hope he has got it. <S> // <S> It's getting late. <S> We've got to go. <S> In each of these sentence pairs, the sentences are equivalent: <S> What do you have in your bag? <S> What have you got in your bag? <S> What do you <S> usually have in your bag? <S> What have you <S> usually got in your bag? <A> I wouldn't say have got is incorrect, but the sentence <S> "What have you usually got..." <S> sounds odd. <S> Changing it to " <S> What have you usually <S> *get <S> *... <S> " is even more awkward. <S> Something I'd probably say in this situation is "What do you normally have in your bag...? <S> " <S> I have said usually before in this context <S> but I tend to stick to normally. <A> "What have you got in your bag when you go to the beach?" is correct. <S> Without the clause "when you go to the beach", it would be specifying "right now", but such constructions can also be used as an "in general" question or statement with the right adverbials or other additional clauses. <S> If you want to insert "usually", it's an adverb modifying "got", which is effectively the main verb in this case. <S> That also makes it a general question or statement. <S> It would go immediately before the "got" even in constructions where "have got" has no interpolated word. <S> "I have usually got". <S> Get is an interesting verb with a range of meanings and conventional constructions that go with it. <S> I imagine that it can be a tangle for a person learning English as a foreign language.
| Have got has the same meaning as have and both are used as present tenses .
|
Idiomatic way of describing the fact that someone has had some alcohol What's the idiomatic way of describing the fact that someone has had some alcohol? For example, a husband is coming back home from work and starts talking to his wife. He is not drunk, so he speaks and acts just as usual. However, from the scent coming from him she understands that he had some at work. So she says, "I see you have already ________________!" What would put in the blank here? (Any part of speech and any number of words in the blank are okay, but only one verb - if that's possible and idiomatic - is preferred). <Q> There's a lot of possibilities. <S> "I see you've already been drinking" "I see you've already started drinking" <S> "I see you've already had a drink" <S> It's idiomatic in the sense that it's not literal. <S> "I see you've already wet your whistle" Literally means drinking, basically, but almost always refers to alcohol. <S> "I see you've already had a few" Doesn't really fit your scenario because you'd use that when someone was noticeably tipsy (or worse). <S> Lots of more or less regional slang. " <S> Had a swift half" if you want to imply that they had a half a pint of beer, or colloquially any other "small serving". " <S> Had a/some tipple". " <S> Had a cheeky one" if you're suggesting that it was in a situation where it's not socially unacceptable, but not entirely proper either. <S> After that I'm getting onto really quite obscure slang, so I'll stop there. <A> "imbibed" could work - a more formal word that could be used somewhat humorously to refer to drinking alcohol. <A> As one of the comments above notes, there are so many options available here. <S> You could go for the literal: <S> I see you've already had a drink <S> "A drink" often refers to an alcoholic drink. <S> If the intention was that they would drink alcohol later: <S> I see you've already started [drinking]/already had one <S> There are also idiomatic options: <S> I see you've already had a tipple/ <S> already wet your whistle/already had a cheeky one <S> I owe the 'whistle' suggestion to the commenter above, and it normally implies consuming a small amount of alcohol. <S> The 'cheeky one' is extremely idiomatic, and could refer to many things not just alcohol. <S> It makes the act of already having a drink sound 'naughty' but in a (normally) good way. <A> Some options are knocked back a few cracked the bottle hit the bar <S> had your three martini lunch got a head start <S> These are mostly based on US English.
| Drinking or having a drink, in the right context, implies alcoholic drink.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.