source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Is comma before "and" mandatory or not? I only put a comma, sometimes, not always, when I feel like the successive clause could stand in its own sentence. I only like to talk about the weather, and to go onto a monologue about the great person that I am. but sometimes I also write it like this: I only like to talk about the weather and go onto a monologue about the great person that I am. So is it a mandatory thing. I believe there was a similar thread about comma before and, but the answer seemed to mention the Oxford style, which is when we put a comma between various listed elements and not clauses. <Q> The comma before 'and' is not necessary because the clauses aren't independent. <S> They're both infinitive clauses based on "I like. <S> " I think the answer to this question is clearer when you use a simpler example: <S> I like to eat and [to] drink. <S> Examples 13 and 14 from this link: <S> https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html are helpful. <S> The basic explanation is that between two verbs or verb phrases in a compound predicate, commas are unnecessary, and the same is true between two nouns, noun phrases, or noun clauses in a compound subject or compound object. <A> The comma changes the meaning (although you also dropped the "to" between "and" and "go", which reinforces the change in meaning). <S> Your first sentence means "Talking about the weather is something I like, and going onto a monologue is another thing I like. <S> " Your second sentence means "Talking about the weather and then going onto a monologue together make up something I like. <A> It's known as an Oxford or a Serial Comma. <S> Oxford itself says that... <S> One of my favorite ways to make my students understand it in a hilarious way is -
| The 'Oxford comma' is an optional comma before the word 'and' at the end of a list It is used for clarification i.e. to avoid any ambiguity.
|
How to say "How to aim [well/right/correctly]"? Imagine reading this as a headline in a learner's text book on a shooting range: How to aim right How to aim correctly How to aim well Basically, I want to say "how to aim to hit the target" in this passive manner and I'm trying to find the proper adjective to use for this. Any suggestions? <Q> Aim right is a little ambiguous. <S> It could mean to aim in the appropriate manner, to aim so as to hit the target, or to adjust your aim to the right. <S> Aim correctly would, to me, mean to aim in the correct manner - to do so in the way you are taught to aim. <S> Aim <S> well would, to me, mean to take your time to aim, not rush. <S> Unless it were " how to aim well", in which case it would mean instructions on how to aim effectively or correctly. <S> Aim properly would capture several of these, not rushing, doing it in the correct manner, and that doing so would tend to allow you to hit the target. <A> Actually, no qualifier is needed. <S> The expression: <S> How to aim a [pistol/rifle/weapon/etc] is perfectly natural ( example ). <S> By default, when you instruct someone how to do something, it's assumed you are telling them how to do it correctly . <S> However, if you want to emphasize that there is a correct method and and an incorrect method you could say something like: <S> How to correctly aim [a weapon]. <S> As SamBC mentions , you can substitute various synonyms for "correctly": properly, accurately, appropriately, effectively , etc. <S> You can also suggest you're teaching a particular technique: quickly, smoothly, steadily , etc. <S> Example: <S> How to safely and accurately aim and fire a fully automatic weapon. <S> Also, by default, when you "aim" a weapon it's assumed to be at some target . <S> Otherwise you're not really aiming it, but rather just pointing it in some vague direction. <S> As an alternative, you can use the idiomatic expression "take aim", which is commonly associated with the action of aiming a weapon, rather than some metaphorical aim. <S> How to correctly take aim at your target (when firing a semiautomatic rifle). <A> Idiomatically, the phrase to aim true might work. <S> "True" here is in the sense of "straight, accurate, and without deviation", rather than the more common sense of "a statement agreeing with the facts". <S> As an example, we have the headline <S> How to Aim True at the F-class World Championships .
| Aim accurately would be to aim in a way that means you hit the target.
|
Is this a proper use of "get"? Sara wanted to get her a present. Does this make sense?I think it should be "Sara wanted her to get a present." or "Sara wanted to give her a present." <Q> Yes, the sentence is an example of the proper use of get. <S> Get is used as a common substitute for other verbs such as buy, receive, arrive [get here, get there], understand, catch [a ball] and some others that don't come to mind right now. <S> Sara wanted to <S> get her a present. <S> means: <S> Sara wanted to buy her a present. <A> In this case, "her" is the indirect object and "present" is the direct object of "get." <S> It means the same thing as "Sarah wanted to get a present for her." <A> "get" can mean either: 1) "obtain"/"acquire"/"buy <S> " or 2) "receive"/"be given" <S> The first meaning is understood from the sentence <S> "Sara wanted to get her a present" (as in, "Sara wanted to buy a present <S> so Sara could give it to her [someone else, not Sara]"). <S> The meaning is ambiguous in the sentence <S> "Sara wanted her to get a present" (it could mean either, "Sara wanted her [someone else] to buy a gift, possibly to give to a third person" or <S> "Sara wanted her [someone else] to receive a gift"). <S> The other sentence you mention, "Sara wanted to give her a present", has almost the same meaning as "Sara wanted to get her a present". <S> This original sentence you asked about is perfectly grammatical and is clearer than "Sara wanted her to get a present" <S> (From whom did Sara want her to get a present? <S> For whom?).
| This is a proper use of "get."
|
Are present simple and present perfect interchangeable?(about habits) I wonder if in this context pr. simple and pr. perfect simple are interchangeable: He has played the saxophone every night. He plays the saxophone every night. If they aren't interchangeable, could you explain me, what's the difference between the information they give us? <Q> As with most choices of tense in English, the difference is mainly how the speaker is choosing to focus the statement temporally. <S> There may also be implications of one but not the other. <S> He plays the saxophone every night. <S> does not focus the statement in time: it is talking about something that has happened in the past, and the present, and may be expected to continue into the future; but it does not set a focus. <S> He has played the saxophone every night. <S> is talking about a period from the past up to the present, and setting the focus to the present. <S> It does not exclude the possibility that the behaviour might continue into the future, but it does not discuss it, because the temporal focus is looking backward from the present. <A> "He has played the saxophone every night", means for a period of time from the past to the present. <S> If "playing the saxophone every night" is a new or temporary habit, you can say: "he has been playing the saxophone every night lately". <S> Meaning it is not a regular habit. <A> I think these two tenses are not interchangeable at all in any context. <S> He plays the saxophone every night. <S> This is something that he does habitually every night. <S> Every night, he takes his saxophone and plays it. <S> He has played the saxophone every night. <S> With this sentence, I'm thinking that he started playing the saxophone at some point in the past (let's say when he was a kid) and has been doing that ever since every night up to the present. <S> We can even add that additional time information into the sentence. <S> He has played the saxophone every night since his childhood . <S> In most cases, with sentences like this one, it would be only natural to almost always add some additional time information into the sentence to qualify since what time the action we're speaking about has been happening.
| If you say: "he plays the saxophone every night" it means this is a regular habit, it is a normal part of his life.
|
What is the meaing of "be off on someone"? Here is the context: Introduce yourself to people who you don't want to date but you are willing to. Here are my reasons: one, you may be off on someone who you think is right for you. Open all the doors, see who walks through. Does it mean that someone dosn't like the person whom he/she thinks is right for her/him? <Q> "Be off on" in this context means to "be wrong about" or "be mistaking about". <S> What the writer is trying to say is:"You often think someone is right for you <S> but later (when dating) it turns out that you are not actually right for each other , causing a breakup. <S> In the same way it is likely that you would think someone is not "right for you" but it would turn out that they actualy are after you started dating." <A> Introduce yourself to people who you don't want to date <S> but you are willing to. <S> Here are my reasons: one, you may be wrong about someone who you think is right for you. <S> Open all the doors, see who walks through. <S> It's a bit of an awkward sentence, but the point is: introduce yourself to a lot of people <S> , you might be surprised - you might think someone is or isn't right for you, and you might be wrong / a little off (as in "off the mark" ). <A> I think it means that someone might be overly attracted by someone whom he thinks is right for him. <S> Personally I'm not familiar with the expression, "be off on someone" in that context. <S> From the rest of his statement, it is clear the author is advising people to be very open about who they connect with, and to introduce yourself even to people you don't immediately think are "right" for you. <S> This makes me think his intended meaning of "to be off on someone" is "to be preoccupied with s/o", or "to be chasing off after s/o". <S> He cautions that you may be likely to chase off after someone who you think is right for you [... <S> but you may overlook someone who actually is right for you]. <S> Judging from other people's comments here, I wonder if this expression might be rare, regional, or even the author's personal invention.
| "be off on someone" would probably mean something like "be wrong about someone."
|
What does strut mean? What does strut mean? Where I can apply the word? I need to know what you call the things in the picture and what strut means. Are those struts in the picture? <Q> The stand would be the entire standing apparatus, perhaps, but certainly "the legs" is the best way. <A> I think the strut is actually the horizontal metal strip between the two sides of the board. <S> It keeps the two sides from pressing back together. <S> A <S> It seems there is some debate if the piece I refer to is 100% technically a strut <S> --I have always heard it referred to that way, and believe that in colloquial usage it would be an appropriate word. <S> But it seems if you're writing for a technical description, it may not be appropriate. <A> The picture shows a board in a frame and this is attached to an A-frame structure. <S> A-frame structures for this usage (holding up a board) have legs. <S> struts are not relevant here. <S> Struts are cross-beams, therefore, usually horizontal, used in the construction industry to strengthen vertical loads and also on guitar necks to so different notes can be played. <S> On guitars, struts are vertical. <S> Struts can also be found in certain pieces of furniture where they reinforce some structure. <S> For examples, some beds have a frame made of wood with cross pieces called struts where a mattress is placed. <A> The engineering definition of a "strut" is simply a component which has a compressive force acting along its length. <S> That definition certainly applies to the parts of your frame marked with the arrows. <S> In contrast, it does NOT apply to the horizontal links between the two boards, which are in tension not compression. <S> An engineer would call those parts "ties". <S> However, non-engineers would describe the arrowed parts as "legs," not "struts," just like the "legs" of a chair or a table. <A> In common non-engineering American English, the main familiar usage for this meaning of strut is as part of the suspension in cars, since they need service/replacement from time to time. <S> Keep in mind strut , as a noun or verb, can also be used for a particular way of walking, and this meaning is probably more familiar.
| strut is a structural piece designed to resist pressure in the direction of its length. I might call these the legs of the board or whatever the object is called.
|
Can I replace "man" with another word in words like swordman, manpower, policeman, etc? Do you know what are elves and dwarfs ? They are fictional species for fantasy stories. I was wondering if words like swordman, manpower, policeman, spearman, etc (everything with man ) could be replaced with swordelf, dwarfpower, policedwarf, spearelf, etc Can I replace the part "man" with another? In case of yes, about elves, would be ...elf or ...elve? <Q> You can, but in my opinion they don't really "work," except for a few cases. <S> The most common substitution you'll see is changing mankind into whatever other species. <S> I don't think I've seen variations of manpower or swordsman . <S> I think fantasy authors just use different words, like using warrior instead of swordsman . <A> You would be coining a term, albeit in a perfectly logical way. <S> Everyone would know what you meant, but I personally wouldn't do it unless you're aiming for humour. <S> It would be very hard to do without coming off as at least a little flippant. <A> Not really - you would be inventing new words if you did that. <S> Some people might find it sexist to use "man" rather than something more gender-neutral like "person", but "personpower", "swordperson", etc. are not standard English. <S> EDIT to add: I think it might work better if you hyphenated the words, e.g. "police-elf" or "dwarf-power" - this might be more "acceptable" English. <S> And to answer your other question, the singular of "elves" is "elf". <S> The plural of "dwarf" is either "dwarfs" or "dwarves".
| If you replaced "man" with something else the meaning would probably be understood, but again, it would sound like a made-up word.
|
Should a father's first name be used? Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. Is it a better form to express parents' name? <Q> I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name. <S> In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. <S> However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name. <A> There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name. <S> I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. <S> So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". <S> If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name. <A> There would be nothing remarkable about this: <S> Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake. <S> This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name. <S> The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. <S> There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not. <S> As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers. <S> Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. <S> (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith). <S> In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential: <S> Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. <S> A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy. <S> But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma: <S> Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. <S> It's also possible <S> Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. <S> In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma: <S> Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. <S> His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it. <S> However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.
| If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it.
|
Why "that of" in these sentences? “I have anxiously awaited the arrival of those such as yourselves. My names Megumin! My calling is that of an arch wizard , one who controls explosion magic, the strongest of all offensive magic! Do you, too, desire my forbidden strength, which is so almighty, I’ve been ostracized by the entire world?” – Megumin My calling is that of an arch wizard (in bold above) My name is that of Michael. No god am I, but one who serves. A Barons title is that of a lord, but he may opt to be referred to as Baron (or Baroness) versus lord. My job title is that of Head of Commercial Operations, however most of the team call me the Director. In all of these sentences, why they use that of instead of just saying "A is B", such as "my calling is arch wizard"? <Q> This is an effect of "heightened language". <S> Here, the plain form would be "I am a wizard." <S> You can raise the language a little by using the rare meaning of "calling"="job", to give "My calling is being a wizard. <S> " Then you can raise the language further to say "My calling is the calling of a wizard", but then avoid the repetition of "calling" by saying "My calling is that of a wizard". <S> Raised language is possible in most of the world languages, and Japanese has a particularly complex system of plain and raised language. <S> This may be the translator's attempt to represent a complex and fancy expression of Japanese in English. <A> I'm not sure all of those are correct in everyday, terrestrial, non-fantasy English. <S> Both 2 and 4 sound much better with just a simple "is" instead of "is that of". <S> Number 2 sounds particularly non-idiomatic. <S> It should be "My name is Michael. <S> " Period. <S> 4, also, should be "My job title is [perhaps in quotation marks or even italicized] "Head of Commercial Operations." <S> because "Head of Commercial Operations" literally is his job title. <S> "That of" could be used to avoid saying plain "is" for some reason. <S> Perhaps because the words following "is" aren't the literal completion of the statement. <S> For example: <S> "My name is that of my father and his father before him. <S> " You wouldn't say "My name is my father ." <S> or "My job title is that of the highest authority in the organization." <S> because that isn't the exact wording of his job title. <S> Someone might also use "is that of" instead of just "is" in an effort to sound very formal, legalistic, or just plain pompous. <S> Adding extra unnecessary words to your statements can help with that. <S> It sounds to me like that might be the situation in example 1, where the author is trying to convey the personality type and social station of the speaker, Megumin. <A> The use of that of is correct in all instances quoted, except in the sentence, <S> My name is that if Michael . <S> I think poetic licence is being used here, meaning that in literature it is acceptable to deviate from the accepted use of the language, for effect.
| It is a deliberately fancy way of expressing something to mark the language of a strange character.
|
"Stay hungry" or "Keep hungry"? If I had two choices, either to " Eat something " or " Stay/Keep hungry ", when food is offered to me when I was in a state of hunger. I want the phrase to be in the same format as "Eat something", I mean two words and in an order (verb) form. I found out that " Stay hungry " is an idiom which means: To remain determined, competitive, motivated, and active in one's hopes, ambitions, or goals; to keep oneself from becoming complacent or self-satisfied with less than one might potentially achieve. Also, I don't find that " Keep hungry " makes a good fit. So, what should I say? <Q> Yes, there is an idiom that "Stay hungry" means "remain determined," etc., but that idiom has not replaced the primary meaning of the word "hungry," which is to "be conscious of not having eaten enough recently." <S> No native speaker would interpret the words above as Eat some food or else continue being so determined. <S> The word "eat" would indicate unambiguously that the word "hungry" is to be interpreted in its literal sense rather than a figurative sense. <A> Another option would be remain : "eat something or remain hungry." <A> I suppose your "idiomatic" meaning of stay hungry <S> comes from this page: <S> https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hungry . <S> I think this is not really an idiom but rather a logical construction from one of the alternative meanings of hungry listed at the bottom of the same page: "ambitious." <S> In other words, in order to tell someone not to lose their sense of ambition, one could say "stay ambitious" or "stay hungry." <S> I would further consider this meaning of "hungry" to be a metaphor, that is, it represents a metaphorical hunger for success rather than a hunger for food. <S> In fact, just about any such phrase using the word "hungry" could have the same metaphorical meaning: in a context where "stay hungry" means "stay ambitious," telling a person to "remain hungry" or "keep yourself hungry" would have the same meaning. <S> In the context where the alternative is to eat food, however, you could use any of the following phrases to tell someone to remain in a state of hunger: <S> stay hungry . <S> remain hungry . <S> be hungry . <S> The phrase keep hungry does not ring true to my ear. <S> The word keep has various idiomatic uses, such as "keep calm", that have the form keep + (adjective) , but this does not seem to be one of them. <S> The phrase go hungry is another idiom. <S> It has a connotation of involuntary hunger:from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/go-hungry , If people go hungry, they do not have enough food to eat. <S> This does not seem to apply when food is available but one chooses not to eat it. <S> The definition of the phrase varies from source to source, however:according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/go%20hungry , going hungry is a chronic condition,but https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/go+hungry defines it as missing a single meal. <S> On the other hand, if the circumstances are that food has been set out to be eaten,but it will be taken away soon, I would understand the phrase eat something or go hungry to mean if you do not eat food now, while it is available, you will suffer from not having enough food to eat in the near future. <A> I'm not a native speaker, but I'd rather use " stay hungry". <S> I think the proper usage of keep might be when you leave something in a state, so technically (I guess) you can say like "keep myself hungry", but I've never seen any usage that uses the verb keep to leave the speaker itself in a state, rather leave another object in it. <A> As a native English speaker, the phrase that comes to mind is "go hungry": <S> "If you refuse to eat anything, you'll go hungry."
| Eat something or stay hungry is the natural way to utter the thought desired in the context specified.
|
What does "in a sandpaper-dry kind of way" mean? He was the quintessential newsman: cynical at times, but unrelentingly curious and full of life, and often hilariously funny in a sandpaper-dry kind of way. Could you tell me please what it means? Does it mean: His laughting made noise like lustle of rubbing a surface with sandpaper. The fuller text: When I began my career in journalism—I was a reporter at a national magazine in those days—there was a man I’ll call Claus Schmidt. He was in his mid-fi fties, and to my impressionable eyes, he was the quintessential newsman: cynical at times, but unrelentingly curious and full of life, and often hilariously funny in a sandpaper-dry kind of way . He churned out hard-hitting cover stories and features with a speed and elegance I could only dream of. It always astounded me that he was never promoted to managing editor. <Q> It refers to <S> "dry" or "deadpan" humor : marked by a fixed air of seriousness or calm detachment. <S> Here's another example of the same usage from Paste <S> The 25 Best Comics of 2016 : <S> They’re silly, but in a serious manner, where a sandpaper-dry delivery renders the absurd amusing. <A> "Dry" means he is funny in a specific way, which is quite hard to explain, actually. <S> It is a fast, unexpected and often witty response. <A> I would not say it means dry, but rather slightly grating.
| By using "sandpaper-dry" instead of just "dry", the author tried to convey that the newsman's sense of humor was not just a little dry, it was very dry and maybe " gritty " which is also used to describe humor (in the sense of having strong qualities of tough uncompromising realism ).
|
Ways to say 'get smaller', 'decrease in size' in one word What are the proper ways to say that something gets smaller (decreases in size) in one word? I am not asking about cases when what we discribe represents a measure of something (price, volume, weight, height). In those cases I know that it is correct to say, for example The price decreases The volume reduces I am asking about cases when real material things get smaller. For example, A baloon gets smaller (deflates) An apple gets smaller (when somebody eats it) The goal is to replace 'gets smaller' with one word (verb). Can I in these cases use words such as 'decrease', 'reduce' without adding 'in size'? What are the most commonly used words or phrases? <Q> The balloon shrinks/shrank/will shrink/has shrunk/is shrinking etc. <S> I wouldn't use that about something that's actually having bits taken out of it, though, because it tends to suggest getting smaller while retaining largely the same shape - or at least changing shape in some smooth, continuous way. <S> Reduce can be used without 'in size' for some things, and would often be used as such as about prices. <S> Also about swellings, thrombosed haematomas, and various other things. <A> In addition to shrink and contract mentioned above, other words that can mean "shrink" plus some additional information or context are: shrivel - shrinking by losing something (like water) wilt - similar to shrivel collapse - shrinking by losing its structure <S> deflate - shrinking by losing its content <S> implode - similar <S> to deflate but more dramatic retreat <S> - like shrink, but focuses on the space where it is not anymore <S> recede - similar to retreat wane - similar to shrink <A> There's also diminish : to make/become smaller; to lessen the authority or dignity of; to disappear gradually. <A> The word "shrink" would fit most of the situations you ask about. <S> A balloon shrinks as it deflates An apple shrinks as it is eaten (slightly odd but okay) <S> The price shrinks in a sale <S> My jumper shrank in the wash. <S> and so on. <A> If I were to choose a verb to satisfy your needs I would certainly say to shrink . <S> Yet, the verb to contract can be used as a synonym in some situations. <S> According to The Free Dictionary , definition#2: To become reduced in size by or as if by being drawn together: The pupils of the patient's eyes contracted. <A> An old word is wane <S> which these days is only applied to the cycles of the moon (specifically waxing and waning ), or metaphorically to something which changes size over time in a similar way to the moon. <A> Another word I see in the academic and statistics literature is the word attenuate . <S> For example The estimated association between the drug treatment and the disease <S> condition was attenuated after controlling for age. <S> That is, the magnitude of the association became smaller. <A> Depending on the target of the sentence, "drop" can also be used; for example <S> One however would not say <S> "The apples have dropped" Since the size of the apples is not the target, but the apple. <S> Note how the price example does not need any mention of "size"; (which is why I mention it) though I'm really not sure why and will update this answer if someone can explain in the comments. <A> To discount is to reduce the price. <S> To diminish is to shrink in size or importance. <A> An apple gets smaller (when somebody eats it) To be eaten and to become smaller, for a discrete object like an apple, or not the same thing at all. <S> You can say (these are not common, but they are grammatical) <S> the amount of edible apple shrank <S> little apple was remaining <S> In these cases we focus on "apple" as a foodstuff, by adding "edible" in the first case and "little" in the second. <S> If you say "the apple shrank," I definitely picture an uneaten apple, and I may infer it shrank because it shriveled or dried up since this is the most natural way an apple may shrink, but I do not believe it was partly eaten.
| I think you may be looking for the verb " to shrink ". "The price is dropping" "The size of the apples have dropped"
|
What does "crevasse" mean or refer to in this sentence? I looked into the dictionary that a " crevasse " usually means 'a very deep crack in the thick ice of a glacier', but which could certainly not fit the context. At first it really confuses me, then I guess there are two possible explanations: 1) it refers to ' the small crack/slit of Will‘s half closing eyelids ', as his eyelids grew heavier. 2) it refers to ' the break/gap in his words ', as he only half finished his sentence before he went deep into sleep. 3) other explanations that I don't know. Could any one help with this? And I also wonder if it's quite an often/common usage in English, after all, in my opinion, 'crevasse' should refer to large and deep gaps. Why does the author choose this word? The context is: Will and 'I' were on holiday, in a hotel with view to ocean, just before Will fell asleep, we were lying in bed, watching the storm and lightening and heavy rain out at sea. Will is a quadriplegic and I am his carer. I found out that he decided to go on euthanasia and I did everything I could in order to change his mind, including this holiday, hoping to make him happy. Here is the sentence: Finally, I turned on to my side, away from the sea, and gazed at Will. He turned his head to look back at me in the dim light, and I felt he was telling me the same thing. It’s going to be okay. For the first time in my life I tried not to think about the future. I tried to just be, to simply let the evening’s sensations travel through me. I can’t say how long we stayed like that, just gazing at each other, but gradually Will’s eyelids grew heavier, until he murmured apologetically that he thought he might . . . His breathing deepened, he tipped over that small crevasse into sleep, and then it was just me watching his face, looking at the way his eyelashes separated into little points near the corner of his eyes, at the new freckles on his nose. Me Before You by Jojo Moyes <Q> On the one hand - from the material position - the same person, in the same place. <S> Therefore - this small. <S> On the other hand, this is immense - here’s the person, but now he is gone. <S> He fell into the abyss. <S> In the " crevasse". <S> I think that this is not a typical use of the word "crevasse". <S> Maybe wrong. <A> This is a metaphorical use of "crevasse". <S> It is comparing sleep and wakefulness - and the difference between them - to a very deep crack in the thick ice of a glacier like you said. <S> So it is saying that he basically fell over the crevasse. <S> Being awake is the glacier, and being asleep is either the crevasse itself or the glacier on the other side of the crevasse. <S> So when he tipped over the crevasse, his sleep was like that of a glacier and the gap was as wide as a glacier's crevasse. <A> We usually say 'fall asleep'. <S> The writer might have said 'His breathing deepened, he fell asleep', but is using a specific image of 'falling'. <S> I don't think it's a very good image, because in real life you don't 'tip over' a crevasse, you fall or plummet into one.
| It seems to me that the word "crevasse" is used to figuratively show the difference in states: wakefulness, and sleeping state.
|
Is it okay to say "make the house clean"? I leanred the passive in my grammar class.Teacher said the sentence 'George said that he made his house clean before the party.' ...is wrong because 'clean' should be changed into 'cleaned'. I can understand it should be changed if 'clean' is used as a verb, but what if 'clean' is an adjective? I asked her and she said it's wrong to use 'clean' since the change of state(being dirty to clean) is important, and 'clean' as an adjective only presents the result, but I still can't understand. Is it wrong to use 'clean'? <Q> I think this sentence is a technically correct but poor for three reasons: <S> George said that he made his house clean before the party. <S> First, it simply is not idiomatic. <S> A typical English speaker would not phrase a sentence this way. <S> Second, it's overly wordy and words that don't add value should be removed. <S> What does the above sentence tell you that this one doesn't? <S> George said that he cleaned his house before the party. <S> It's only one word difference, but the grammar is simpler. <S> Finally, what is the verb here? <S> I don't think active/passive is the issue but rather that you've taken what's actually gone on - cleaning - and moved it off to an adjective. <S> George cleaned. <S> That's primarily what he did. <S> He didn't make. <S> In general active verbs are better than wimpy ones. <S> "Cleaned" is a lot stronger voice than "made clean". <S> "Made clean" almost sounds like George (Jetson!? <S> !? <S> ;-) pushed a button to get his house clean. <S> Again, these are somewhat finer points and perhaps open to interpretation. <S> Your original sentence is not wrong or unintelligible by any means. <A> Your sentence ' <S> George said that he made his house clean before the party.' <S> is grammatically correct. <S> However, this sentence is in the active voice instead of the passive voice; perhaps this is the error your teacher was pointing to. <S> Here is an example of a version of your sentence, but in the passive voice: 'The house was cleaned by George.' <S> We know that this sentence is in the passive voice because it has a form of the verb 'to be' <S> (in this case, 'was') <S> followed by something that is technically called the past participle (in this case, 'cleaned'). <S> There are other ways we could implement passive voice: 'George said the house was cleaned by him.' <S> Here, the main phrase of the sentence is in active voice ('George said'), but the additional information is in passive voice ('the house was cleaned'). <S> ' <S> It was said the house was cleaned by George.' <S> Here, both the main phrase and the additional information are in passive voice. <S> However, it is worth noting that phrases like this are rarely used in everyday conversation, as it is relatively abstract <S> (the 'it' in this sentence represents people in general). <A> Your teacher is totally wrong. " <S> To make clean" (where "clean" is an adjective) means the same thing as the verb "to clean".
| Your sentence is completely grammatical and gets across the intended meaning.
|
Which of the following is more appropriate? Cambridge dictionary says : They have three children UNDER the age of five. While Learners dictionary.com says : The game is suitable for children BELOW the age of ten. I am really confused about UNDER and BELOW in the reference of age. Please recommend me a site to go for. Thanks I advance. <Q> You can trust both dictionaries. <S> It's perfectly fine if you use "under" to talk about age: <S> It is illegal to sell alcohol to children under the age of 18. <S> Health-care services are free for pregnant mothers and for children under the age of 6. <S> And you can also use "below" to mean the same thing: <S> Children below the age of 12 are the main target group of beneficiaries. <S> Most industrialized countries have less than 20 per cent of their populations below the age of 15. <A> The game is suitable for children below (younger than, under) <S> the age of 10 (MW Learners). <S> The dictionary has put "under" in parenthesis, which means you can use either below or under in the sentence i.e. both are correct. <S> However, the "under" is more idiomatic and common than "below" when it's used in the sense of lower number, amount, or size than something. <A> There is very little difference between under and below. <S> They are both prepositions meaning something is lower or less than something else. <S> Generally under is used more widely than below and if there is some concern as to which word to use the safe choice is under. <S> The word under can be used when someone or something is under control, under new management or under the command of. <S> These scenarios give one person authority over someone and the other person is under that authority. <S> One item is lower or beneath the control of another. <S> Under is used to mean less than in numerical terms. <S> For example, there were under five students in the class. <S> There are numerous expressions using the word under before another word: <S> Under stress – feeling pressured by an emotional situation. <S> Under someone’s influence – being controlled by someone else. <S> Under construction – building works that are not completed. <S> Under a spell – being bewitched or controlled by magic. <S> Under pressure – feeling pushed into making a decision. <S> Below is used more often to describe objects on different levels for instance pictures on a wall. <S> One picture may be below the other. <S> Temperatures and water levels are registered below a certain height. <S> Below is used with words like sea level, surface and poverty line all measures of numerical levels. <S> Below the surface – just under the top levelBelow the poverty line – just under the line of being poor and needy. <S> Below sea level – land that is below the level of the sea. <S> The opposite of below is above showing again how this word is linked to distance between things while the opposite of under is over showing the word to be part of a covering. <S> When you go to sleep you lie under the covers. <S> Both words have some interesting idioms. <S> Below the Salt: If you are ‘below the salt’ you are being placed in a position below your value. <S> In Medieval times the salt, a valued commodity, was placed in the middle of the table. <S> The head of the table was the highest ranking person so if you were placed lower down at the table below the salt you were less important.
| Below is very close in meaning to under and as they are both prepositions they are both used in the same way to describe the position of something or someone.
|
Abuse of your trust In Spanish we use this expression abuse of your trust usually in formal writing to apologise in advance when we want to ask for something that one wouldn't do if wasn't because our trust. Example. Sorry for making abuse of your trust but I wonder you'd do a favour. Can I borrow your car for the weekend? How would you express this in English? Thanks. <Q> The phrase makes sense in English but the meaning it conveys is far too severe for the context you give. <S> An "abuse of trust" in English would be a very serious matter and even describes some illegal acts - for example, the definition " abuse of a position of trust " is used in British law to describe sexual activity between a teacher and student, or a caregiver and care-recipient. <S> Not quite the same thing as asking to borrow someone's car. <S> I think the equivalent expression you are looking for is: Sorry for the imposition ... <S> Preceding a polite request this normally implies that you are aware you are asking for slightly more than would normally be expected. <S> Another alternative may be to say: <S> I hope this isn't presumptuous , but... <S> This is another way that some may soften a request by apologising in advance for presuming that it is possible. <A> English uses the phrase abuse of trust as well, but it would not be used in the kind of sentence you proposed. <S> Here are some examples of abuse of trust taken from English-language periodicals (compiled by The Free Dictionary ) <S> "Your actions in pursuing an emotional and sexual relationship, and in having sexual intercourse with [a patient receiving psychiatric care from you], were a gross abuse of trust." <S> "And a new offence, abuse of trust, will stop adults exploiting under- 18s in schools, the forces and places of care." <S> "In a gross abuse of trust, Pringle, one of a small number of people with access to the committee room, began taking cashed tickets and re-cashing them for himself." <S> The last example is perhaps the easiest to explain. <S> Pringle was given access to the committee room, where something valuable was stored, because people trusted him. <S> They trusted him not to steal the valuables. <S> He abused their trust by stealing the tickets. <S> Asking for a favor from someone may be an abuse of trust, but probably not in the case you described. <S> If you repeatedly ask to borrow someone's car, but are always honest about the reason, there is no abuse of trust, but it may be an abuse of their goodwill . <A> I don't mean to take advantage of you or our friendship, but could I borrow your car? <S> The Spanish expression used in everyday language really means: to take advantage of someone due to the trust they have in you. <S> It has nothing to do with the legal term, breach of trust . <S> The idiomatic expression and legal expression are two different things in English. <S> No quiero abusar <S> de tu confianza <S> : I don't want to take advantage of you [in the sense of: given the trust you have in me] <A> As a native (Scottish) speaker, I would use something like: " <S> I'm sorry to impose" or simply: <S> "I'm sorry, but I wonder if you would mind doing me a favour?" <A> As others have said, in English "abuse of trust" is a rather strong statement. <S> This answer says that the expression better translates as "to take advantage of someone due to the trust they have in you. <S> " <S> Have you considered an alternative like "abuse of your hospitality?" <S> That seems a better translation of the sentiment. <S> E.g. <S> Sorry to abuse your hospitality, <S> but I wonder if you'd do me a favor. <S> Can I borrow your car for the weekend? <S> This would sound fine to me in American English. <S> It does suggest that you are a guest of the person of whom you are making the request. <S> You can replace hospitality with other words, e.g. generosity would be more general. <S> Or friendship (which would imply that the two of you are friends). <S> Another possibility would be "Would it be too much to ask?" <S> E.g. <S> Would it be too much to ask if I could borrow your car for the weekend? <S> If the goal is to soften the request.
| If you convince someone to let you borrow their car by lying to them, that may be an abuse of trust.
|
What's the difference between "belong TO me" and "belong WITH me"? What's the difference between "belong to me" and "belong with me"? For example: "My darling, I'm very happy that you belong to me." "My darling, I'm very happy that you belong with me." (one example in a song ) What's the difference between these two sentences? <Q> You belong to me <S> I "own" you - <S> I have "rights" over you <S> , I can make decisions on your behalf, etc. <S> Often with the implication that I define the "value judgement" framework governing our relationship. <S> You belong with me <S> It is right and proper that you should be close to me Often with the implication that the reason for this assertion is either to comply with some "external" value system, or because it's in your best interests ( <S> not necessarily just because it's what <S> I want). <S> As an example of a clear-cut differentiating context, suppose on his first day at a new school, a student is unsure whether to go into classroom A or classroom B. A second student - himself a new arrival - knows that all new students should report to classroom A on their first day. <S> He might say You belong with me , as he invites the other to follow him into the correct classroom. <S> That second student would never say You belong to me . <S> But if it was the teacher (about to go into classroom A herself, and having been asked by the first new arrival where he should go), it would be at least feasible 1 for her to use to instead of with . <S> 1 <S> As per comments below, at least some people would find the teacher's use of belong to inappropriate / offensive. <S> Which simply goes to prove the point that asserting a person "belongs to" another person strongly implies that the (usually, metaphoric) "owner" may be exercising undue dominance. <A> “Belong to me” suggests possession. <S> But when speaking about people the possession is of course not literal. <S> “Belong with me” does not have the connotation of possession- <S> it is just saying the person or thing and the speaker (“me”) should be together. <S> When talking about romantic partners, I think the former (“to”) suggests an existing relationship (“you are already my partner and I am happy about that”), whereas the latter (“with”) suggests a desire that the subject be in a relationship with the speaker (“you should be my partner”/“I wish you were my partner”). <A> You belong <S> to me <S> I "own" you <S> I have "rights" over you <S> , I can make decisions on your behalf, etc. <S> Often with the implication that I define the "value judgement" framework governing our relationship. <S> You belong with me <S> It is right and proper that you should be close to me. <S> Often with the implication <S> that the reason for this assertion is either to comply with some "external" value system, or because it's in your best interests (not necessarily just because it's what I want). <S> I have stolen this section completely from Fumble Fingers answer, as I agree with this totally. <S> But I disagree with the analysis there. <S> Many people still romantically love the idea of "belonging to" someone, see this Dean Martin song: <S> You Belong to Me <S> Dean Martin Watch <S> the sunrise on a tropic isle See the pyramids along the Nile Just remember darlin', <S> all the while <S> You belong to me <S> BUT Many people dislike the phrase, as they don't like being described as being owned by someone. <S> This takes in the background of women literally being their husbands property for hundreds of years in the UK <S> *. <S> To contrast here is the Police Song " <S> Every Breath You Take", some people consider this a romantic song even though it was written to be a creepy song about a stalker citation of Sting <S> Every single day Every word you say <S> Every game you play <S> Every night you stay <S> I'll be watching you <S> Oh can't you see <S> You belong to me <S> My poor heart aches <S> With every step you take <S> And it takes in thecontrolling nature of some relationships where one partner has the belief they are correct to control completely the other partner's every action and sometimes thoughts. <S> Even if people don't think of literal ownership, it sounds possessive and slightly controlling. <S> I would imagine the descendants of slaves are also not keen on this terminology, but I base this on nothing more than how I think I would feel. <S> So I would recommend not using the TO form yourself, as you never know how the other person will take it. <S> * <S> I believe America is the same but my American social history is not good enough to make a definite statement.
| When something belongs to you, you own it.
|
Meaning of "broke through the silence" The night Esmeralda married Gringoire, Quasimodo had been the bell-ringer at Notre Dame for several years. This was thanks to his foster father, Claude Frollo. Quasimodo loved his job. He felt as one with the great church of Notre Dame. He’d grown up inside it. He was familiar with every inch of its walls, floors, and ceilings. The church had been his nest, his home, his country—his universe! But an evil fate seemed to stalk the poor orphan. The sound made by the huge bells had broken Quasimodo’s eardrums. He became deaf at 14. Before this, his hearing was the only thing that was normal about him. Now his soul was plunged into profound darkness. His sadness had become as complete as his ugliness! From the moment he lost his hearing, he decided to keep silent. In a way, this protected him from other people’s mocking laughter. His favorite activity was ringing the bells. When he pulled the ropes, the whole tower trembled. It was the only sound that broke through the silence . Dose it mean: this sound just broke his silence.because he decided not to talk. <Q> It states higher up in the text that <S> He became deaf at 14 <S> and then His favorite activity was ringing the bells. <S> [...] It was the only sound that broke through the silence . <S> Here the author is implying that the sound of the church bells was so loud that he could here them, even though he is otherwise deaf. <S> So one could say it broke the barrier of silence that surrounded him after loosing his ability to hear. <A> "To break" as in "to break the silence" means "to interrupt". <S> The silence (that surrounded Quasimodo since he never talked) was interrupted by the sound of the bells. <S> EDIT: <S> actually the phrase is "to break through" here - this effectively has the same meaning when talking about silence. <S> In this case, the silence is (forcibly) ended by the sound of the bells. <S> EDIT2: <S> There is also the issue that Quasimodo is deaf, as @rasan076 points out. <S> Not sure if the passage is talking about the silence in Quasimodo's head, but that could be another interpretation - the sound was so loud that even he could hear it. <S> Or less literally, the sound was so loud that it interrupted the silence in his mind (it sounds like he felt empty inside and the bells might have been the only thing that got through to him). <A> On one hand, "the whole tower trembled" , when he pulled the ropes. <S> That is sound was so aloud, that vibration may come to deaf persons through their bones (this phisiologically - real). <S> And this broke through into his personal silent world. <S> On the other hand, "he decided to keep silent" , and sound of bells broke his personal rule about silent. <S> Symbolically. <S> This is literature. <S> And may be many meanings at the same time. <S> May be wrong.
| "To break through" means something like "to force one's way into".
|
"You surprised me" and "You took me by surprise" What's the difference in meaning between "You surprised me" and "You took me by surprise"? <Q> We tend to use "took me by surprise" when somebody startles us. <S> The dictionary definition is " <S> To encounter or otherwise engage something or someone who is not prepared or on guard; to shock or startle someone or something by one's sudden appearance or action." If you were sitting in front of me, and we were talking, and you told me that you had just won the lottery I would be surprised. <S> I could say "You surprised me". <S> But there was no sudden appearance, so you didn't "take me by surprise". <S> But you didn't "take me by surprise" <S> If you came up behind me, quietly and tapped me on the shoulder, that would surprise me. <S> "You took me by surprise." <A> There is no difference. <S> They are just very slightly different ways of saying the same thing. <A> Both mean the same thing. <S> Although, the former is more commonly used, per Google Ngram
| These expressions are rather different in meaning.
|
What are some examples of Anonyms with "An-" prefix I teach science to high school students. The other day I was teaching respiration to a class and the topic was Aerobic and Anaerobic Respiration. And I said Aerobic respiration is the kind of respiration that takes place in presence of oxygen. Anaerobic respiration is the kind of respiration that takes place in absence of oxygen. Here 'an' is the prefix used to denote the opposite of Aerobic. So one of my students asked me what other opposite words can be made by prefixing 'An-'. I tried googling but didn't find any such pair of opposites. Is this the only case where An prefix makes an opposite of a word or are there others. If you could list some pairs it would be helpful. <Q> They indicate a lack of something. <S> An amoral person is a person without a canon of morals but may normally behave morally. <S> An immoral person is a person who normally does not behave morally. <S> Anaerobic bacteria thrive in an environment lacking oxygen, not in an environment with the opposite of oxygen (because there is no opposite to oxygen). <S> Furthermore, "an" and "a" are frequently applied to loanwords, which explains why English has "anarchy" but not "archy. <S> " <S> The concept of anarchy as an abstract category of political organization was an idea that never entered the heads of the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain, but they had names for the thugs that led their clans and tribes. <S> So when abstract political thought came back to England, there were existing words for kingdom, commomwealth, realm, etc. <S> They only borrowed what they needed like "republic" and "anarchy." <A> The 'a' prefix is really a variant of 'an' and is more common, as in: <S> moral - amoral typical - atypical "An" is used instead of "a" when the word it prefixes begins with a vowel. <S> Neither necessarily make a straight antonym of the word it prefixes but generally create a word which is antonymous with a word sharing the same root meaning. <S> Anelectric - is something that is not electrifiable, so <S> it is not the opposite of "electric". <S> Anacoustic - lacking in acoustic properties. <S> Not strictly the antonym of "acoustic" because you may say that an object is an acoustic but the opposite would be to say it has acoustic properties . <S> Analgesis - a pain reliever and is the antonym of algesic , something which causes pain. <S> Anarchic - which means "without ruler", "arch" meaning ruler. <S> We don't have the word "archic" in modern English <S> but we do have other prefixes such as "hierarchic". <S> Analphabetic - means incapable of reading and writing, literally without alphabet . <S> This is more antonymous with literate and is not an antonym of "alphabet". <A> The prefix an- is equivalent to a- <S> (as in asymmetry or asexual ), the only difference being whether the word it's prefixing starts with a vowel or a consonant.
| Another example is anarchy , which takes the vowel-starting -archy meaning "rule" and applying the an- prefix to indicate an absence of it. The prefixes "an" and "a" do not create antonyms strictly speaking.
|
Should I use past or present because the birthday doesn't change? It was last Sunday. Should I say, "When was your birthday?" or "When is your birthday?" to make a question for this sentence? <Q> We usually ask When is your birthday? <S> because the answer is a "constant" (same as <S> What is your name? <S> , it doesn't change from year to year). <S> But if you know perfectly well that the person you're asking had a birthday recently , it would be far more natural to ask when that was . <S> If you know (or suspect) that the person's birthday is "close" to "today", but you don't actually know whether it's in the recent past or the near future, this creates a bit of a problem, since whichever tense you choose has a fairly high probability of being "inappropriate". <S> Many people would simply cover all bases by asking... <S> When is - or was - your birthday? <A> Usually one asks When is your birthday? <S> Since one might be thinking of getting a present for the next birthday. <S> When was your birthday? <S> is used if you already know you missed their birthday and are seeking clarification. <A> But in the example you gave, you are talking about a particular day that was their birthday (day/month/year). <S> "Last Sunday" refers to 10 Feb 2019. <S> That is a particular day that occurred in the past, so it takes past tense. <S> If someone says "My birthday is 10 Feb", what they generally mean is " <S> The tenth of February of every year is my birthday", and so that takes the present tense. <S> "Birthday" can refer to the generic "day each year that has the same day/month as the day I was born", and that takes the present. <S> But it can also refer to a specific day in a specific year that had the same day/month, and that takes the past (if it's already happened). <A> If you say When was your birthday? <S> Then you are implicitly asking <S> When was your last birthday? <S> If you say When is your birthday? <S> You are implicitly asking When is your next birthday? <S> So ask either question, as you prefer. <S> The response might be different. <S> E.g. <S> My last birthday was December 25th. <S> Or My birthday is the same day as Christmas. <S> If you would prefer one type of response, then ask in the way that encourages that response. <S> Otherwise, both are correct unless they conflict with something. <S> For example, if someone says I just had my birthday. <S> It would make more sense to ask when it was , because you're discussing the most recent one. <S> But even then, you can make is work. <S> E.g. <S> Oh, so I'm safe from buying presents for a year? <S> When is your next birthday?
| If you're asking about the day/month of someone's birthday, then that doesn't change, so it's present tense.
|
By the homeless OR homelessess I heard it was possible to make a noun from an adjective like: They are poor and live there. All the poors live there. We mean "poor people" by the adjective "poor" + "s", like the plural form of the adjective. But can I say just "poor" meaning then only one poor person? Or I can but only with "the" like: The poor is there. But wouldn't it be taken for "poverty" or "poorness"? But What to do if the adjective is "homeless"? They are homeless and live there. All the "homelesses" live there. This way? And just "the homeless" would mean a single homeless person? I hope you see what I mean <Q> That is a slang construction that exists in English, but to call a single person "a poor" or a group of people "the poors" is really derogatory . <S> It's similarly offensive to calling someone "an illegal" or "a gay" or calling a group of people "the illegals" or "the gays." <S> Identifying a person by an adjective alone, without a noun that identifies personhood, is almost always an impolite construction. <S> Using a singular adjective to refer to a single person, or a plural adjective to refer to a group of people is typically offensive. <S> On the other hand, using a singular adjective to refer to a group of people who fit a certain category--"the poor," "the wealthy," "the homeless"--is not offensive. <S> Consider the famous motto of Robin Hood ("Steal from the rich and give to the poor"). <S> One homeless person would be referred to as a "homeless man" or "homeless woman." <A> If you turn an adjective into a noun just my using it as a noun, referring to the whole class of individuals to whom the adjective could be applied, like "Give me your tired, your poor..." <S> Then you create a mass (uncountable) noun. <S> If you use it to create a singular noun that refers to an individual , like calling someone of African extraction "a black" or someone homosexual "a gay", then it's countable - and usually offensive. <S> If you then pluralise it, you are talking about those individuals as a collection of individuals, rather than as a 'mass'. <S> And it usually gets even more offensive. <A> You've gotten the wrong idea. <S> Usually when we refer to a group by an adjective that describes them, the word is not made plural. <S> "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, <S> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. <S> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" <S> It's not "give me your tireds, your poors...the homelsses... <S> " <S> There are examples that don't fit the usual pattern, such as the blacks , the gays , the hispanics . <S> I don't have an explanation for why these words exist, but fortunately, you can more or less forget about their existence, since many, if not most English speakers today find these labels offensive. <A> Certainly it is possible to make nouns from adjectives, but in this case "the poor" is already a noun. <S> To paraphrase the common translation of a quote from Anatole France <S> : <S> In its majestic equality, the law forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. <S> In this case "the poor" refers to the general class of people who are poor. <S> "Poverty" on the other hand, refers to the condition of being poor, which is not the same thing. <S> In the same way, someone who is "homeless* belongs to the class of people referred to as "the homeless". <S> "Homelessness" is the noun describing that condition. <S> Similarly the final stanza in the United States national anthem : <S> o'er (over) the land of <S> the free and the home of the brave . <S> Where "the free" and "the brave" represent the group of people characterized by freedom and bravery . <S> While "the poor" is a common descriptive noun, "the poors" would be considered slang, and sounds derogatory. <S> This is circumstantial and based on context. <S> Other created nouns might sound just fine: Adopters of new technology can be divided into two groups of those who are optimistic and those who are skeptical -- or as I like to call them, <S> the confidents and the hesitants . <S> In this case the adjectives describe the essential character of each group. <S> You'd have to get the actual meaning of these terms from context. <A> A generic plural noun formed from an adjective describing people, e.g. poor, rich, homeless, dead, fast, slow, etc is identical to the adjective, thus to discuss poor people generically we would say 'the poor' (not 'the poors'). <S> The poor have little money; the rich have much money; the dead cannot speak; the homeless need our help. <S> " <S> The homeless" used alone means "all homeless people, or homeless people in general". <S> The homeless find it harder to get jobs.
| There isn't such a word as "homelesses" because the phrase "the homeless" already refers to the entire population of people who are homeless.
|
What do you call a legal statement that states a fact rather than stating a rule of conduct or procedure? What do you call a legal statement that states a fact rather than stating a rule of conduct or procedure? I can't think of a word. Is there any such word? If there's no such word, which words would you use to refer to it in the shortest and most concise way? <Q> If you mean something that's determined in court, it would be a finding of fact , or just finding , as opposed to a conclusion of law or a ruling. <S> Findings often involve more than finding of fact - a jury verdict is a finding, even where it's just guilty or not guilty . <S> However, they will always be based on questions of fact, to which the law may have been applied. <S> A final decision may include findings and rationales to come to a final conclusion, applying the law to the facts, in a case where one or more judges are acting as finders of fact as well as judges of law. <S> If it's something that two parties to a case have agreed as a fact, which the court will then presume to be correct as the parties are agreed, that's a stipulation . <A> If it is the parties to a contract or lawsuit agreeing to some fact, it's a "stipulation". <S> If it is a statement in legislation that such-and-such is considered true, it's a "finding" of the legislature. <A> For example, in Australia, "A statutory declaration is a written statement which a person swears, affirms or declares to be true in the presence of an authorised witness." <S> NSW statutory declaration form Alternatively, it could be an "affidavit": <S> An affidavit is a written statement where the contents are sworn or affirmed to be true. <S> [...] Affidavits are used in court as evidence. <S> Affidavit
| It can be a "statutory declaration" if you want to state a fact and want to have it carry some legal weight.
|
Difference would and past indefinite why would is used instead of verb 2nd form mean past indefinite to talk about past? Look at the sentence I would take sleeping pills.I took sleeping pills.Both sentence are looking accurate then what is the difference? <Q> In your example sentence, "would" has the same meaning as "used to", meaning something that happened in the past which doesn't happen anymore. <S> The sentence isn't quite correct though, because with this meaning of "would", you have to give the time, like: " Every night I would take sleeping pills." <A> "I would take sleeping pills" is not a complete sentence. <S> It would only be meaningfully complete if it were, for instance, the answer to a question. <A> “I took sleeping pills” is more likely to describe a one-time occurence, or repeated occurence over a short period of time. <S> But not necessarily. <S> Depending on the context, “would take” could also mean “might take” (if some condition is met).
| “I would take sleeping pills” implies taking sleeping pills a number of times, on a regular schedule - sometimes the conditional is used to describe a continual past action like this.
|
Difference between "They left him for dead." and "They left him for death." As for me, "They left him for dead" seems to mean they thought he was dead and so they left. "They left him for death" seems to mean either "they left him because they were afraid of being killed" or "they left him for the purpose of death" Am I right?Is there anyone who can clarify these two sentences? <Q> "They left him for dead" is idiomatic and quite common in English literature. <S> It does not mean that the person left was dead, but that he was left in a state in which death seemed likely, or they wrongly assumed he was dead. <S> It is as if he was as good as dead . <S> A comparable sentence to "they left him for dead" might be " they took him for a fool ", which means that "they" wrongly assumed he was a fool. <S> "They left him for death" is not something I have ever heard. <S> Sometimes in literature "death" is personified, either as something like the mythical "grim reaper" or just as a metaphysical conceit. <S> I suppose that if it was your intention to suggest that somebody had been left for a personified "death" to come for then you could use this, but it is not idiomatic and so my short answer would have to be that this is not correct. <S> " <S> Dead" is an adjective, whereas "death" is a noun (the state of being dead) <S> so you just as you would not say "he is death" <S> to mean they are dead, neither could you say that someone was assumed to be "death". <S> Lastly, if there is no assumption that the person is already dead and has been left "dying" (but it is assumed that he will die), the idiomatic phrase would be " they left him to die ". <A> In both cases they do not offer any help and it seems intentional in the first case and unintentional in the second. <S> That's how I take it. <A> " to leave for dead " to abandon someone or something believing that they are dead, even though they may still be alive Two friends are talking ... <S> Friend 1: Why are you so happy? <S> Did you win the lottery? <S> Friend 2 <S> : Something like that. <S> I had bought some stock in a company many years ago <S> and then the company got into some serious trouble and the share price plummeted to almost nothing. <S> I left it for dead and never really thought about it again until yesterday when I received a letter in the mail informing me that the company had recovered and that my stock was now worth more than ten times what I paid for it. <S> Friend 1 <S> : <S> Wow. <S> That's great news. <A> As for me, "They left him for dead" seems to mean they thought he was dead and so they left. <S> That's not correct. <S> It means that he was alive, but they expected him to die if they left; and they decided to leave anyway, instead of saving his life. <S> "They left him for dead" means the same thing as "They left him to die". <S> Here are some dictionary definitions: To leave (a person or animal) that one knows will probably die instead of trying to help. <S> (From Merriam-Webster .) <S> To abandon a person or other living creature that is injured or otherwise incapacitated, assuming that the death of the one abandoned will soon follow. <S> (From Wiktionary .) <S> "They left him for death" seems to mean either "they left him because they were afraid of being killed" or "they left him for the purpose of death". <S> I've never heard a native speaker say "they left him for death", and I can't think of a situation in which a native speaker would say that. <S> I did a web search for the phrase; all of them were mistakes, where the author mistakenly wrote "death" instead of "dead".
| "They left him for dead" means that they assumed that he was dead and left him"They left him for death" means that they left him to let him die.
|
A or no article? “He is_____ racist.” Why in most cases do not put the article "a", when you enter the sentence in the search? In the example on this site, the article is adding ( OALD (American English)) Just enter in the search and you will see that everywhere in different ways. He is a racist and He is not a racist/I'm not a racist <Q> Like so many other words in English ( antique, chief, expert, orange, phony, suspect , etc.), "racist" works as both a noun and an adjective. <S> He is racist . <S> (adjective) <S> He is a racist . <S> (noun) <S> Both have approximately the same nuance, but are used differently. <S> As an adjective "racist" can describe actions, concepts, and objects as well as people. <S> Examples: <S> A racist decision. <S> A racist doctrine. <S> A racist document. <A> Both are grammatically correct, and the difference is just about what nuance the author wants the sentence to have. <S> They do have slightly different meanings, however. <S> A racist is a person who is racist , which is the state of holding prejudice against a specific demographic. <S> So the sentence "He is racist" is saying "He is prejudiced", whereas the sentence "He is a racist" is saying "He is the type of person who holds prejudices". <S> Both mean approximately the same thing, just going at it from a different angle. <S> Depending on context, they can imply degrees of prejudice, but this is not intrinsic to the usage. <S> In my experience, being called "a racist" is usually slightly more serious, just because "a racist" usually means they are a wholly racist and hateful person, whereas being called simply "racist" can mean the same thing, or a lesser degree, such as subconsciously fearing a minority even without hateful intention. <A> You mention entering the phrase into a search. <S> Do you mean a search engine? <S> If that is the case, then the reason that people often omit articles from internet searches is that they're largely ignored by the search engine itself. <S> If you type... <S> He is a racist ...into a search engine, the search engine is going to ignore the 'a' because it appears possibly literally on every website on the internet. <S> In other words searching for... He is a racist <S> vs.... <S> He is racist ... <S> will very likely pull up the same search results. <S> If you add quotation marks, then the engine will search for that exact phrase: <S> "He is a racist" ...will return all websites where that exact sentence, including the 'a', appears, whereas... <S> " <S> He is racist" ... <S> will return all websites where that sentence appears. <A> "Racist" is a word that is both a noun and an adjective. <S> It is both a word to identify a person (he is a teacher, he is a politician, he is a racist), and a property of the person (he is fat <S> , he is tall, he is racist). <S> So you can use both forms, with a slightly different meaning. <S> " <S> He is a racist" means he is one of the group of people called racist. " <S> He is racist" means he is a person with the property of being racist. <S> Compare to "lazy" <S> : Lazy is an adjective, but not a noun. <S> You can say "he is lazy", you can't say "he is a lazy". <S> But compare to "coward": Coward is a noun, but not an adjective. <S> You can say "he is a coward", but you can't say "he is coward". <S> Now compare to "black". <S> It's also both a noun and an adjective. <S> But depending on where you live, saying "he is a black" will be taken as insulting, while saying "he is black" is not. <S> Both are grammatically correct, but one will get you into trouble with people. <A> I agree with Andrew and Nathan's answers. <S> You asked why. <S> I think people use a "trick" of argument here. <S> Many sentences that use "a racist", say "I am not a racist" or "He is not a racist". <S> It is used as a response, when we say something he did was racist and bad. <S> This is equivalent to saying "I am not a bad person", in response to "Please do not do _ <S> , that is a bad thing to do". <S> Saying "I am not a racist", puts more emphasis on the "I". <S> He tries to say "I am not a racist. <S> Do not say that what I did was racist. <S> Do not dis-respect me. <S> " <S> I think "He is racist" is used because it anticipates this response. <S> It is less important to decide whether Boris Johnson matches some definition of "a racist", or not. <S> It is more important to decide whether or not he is being racist. <S> E.g. writing racist arguments, spreading racist ideas which damage our society. <S> He does not need to be a committed follower of racist ideology. <S> He need only take advantage of long-standing constructs of racial oppression, to become more popular and gain power.
| The noun "a racist" can only be applied to people, as in "a person who is racist".
|
"The donated books to ~" vs "The books donated to ~" Is there any difference in meaning between, "This is about the donated books to our library" and "This is about the books donated to our library"? In the following problem, is it only the meaning making " donating " the right answer? Please read the following guidelines for [donate] books to our library. Isn't it a presumption, though it's very likely that way, but is there any grammatical reason not to say " donated " here? <Q> I personally think that the word donated at first is an adjective for a noun - book. <S> But the second word donated <S> it has a passive implication. <A> In general it's possible to place the word donated before or after books depending on the construction of the sentence. <S> So it's idiomatic to say both: <S> We are grateful for the books donated to our library and The purchased books should be placed on the table and the donated books on the desk <S> In the examples you give, the first is possible but the second is more idiomatic. <S> However, the following two statements mean different things: <S> Please read the following guidelines for donating books to our library. <S> These guidelines concern the giving of books to the library - for example, which books the library might accept. <S> Please read the following guidelines for donated books to our library. <S> These guidelines concern books that are given to the library - for example, whether the library might choose to sell or recycle some of them. <A> The OP's sentences (and also the accepted answer) are mixing up the verb "to donate" and the adjective "donated". <S> You can use "to" after the verb, but not after the adjective. <S> In some languages you can say the equivalent of "The donated-to-the-library books" where "donated-to-the-library" functions as an adjective describing "books", but you can't say that in English. <S> In <S> "This is about the donated books to our library," "donated" is an adjective describing "books". <S> If you remove the adjective, it is clear you can't use the word "to". <S> "This is about the books to our library" doesn't make sense. <S> In "This is about the books donated to our library," "donated" is a verb followed by "to". <S> The complete phrase "donated to our library" describes the which books the sentence refers to. <S> In "Please read the guidelines for […] books to our library, <S> the […] must be a verb, not an adjective. <S> As in the previous example, if it was an adjective you could remove it from the sentence, but in "Please read the guidelines for books to our library" the word "to" doesn't make sense. <S> In "Please read the guidelines for donating books to our library," the guidelines are about the process of donating books (for example what types of books are acceptable). <S> In a sentence like "Please read the guidelines for donated books in our library," the guidelines are presumably about the fact that there are different procedures which apply to the donated and non-donated books after they have been donated.
| The sentence should be something like "This is about the donated books in our library".
|
Is "would I could" idiomatic? This excerpt came from The Confidence-Man (1857) from Herman Melville: Oh, the cripple. Poor fellow. I know him well. They found me. I have said all I could for him. I think I abated their distrust. Would I could have been of more substantial service. And apropos, sir," he added, "now that it strikes me, allow me to ask, whether the circumstance of one man, however humble, referring for a character to another man, however afflicted, does not argue more or less of moral worth in the latter? It seems to mean "I would or I could", but I am not sure, is this an idiomatic phrase? I doubt it. What do you make of it? <Q> The word "would" has been used instead of "would that" in the sentence. <S> The phrase would (that) is used in formal English to make a strong wish. <S> The more common and idiomatic is "I wish (that) I could have been...... <A> The meaning matches up with this definition (under "will, v.1") from the Oxford English Dictionary: <S> [...] with ellipsis of 1st pers. <S> pron. <S> as an expression of longing = <S> ‘I wish’, ‘O that’ This definition is marked archaic, so I think that it was archaic when Melville used it. <S> For more examples of "I would I should" from slightly earlier see The Waverley Novels, Volume 2 (1839) and Book of Martyrs (1831). <S> In Kallundborg Church (1865) there's an example of the pronoun being omitted: "Would I might die now in thy stead!" <A> It means "I wish that I could", and you'll also come across it as " <S> I would that <S> I could". <S> It is not idiomatic now. <S> It is archaic. <S> Educated native speakers will recognise it, but would rarely say it except when looking for a certain effect.
| "Would I could" here simply means "I wish I could".
|
"The brakes went out on me." Someone said: The brakes went out on me. (to mean that the brakes had gone out). Is the use of "went out on me" natural? <Q> Yes, it's natural. <S> "Go out" is a phrasal verb that means (among many other things) "to fail". <S> Example: I was raking leaves in the garden when suddenly my back went out (on me) and I dropped to the ground in pain. <S> Although it seems perfectly ordinary to me, I can't seem to find a dictionary that validates this use. <S> So perhaps it's a kind of informal variation on the use of "go out" as in "the fire went out ". <S> In the same way the brakes "went out" as in "stopped doing what they were supposed to be doing". <A> What is and is not idiomatic depends on several factors, so I’m not completely disagreeing with @Andrew. <S> But with that in mind: To my ears (native British English, specifically from Central Scotland) “the brakes went out on me” is not at all natural. <A> There are two idioms being employed: "Went out/go out" - to cease functioning, turn off, or fail in some way. <S> "On <S> me" - to me, toward me, at me, me. <S> A more literal way of expressing this sentiment is, depending on what they're trying to convey, "The brakes of my car failed," or, more dire, "The brakes of the car I was driving failed while I was driving it."
| I would always say simply that “the brakes failed on me”, or if the context was clear, just, “the brakes failed”.
|
What's the difference between "be up to" and "get up to"? Recently, I know the Word "get up to".It just means "do something."But I still don't understand the difference between "be up to" and "get up to". For example,When I want to ask what you did yesterday, I say What were you up to yesterday?=What did you get up to yesterday? When I want to ask what you're doing right now, I say What are you up to now?=What are you getting up to now? When I haven't seen you for a long time and ask what you have been doing recently, I say What have you been up to?=What have you been getting up to? When I want to ask what you're gonna do tomorrow, I say What are you up to tomorrow?=What do you get up to tomorrow? Am I right?Thank you for your help. <Q> According to Cambridge Dictionary here and here : be up to sth = to be doing something: <S> What are you up to at the moment? <S> and get up to sth = <S> to do something, often something that other people would disapprove of : <S> She's been getting up to all sorts of mischief lately. <S> I wonder what those two got up to yesterday? <S> So the use of to get up to sth implies a bad intention / deed, unlike to be up to sth . <S> @RonaldSole <S> correctly adds in the comment (thank you): to be up to sth = <S> is also used in the sense of <S> be capable of . <S> Will he be up to a long walk so soon after his operation? <A> Idiom Definition 1 "up to" occupied with, especially devising or scheming <S> Idiom Definition 2 "up to" able to do or deal with Idiom Definition 3 " <S> up to" dependent on Idiom Definition 4 "up to" as far as or approaching a certain point For more information on "up to" <A> "be up to" translates to what are you planning on accomplishing.
| "Get up to" would translate to what did you accomplish.
|
What does the expression "Happy is as happy does" mean? I just read an article in The Economist 's China section (2019/02/16) with the subtitle "Happy is as happy is told to". Feeling confused, I googled about this expression, only to find a quite similar expression: "Happy is as happy does". What do these sentences mean? Are they grammatically correct? <Q> The example from The Economist is a play on words on the idiom "happy is as happy does". <S> Like many idioms, it can be tough to explain, and can appear to break lot of rules of normal grammar. <S> Happy is as happy does. <S> Basically means <S> You make your own happiness by your actions. <S> In other words, you cannot expect to be happy unless you do something to bring your happiness about. <S> I'm going to guess and assume it means something like: <S> You are as happy as you are told to be. <S> I suspect the oldest form of this phrase is the proverb 'handsome is as handsome does', which has been used in various forms as far back as Chaucer . <S> All the other versions are derivations of this original. <A> All right. <S> So there is a line in the movie Forrest Gump that is "stupid <S> is as stupid does". <S> This expression means an intelligent person who does stupid things is still stupid. <S> You are what you do. <S> Other variations include "beauty is as beauty does" , "ugly is as ugly does", and of course, "happy is as happy does" in our case. <A> I think it stems from an action focused frame of reference. <S> Ideas such as you are your thoughts or you become what you do. <S> Happy people do things that make them happy is my take on the saying under question... <S> and then all the layers of cultural reference like Forest Gump which will make you grok Americans more if you have not watched it.
| The Economist is taking the well-known idiom and tweaking it to (I presume) make a point that refers to the contents of the article.
|
Is "school" a preposition in "The School day never goes too slowly"? Is School a preposition in this sentence?: The School day never goes too slowly. If it is not what part of speech is it? <Q> "School day" is a compound noun. <S> In this case it is the combination of two nouns (school+day), but can also be the combination of multiple different elements (i.e., noun+verb, adverb+noun, etc.). <S> Compound nouns are sometimes written as two separate words (e.g., "bus stop"), as a hyphenated work (e.g., dry-cleaning), or as a single word (e.g., bedroom). <S> In fact, you will sometime see it written as "schoolday." <A> No, it is not a preposition. <S> In this use, "school day" is a compound noun. <A> More specifically than it being a compound noun, or noun phrase, we can say what the role of school is in school day . <S> It is an adjunct noun , or attributive noun . <S> It is describing the sort of day being spoken of. <A> The question has been answered correctly already. <S> "School" is not a preposition. <S> " <S> The School day" is a compound noun. <S> Collins Dictionary [www.collinsdictionary.com] defines a preposition as: <S> A preposition is a word such as 'by', 'for', 'into', or 'with' which usually has a noun group as its object." <S> You can browse a full, comprehensive list of all English prepositions on the web at www.thefreedictionary.com
| It is not a preposition.
|
prepositions at the end of What and Which/that clauses I don't understand why these clauses led by what or that/which end with prepositions, why do we need a preposition at the end and what are the grammar rules. What clauses: We took an interest in what they are having a discussion about . We don't understand what he is interested in . That/which clauses: The employee doesn't know the tasks which he is assigned to . He drew a picture which students are afraid of on the wall. This is the friend he can't stop talking about . Are the sentences still correct if theose prepositions are omitted? <Q> A simple sentence might be <S> He likes dogs. <S> (SVO) <S> When made into a what question, the order changes: <S> What does he like? <S> (OSV) <S> Now look at sentences that end in prepositional phrases: He sat on a chair. <S> If we turn this into a what question there are two options. <S> On what did he sit? <S> (move the preposition, formal question) <S> What did he sit on? <S> (end in the preposition - informal) <S> What and which clauses have other uses besides asking questions. <S> But in the example below, the word "which" has been moved to the front of the clause. <S> The chair on which he sat The chair which he sat on <S> In both cases, the pronoun "which" refers to the chair, which is an indirect object of the verb "sat", and would be used with a preposition after the verb: "sat on the chair" <S> But if the order is changed to OSV, you can move the preposition or leave it. <S> It is optional. <S> The proposition is required: <S> The chair which he sat Would make "chair" the direct object of sat. <S> And "sat" doesn't have a direct object (in this sense) <S> Omitting them would change the meaning or make the sentence ungrammatical. <A> Without the prepositions, the sentences are either incomplete or ambiguous, or potentially have different meanings. <S> It's worth noting <S> the strict old-fashioned grammarians say you shouldn't end a clause with a preposition. <S> Following those rules often sounds excessively formal, though sometimes something sounds 'wrong' and sounds better reorganised like that. <S> So, some of your later examples would, according to those rules, become: <S> The employee doesn't know the tasks to which he is assigned. <S> This is the friend about whom he can't stop talking. <S> I say this in case you're dealing with someone who believes in those rules. <S> Dealing with most native speakers, you can generally ignore it. <S> So, looking at each of your examples, you want to know if you can lose the preposition. <S> Let's see. <S> We took an interest in what they are having a discussion. <S> That is incomplete and doesn't make sense. <S> If you're interested in the discussion, rather than the subject of it, you could say: We took an interest in their discussion. <S> If you are interested in the subject, it's: <S> We took an interest in the subject of their discussion. <S> (You could choose other words than subject) <S> We don't understand what he is interested. <S> Again, incomplete and nonsensical. <S> You could rearrange, but you still need to indicate the object of his interest, not the fact of his interest. <S> Or you could rephrase: <S> We don't understand where his interests lie. <S> It's putting it a different way, but it has the same meaning. <S> The employee doesn't know the tasks which he is assigned. <S> That changes the meaning, flipping object and subject, but it ends up meaning the same thing. <S> The version in your question means the employee is assigned to the tasks, and the version immediately above means the tasks are assigned to the employee. <S> He drew a picture which students are afraid on the wall. <S> That's fairly meaningless. <S> There are two possible missing words; either "picture in which" or "afraid of on the wall" - and they mean different things. <S> This is the friend he can't stop talking. <S> That looks like there's a missing comma between friend and he , which would mean that 'this' is 'the friend' (presumably previously mentioned), <S> and that said friend can't stop talking. <S> Pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions - they all matter. <S> Sometimes they can be implicit, but don't assume they can be unless you have reason to be sure . <A> We don't need a preposition at the end, but we do need one somewhere in order to connect an expression of time, space etc. <S> to some noun, verb or adjective etc. <S> The alternative to ending the sentence with a preposition is to 'front' it, by placing it at the beginning of the relative clause along with its complement. <S> Take you first example: [1] <S> We took an interest in what they are having a discussion about . <S> [2] <S> We took an interest in the thing(s) about which they are having a discussion . <S> Here, they were having a discussion about something and we took an interest in whatever it was that they were discussing. <S> [1] with its stranded preposition "about" is the perfectly normal way of conveying this fact. <S> But [2], which is designed to avoid preposition stranding, is ridiculously formal, and best avoided here. <S> The same applies to your other examples.
| The omission of a preposition altogether would render the sentence ungrammatical, or at least change the meaning. In your examples, the prepositions are required.
|
Use a lot of phone If someone is on phone all the time, can she use: I use a lot of phone, I have started acting like an addict. Is the use of "use a lot of phone" natural in this context? <Q> A more natural way to say it is <S> I am always on the phone, I have started acting like an addict. <S> or I am on the phone so much that I have become addicted. <A> No, that is not natural, or indeed entirely meaningful. <S> The minimal change to make it some way natural (and semantically valid) is: <S> I use (the/my) phone a lot, I have started acting like an addict. <S> You can't "use a lot of phone", because "phone" isn't something you can have "a lot" of. <S> You could "use a lot of phones", but that would mean using many separate physical objects - and some grammatical purists would say you need to say "many" when it's a countable noun, rather than "a lot of". <S> Another normal way to say that would use "use lots of phones". <S> However, none of those mean what you are trying to say. <S> If someone often or excessively uses something , " a lot " is a correct way to indicate that, but it goes after the something . <S> This is also true for verbs other than to use . <S> I cook pasta a lot. <S> I watch TV a lot. <S> I play video games a lot. <S> Now, all of those could be said the way you're suggesting. <S> I cook a lot of pasta. <S> I watch a lot of TV. <S> In those two cases, the difference in meaning is subtle. <S> Those forms of words are allowed because pasta and TV are (or can be) mass (uncountable) nouns. <S> The first doesn't actually mean that you cook pasta often (which is what cook pasta a lot means), just that you get through a lot of pasta. <S> You might cook it infrequently, but when you do you cook large amounts. <S> The watch TV versions are almost interchangeable, because watching a given "quantity" of TV is actually synonymous with spending a certain amount of time watching it. <S> I play a lot of video games. <S> This is like the pasta one, except video games aren't a mass noun so the meaning is a little more distinct. <S> To "play video games a lot" means to spend a lot of time playing video games. <S> To "play a lot of video games" literally means playing many different video games. <A> The Vernacular is a Fast-Moving Train: <S> Welcome to the Real World of Creative English Explanation of: "use a lot of phone" as in: <S> "I use a lot of phone,I have started acting like an addict." <S> Right, OK. <S> So in this day and age , some people try to <S> sound cute or "with it" . <S> This is especially true of people on TV. <S> This "use a lot of phone" is taken from a pre-existing pattern : "use a lot of product on my hair, use a lot of ketchup on my fries, use a lot of make-up on my face". <S> Those are examples that come to mind using the same verb. <S> Here's the thing, and here I am going to do that journalist one better [idiom] <S> : <S> "I do a lot of phone , I have started acting like an addict". <S> Because in the drug world, there are expressions such as: to do pot, to do coke,to do hash etc. <S> You might hear a pothead say: "Yeah, I do a lot of grass." for: "I smoke a lot of marijuana." <S> Since the phone is like a drug, do a lot of phone is funnier and more creative. <S> In any event, none of this is regular English. <S> These are merely attempts to express oneself creatively and insofar as they tally with the language, they work fine. <S> I fear that sometimes these types of questions are misunderstood.... <S> However, please note: this type of creative English is everywhere. <S> The normal way of saying it is: <S> I'm on the phone a lot, I use my phone a lot <S> , I talk a lot on the phone, etc. <A> As one more possible tweak to the sentence that would make it natural, you could say: I use a lot of phone time . <S> That sentence would make sense in the context of mobile phone plans. <S> Sometimes such plans also refer to talk time . <S> However, this is very contextual. <S> But if you do use phone time or talk time in that sense, then it's a perfectly reasonable construction because both of those things are countable and can refer to a little or a lot.
| It's not something you would normally say unless you were specifically referring to a phone plan—and the number of minutes you've used up. No, it is not natural.
|
What does "south of due west" mean? I was solving an astronomy problem which said "south of due west." This could be interpreted in two different ways and I don't know which one is correct. Is 'south of' in that phrase an idiom? Or does it mean southwest? Here is the full sentence: The Sun rises north of due east and sets south of due west. And the question is: Which statement best describes the position of the Sun at sunrise and sunset as seen by an observer in northern hemisphere on June 21? A. The Sun rises north of due east and sets north of due west. B. The Sun rises south of due east and sets south of due west. C. The Sun rises north of due east and sets south of due west. D. The Sun rises south of due east and sets north of due west. E. The Sun rises due east and sets due west. <Q> Look at a compass rose. <S> Look at W for west . <S> Now move 'southwards', which is anticlockwise 1 in this case, from the point for west. <S> Somewhere in that region is "south of due west". <S> You would expect it to be no nearer south than it is to west, as that would be "west of due south". <S> Conventions vary, but I would tend to interpret "south of due west" WSW, or west-south-west, which is actually due west of south west. <S> Unless you have a clear idea of what the conventions of the text are, it could be any point anticlockwise of west and not anticlockwise of south-west. <S> 1 <S> : In this case it is anticlockwise; 'southwards' from east would be clockwise. <A> Although it could technically be anywhere between W and S, I would interpret that as being significantly closer to W than S. Probably somewhere between W and WSW. <A> Because it's in an astronomy context, there is a possible reason for this wording over "west-south-west" or "southwest". <S> This could be not just a location, but directions on how to find it. <S> Instead of trying to give a more precise compass direction, the phrase implies that you locate the celestial body in question by first looking due west, then slowly rotating your gaze/binoculars/telescope southwards until you come to the first body that matches the description of the body you're looking for. <S> So one might write " <S> Betelgeuse is a red star that sets at 9:08 pm local time, South of due West. <S> " <S> The intention is if a reader of that sentence wants to find Betelgeuse in the sky, they would go outside on a clear night at about 8:45 pm, locate due West, look in that direction and then start scanning to the South (left) of that point for a red star. <S> It's actually more helpful to locate stars by intentionally missing to one side and then knowing to look to the left or right of a compass point than it is to try to point at it directly. <S> If you are trying to locate Betelgeuse (for example) by just pointing directly at it, and you don't see it, you don't know whether to scan left or right for it. <S> If you deliberately start off at a point definitely to the right or left of what you're looking for, you always know which direction to scan in. <S> Also, if you don't see it in your scan, you can go back to your reference point and start scanning outwards again, knowing that there's essentially "half the sky" you can ignore. <S> The same technique is used in some kinds of navigation/orienteering, and I remember seeing a question about that on the Outdoors Stack Exchange. <A> A more precise expression would be something like "10° south of due west", which would be a heading of 260° (with 0° being due north, 90° due east, 180° due south, and 270° being due west). <S> The less specific "(slightly) south of due west" would indicate a heading just slightly less than 270°, so essentially in a western direction, but a bit south-ish ... <A> This answer might belong here but a bit of astronomy is required in order to answer the question correctly. <S> Which statement best describes the position of the Sun at sunrise and sunset as seen by an observer in northern hemisphere on June 21? <S> It really depends on the latitude of the observer: <S> In New York City, the sun will rise at an azimuth of 57.5° , which is between north-east and east-north-east. <S> In Bogotá, the sun will rise at 66.5° , which is close to east-north-east. <S> In Reykjavik, the sun will rise at 19° , which is between north and north-north-east. <S> Replying "east" or "north-east" would be wrong for a majority of the observers in the northern hemisphere. <S> What those positions have in common though, is that they are "north of due east", meaning that they're somewhere between north and east, but not necessarily north-east. <S> It also means that it's probable that the exact position is closer to east than to north. <S> The correct answer is A.
| It might mean south-west, of course, or if you use a traditional mariner's compass (the compass rose of which has another degree of subdivision, for a total of 32 points), it might mean "west by south" (WbS), the point between W and WSW.
|
How to use this phrase on an invitation Is is grammatically correct to say bride to be of Grady Clark or bride to be to Grady Clark? Need it on an invitation for a bridal shower. <Q> On the other and, when they tie the knot, they will get married to the person. <A> "Bride" is a woman shortly before or shortly after her wedding. <S> It is up to you what "short" means, but I guess if the "bridal shower" is in the days before the wedding that would be "short". <S> You can just say "The bride of Grady Clark". <S> It seems odd not to use the woman's name in this context. <S> You may consider rephasing: <S> Please join us honouring (Bride's name) as we celebrate her upcoming wedding to Grady Clark. <A> Both sentences make sense—but they have different meanings. <S> Bride-to-be of Grady Clark. <S> This simply means that she is the person who will become Grady Clark's bride. <S> This is also the way you would phrase it on an invitation, since it's the most normal meaning of the situation, and how everybody would view the person. <S> Bride-to-be to Grady Clark. <S> This means that Grady Clark considers her to be his bride-to-be. <S> To him , she is his bride-to-be. <S> It's possible that he hasn't proposed to her yet. <S> But, in his mind, that's how he thinks of her. <S> An analogy would be peanuts. <S> One person is allergic to them, another finds them delicious. <S> You could say: Peanuts are forbidden to A, but they are delicious to B. <S> The peanuts mean something different to each person.
| One is a bride, or bride-to-be, of a person, not to a person.
|
What are some idioms that means something along the lines of "switching it up every day to not do the same thing over and over"? It doesn't have to mean exactly that by the way, but it should be concise, because I don't want to use something that would be a mouthful. <Q> We do have the expression, "in a rut" which is pretty much <S> the opposite of what you want to say. <S> If someone is doing the same thing every day and not switching it up, we might say, "he is in a rut," or "he got into a rut," or maybe "he's been in that rut for a long time." <S> A rut is the deep track that someone's wheels have dug into the muddy path, and if you get your own wheels into it, it's hard to get out. <S> So for your meaning, you could negate that expression and say you want to avoid "getting into a rut" or you want to "stay out of that boring rut," etc. <A> One idiomatic expression that comes to mind is... ring the changes - to do something in a different way in order to make it more interesting Ring the changes on packed lunches using different types of bread and spicy fillings <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> From phrases.org ... <S> This phrase derives from the practice of bell ringing. <S> Each pattern of the order of striking the bells is called a change. <S> In order to 'ring the changes' all the variations of striking pattern are rung, bringing the ring back to its starting point. <A> It's not as incomprehensible as most idioms, but there's always break (up) <S> , there's break out of the rut <S> Both of those are based on already having a routine where you're always doing the same thing, and stopping doing so. <S> For that case or cases where you're trying to avoid that there's: <S> shake things up <S> That's a one-off, but you can always commit to: keep shaking things up <S> I imagine I've barely scratched the surface, but it's some thoughts to be getting on with.
| the routine Or from the idiom "stuck in a rut"
|
Use of the past simple to indicate an action has finished? I was taught by an excellent teacher that in a sentence like "I cleaned the kitchen yesterday" the past simple is used to convey the whole kitchen was cleaned, otherwise you'd have to use past continuous: " I was cleaning the kitchen". I've come across many examples that say: "I browsed the internet yesterday". Why is the past simple used when clearly it is not possible to browse the entire internet? <Q> The difference between past simple and past progressive are not limited to whether things were completed or not. <S> Any indication of completeness is heavily dependent on the actual verb and object. <S> You can indicate incompleteness without using the progressive. <S> Consider: <S> I cleaned the kitchen yesterday <S> You are correct that this would generally be taken to indicate completeness. <S> However, it wouldn't necessarily mean that you have cleaned the kitchen top to bottom, spick and span, no dirt or grime anywhere. <S> No, it means you completed whatever tasks you understand to be represented by "clean the kitchen". <S> You and the person you are speaking to may or may not have the same understanding of that concept, either. <S> You might assert that you cleaned the kitchen yesterday because you wiped down all the surfaces, mopped the floor, put away all the dishes, and so on - but your mother might disagree, say that you had not properly cleaned the kitchen because you hadn't thoroughly cleaned the cooker-top. <S> So, then you might say: I browsed the internet yesterday <S> That means that you completed the activity that you think of "browse the internet". <S> Replace either of those verbs with the past progressive, and you don't indicate that you didn't complete the task. <S> Instead, you indicate that at some point that day , you were engaged in that activity. <S> You might use it as part of a prepositional phrase indicating time: <S> I found that while I was cleaning the kitchen yesterday. <S> Or, without that 'yesterday' on the end, it might be the answer to a question: What were you doing at 5pm yesterday? <S> I was browsing the internet <S> If you want to clearly indicate incompleteness, you have to use some extra words: <S> I started cleaning the kitchen yesterday <S> I cleaned the kitchen part-way yesterday <S> I cleaned <S> the kitchen <S> a little yesterday <A> Because it is about the action , not the object . <S> I browsed the internet yesterday. <S> You browsed the internet at a specific time in the past and finished that doing in the past too. <S> In other words, at the time of speaking, you are telling us what you already did and finished in the past. <S> Therefore, it is not about the internet which is the object in your sentence but about the browsing which is the main verb in it. <S> I cleaned the kitchen yesterday. <S> This means that yesterday, you finished cleaning the whole kitchen. <S> " <S> Whole" since you used the word "kitchen" in general. <S> You can say: I cleaned part of the kitchen yesterday. <S> Although you used the simple past here, your sentence doesn't indicate cleaning the " whole" kitchen. <S> Thus, the past simple is about the verb since you finished cleaning that part of the kitchen. <S> I was cleaning the kitchen. <S> The past continuous is used when talking about something that was interrupted by another thing. <S> So, you were cleaning the kitchen when something happened that interrupted your cleaning process. <S> That is why the past continuos don't come alone but followed or preceded by another verb. <S> You should say, for example: I was cleaning the kitchen when someone knocked on the door. <S> It can be used when talking about two actions that were happening in the past but one of them was longer than the other. <S> See here . <A> Examine the word "browse" in the sentence. <S> Its definition: noun: 1) <S> an act of casual looking or reading. <S> Verb: 2) to survey goods in a leisure or casual way. <S> (www.dict.com) <S> "Browse" in this sentence is being used as a verb. <S> Reread the sentence with "browse" verb definition: <S> I surveyed goods in a leisure and casual way on [... the Internet] yesterday. <S> Hope this clarifies.
| I think what your teacher meant is that the doing is considered complete when the verb takes the past form but incomplete/still happening/not finished yet when using the past continuous .
|
"Starve to death" Vs. "Starve to the point of death" About a year ago, I had an on-line friend, a native speaker, chatting with me. When I sent a message to him saying: I'm starving to the point of death. He rephrased that as: I'm starving to death. But now that I think about it, and googled it, my expression wasn't wrong and they use it a lot. So I was wondering why he had to correct the sentence. Is it not a colloquial language? Or does it have slightly differences in meaning? <Q> The idiomatic phrase is "starving to death", which is a massively exaggerated way of saying "I'm hungry". <S> "Starving to the point of death" isn't wrong ; it's just not what people normally say. <S> If you were speaking literally, "I'm starving to death" would mean that you had been without food for so long that you were going to die of hunger and you expected that to happen. <S> "I'm starving to the point of death" would suggest that you somehow knew that you would almost starve to death but be rescued at the last moment. <S> That's an unusually precise prediction! <S> In reality, I assume you were just using hyperbole and, in that case, the idiomatic "I'm starving to death" is the phrase to use. <S> If you're going to exaggerate for effect, exaggerate as much as possible! <A> If someone starves to death , they are dead. <S> If someone starves to the point of death , they are on the cusp of dying due to starvation, but have not yet done so. <S> If they do not get food immediately, they will die. <S> Your friend was using it as hyperbole , or dramatic overstatement. <S> Of course, if someone really were starving to the point of death, they would be unconscious and couldn't eat, and would need intravenous nutrition. <S> This is not to be confused with at the point of death , which means "at the moment that death occurred". <S> It is particularly used for legal stuff related to what happens after someone dies, but is used in other contexts as well. <A> I agree with the top answer to some extent, but it only addresses the past tense: <S> Steve starved to death : This means Steve died, and the cause of death was starvation. <S> Steve starved to the point of death : This means that Steve starved so much that he was about to die. <S> He may have then gone on to die, or survived after all, depending on whether he immediately obtained food at that point (but it is heavily implied that he survived by the fact that you did not simply say "starved to death"). <S> This misses that your question is about the present participle ("starving") <S> : Steve is starving to death : This means that Steve has not yet starved to death, but he is on the way there. <S> In other words, he is before the point of death. <S> This is like the difference between "Steve is playing cricket" vs "Steve played cricket". <S> Steve is starving to the point of death : Steve has not yet starved to the point of death, but he is on his way there. <S> Now it is hopefully clear that "I am starving to the point of death" is an odd construction. <S> It is like saying "Steve is walking towards the edge of London (from the outside)". <S> Sure, it may be true, but why not just say "Steve is walking towards London"? <S> It is simpler, and neither of them say where you will stop. <S> It is still hyperbole to say that you're "starving to death", but not because it's claiming that you have already died. <S> Instead, it is because the fact that you mention death (or starvation) implies that it is a genuine concern, when it presumably is not. <S> To say that you're "starving to the point of death" is exactly the same degree of hyperbole but more awkwardly phrased. <A> In this case, hyperbole has hijacked the issue. <S> Nonetheless, one of your statements is wildly improbable, as I will discuss. <S> Other answers have dealt with "I'm starving to death", at least as far as first person goes. <S> The phrase is so widely used simply to mean "very hungry", that this is the default usage. <S> However, a more realistic use might be along the lines of, "I'm trapped on a desert island with no food and no rescue in sight, and I'm starving to death. <S> " <S> Although, as you might imagine, this is not what most would consider a very "realistic" scenario. <S> "To the point of death" is a rather different case. <S> It would be used when the most likely outcome of the current situation is that the individual will die shortly.
| For a person to be so close to death from starvation, unconsciousness would be extremely likely, so "I'm starving to the point of death" would be (if accurate) an unlikely statement.
|
Word for something that's always reliable, but never the best? What do you call something that's always reliable, but that's never the best? Is there a word for it? I am trying to think of something, but there's nothing I can really think of that exactly means that. <Q> There are probably lots of ways to express this, but it would depend on the context. <S> English tends to be less expressive via single nouns/verbs/adjectives, so if you went for a phrase, we may hear "If all else fails, there's always... <S> x". <S> In fact, words like "dependable" and "reliable" already (within certain contexts) euphemistically express the meaning that it wasn't the best/first choice. <S> As in "What's he like as a candidate?" <S> , "Oh - he's dependable". <S> But that's sort of more in a negative context. <A> A "Jack of all trades" can be relied on to do many different things. <S> Most Americans will automatically fill in "but master of none", meaning that he does not do an excellent job in any of those things. <S> In basketball and other sports, a "role player" can be relied on to do his job consistently well, but not at the level of a "star" or "superstar". <S> "Solid", "steady", and "reliable" are adjectives. <S> If used without other adjectives, the implication is that the person or thing's reliability is its most important feature. <S> Most things that are perfect for a particular task have other adjectives that are more likely to be used if they are applicable. <A> Something can be a standby when it is ready for use. <S> It is reliable, but if it were the best, it would actually be in use. <S> Quite often it was in use but replaced, but is still good for the job, for example a kettle that has seen better days but still works well. <S> The Oxford Dictionary <S> has 1.1 count noun A person or thing ready to be deployed immediately, especially if needed as backup in an emergency. <S> with examples <S> The tugboat is truly multi purpose, as it can lead oil tankers into port, repair petroleum pipes in the sea and act as a standby rescue boat. <S> Soup is a great standby, and we Scots are the best soup-makers of all. <S> The Cambridge Dictionary has standby <S> noun something that is always ready for use, especially if a regular one fails. <S> with examples Board games are a good standby to keep the children amused if the weather is bad. <S> There are standby generators but these usually only have to work for a few hours a year during power cuts. <A> I'd say "competent" ...acceptable and satisfactory, though not outstanding. <S> "she spoke quite competent French" <A> I think you're looking for "Safe" as in "The safe choice". <S> Definition 2 here calls it derogatory, meaning 'Cautious and unenterprising' <S> but still 'Safe'. <A> The adjective trusty is a good word to describe something that's maybe not necessarily the best of its kind, but you know that it's reliable because you've used it for so long that you can rely on it: <S> Having served for a long time and regarded as reliable or faithful Example sentence (from the Cambridge Dictionary <S> ): <S> I did the entire three hundred miles on my own—just me and my trusty bike. <A> From Meriam Webster : <S> An experienced reliable worker, athlete, or performer especially as distinguished from one who is brilliant or colorful <A> Journeyman as Matt Coubrough suggested, for a person. <S> If you need a word that works with things, try stolid . <S> From Oxford : Calm, dependable, and showing little emotion or animation. <A> Perhaps you're looking for a " workhorse " -- it describes a person (or sometimes an object) that dependably performs a task. <S> It's often used in contrast to flashier beasts such as racehorses, who might win a single race and bask in that glory while it lasts, but may well lose the next race. <S> The workhorse isn't the best (nobody rides around town on the workhorse, given the option!) <S> but it gets the job done out in the field day after day. <S> Oxford : " <S> A person or machine that dependably performs hard work over a long period of time."
| The word " Journeyman " is often used to describe an individual who is reliable but not the best in their chosen profession. "Fallback" (n), or "Backup" are likely easy one word substitutes.
|
Broken patches on a road Are the broken patches on the road called holes? If not, then what do we call them? What exactly a hole is? One that is from one surface to another? <Q> Those are potholes . <S> You may have noticed, we can say that those are holes in the road (because a pothole is still a hole). <S> But if you say pothole , you are just more specific and it may be more natural to say it like that. <S> Check out the meaning of hole here . <A> a deep, narrow mark made in soft ground especially by a wheel ( Cambridge dictionary ). <S> Pothole also works as shown by Enguroo's answer: <S> "Those are potholes." <S> A pothole is a hole in a road surface that results from gradual damage caused by traffic and/or weather ( Cambridge dictionary ). <S> You may have noticed, we can say that those are holes in the road (because a pothole is still a hole). <S> But if you say pothole, you are just more specific and it may be more natural to say it like that. <S> Check out the meaning of hole here ." <S> Full disclosure, the pothole section is a copy and paste from Enguroo's answer because I find it valid but lacking Rut as an option. <S> I know that the potholes in the OP's image arent ruts but their description could be intending something different. <A> "Potholes" come from the road surface deteriorating through traffic and weather. <S> They're usually fairly shallow. <S> "Holes" in the road are usually dug intentionally by gas, water and other utility companies, and surrounded by cones or barriers. <S> If dug in a long shape to take a pipe or cable it would be a "trench"
| A pothole is a hole in a road surface that results from gradual damage caused by traffic and/or weather ( Cambridge dictionary ). They could be referred to as ruts if they were long and narrow and preferably caused by wheels.
|
Placing an adverb between a verb and an object? The rule: "We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" (Cambridge Dictionary) But some sentences confuse me : 1- He drew only a rabbit. (All he drew was a rabbit but he might have done other things while drawing like listening to music) 2- He read only the end of the book. (All he read was the end of the book) 1'- He only drew a rabbit. (All he did was drawing a rabbit) 2'- He only read the end of the book. (All he did was reading the end of the book) I think (1 and 1') + (2 and 2') are not the same. So are (1 and 2) grammatically correct ? That means rule is not always true ? <Q> To paraphrase "Pirates of the Caribbean" , think of this more as a guideline than an actual rule . <S> With creative writing, it is often possible to place the adverb anywhere <S> it sounds good. <S> Because this is an uncommon placement, when done properly, it can sound dramatic . <S> They flung wide the doors of the hall, letting sunlight stream into every dark corner. <S> Done poorly, or in an odd context, it just sounds awkward, e.g. "She ate greedily the cake." <S> In the future, if you see this kind of sentence structure (and you trust the writer is doing it on purpose) <S> take note of the context, and recognize that the sentence might feel different from the usual phrasing. <A> [I had already written most of this before @Andrew posted his answer. <S> It says pretty much the same thing, but I thought I might as well post it, having written it.] <S> "Don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object" is more general advice, probably particularly useful for English language learners, rather than a hard and fast rule. <S> I sang loudly to the audience. <S> She ran quickly to the bus stop. <S> The two examples you cite sound fine to me, even if placing the adverb before the verb would sound more 'normal'. <S> However, it depends on the words being used. <S> As @Andrew says in his answer, it can even be a deliberate choice for literary effect. <S> As to why some phrases sound complete bizarre, and others sound perfectly ok, I am really not sure. <S> Eg: <S> He played brilliantly <S> the piano sounds completely wrong and would never be said by a native speaker. <S> Somebody else might be able to explain why. <A> The rule you've quoted is not always followed. <S> See this discussion, in which it is pointed out that the adverb can go between the verb and the object when the object is long or complicated. <S> Note, however, that there isn't necessarily a difference in meaning between 1 and 1' and between 2 and 2'. <S> Drawing a rabbit is a little unusual, so let's take the example of eating an apple. <S> "I only ate an apple" means "I ate an apple and nothing else." <S> In contrast, "I ate only an apple" is correct but slightly awkward. <S> In spoken English, you could put an emphasis on the word "ate" to indicate that "only" is modifying "apple" and not "ate", as in: <S> I only ate an apple. <S> but in written English (and in spoken English when the word "ate" is not emphasized), I only ate an apple. <S> means you ate an apple and nothing else. <S> If you want to say that you did nothing more than eat an apple, "I merely ate an apple", or "I did nothing more than eat an apple," or, as you suggested, " <S> All I did was eat an apple," would be better ways to indicate that. <S> (The last way is the most natural.) <A> [1a] <S> He drew [only a rabbit] . <S> [2a] <S> He read [only the end of the book] . <S> With a few minor exceptions the rule you cite holds true. <S> But the rule is irrelevant in this pair since "only" is not being placed 'between' the verb and its object; rather, it's actually part of the object itself, where it modifies the noun phrases "a rabbit" and "the end of the book", called the 'focus'. <S> [1b] <S> He [only drew a rabbit] . <S> [2b] <S> He [only read the end of the book] . <S> "Only" usually immediately precedes its focus, as seen in [1a] and [2a]. <S> But it can also be non-adjacent as in [1b] and [2b], where the focus is contained within the VP, meaning that "only" functions syntactically as modifier to the whole bracketed VP. <S> There is no difference in meaning between [1a] and [1b], nor between [2a] and [2b].
| It definitely is possible to put an adverb between the verb and the object, and often it will sound just fine to an English-speaking ear.
|
"On one hand" vs "on the one hand." I'm confused because I've seen both mentioned in dictionaries. Example sentence (context: writing a story): On (the) one hand, I want to wrap up everything perfectly. On the other hand, I want to leave some ambiguity to the reader. What's the correct/conventional choice? Maybe this is an American/British English issue? <Q> Either is fine. <S> I'm not aware of any regional differences in usage. <A> On the other hand, "on one hand" can be a literal reference to a person's hand. <S> As a native British English speaker, I would always use "on the one hand … on the other hand" in the OP's context. <S> There is no logic in omitting the first "the" and including the second, but nobody ever says "on other hand" in this idiom (or anywhere else), so use "the" twice. <A> The idiom in English, regardless of variety, is: <S> On the one hand ||| on the other [hand]. <S> The second hand is optional and this has nothing whatsoever to do with British versus American English at all. <S> All the dictionaries agree. <S> Collins Dictionary Cambridge Dictionary Merriam Webster <S> On hand: We have no merchandise on hand. <A> In most contexts, when contrasting "one" with "the other", the article is not used before "one". <S> I would class <S> On the one hand and on the one side as idioms. <S> In the NoW Corpus "On the one hand" has 28822 hits, and "On the one side" 1657, against 2504 examples of " <S> On the one [any other noun]" - (349 of these are "on the one show", and nearly all of these are "On The One Show ", so they don't count). <S> "On one hand", without "the" has 18297 hits - only about 2/3 as many. <A> It’s an idiom. <S> Well, actually two of them. <S> “On the other hand” is often used to preface counterarguments to one’s thought process. <S> By extension, “On the one hand ... on the other hand ...” is used when one has two conflicting ideas and wishes to clarify them aloud. <S> Example: <S> On the one hand, I really enjoy pie, but on the other hand, I’m supposed to be on a diet. <S> Both of these expressions use each hand to represent an opinion, as if weighing the pros and cons of each choice with the hands as the scale. <S> (Source: I’m a native AmE speaker.)
| "On the one hand" is clearly a figure of speech.
|
The correct way of using perfect tense My question is about I wanna say to anyone about - i have not take shower for three days. What will be the correct form? I have not taken shower since three days. I didn’t take shower for three days. <Q> You said it yourself. <S> The correct form is: I have not taken a shower for three days. <S> This would be the correct form using Present Perfect. <S> And I have not taken a shower since three days. <S> Would be incorrect, because "since" should indicate some time point or event, and not duration ("three days"). <A> I have not taken a shower for three days. <A> First sentence is required to be corrected slightly like: <S> I have not taken a shower for three days. <S> If you structure the sentence with since you have to indicate a day as the origin. <S> For example: I have not taken a shower since Tuesday. <S> Your second sentence is not incorrect but it indicates that this 3 days period took place in the past. <S> Both the origin day of this 3 days period and the last day of this 3 days period is happened in the past.
| "I didn't take a shower for three days" uses Past Simple, not Present Perfect.
|
Word to be used for "standing with your toes pointing out" If someone is standing this way, what should be used: Don't stand with your feets out. Don't stand with your feets angled out Don't stand with your feet sticking outward Don't stand with your feet pointing outward. Source: http://posturedirect.com/how-to-fix-duck-feet-posture/ <Q> As children grow, parents are often concerned about their feet pointing inwards <S> when they walk (also called in-toe or pigeon-toed walking) or outwards (also called out-toe walking or duck-footed ). <S> Note that splay-footed is also used to mean that the toes are more "spread out", not necessarily that the feet themselves point more "outwards". <S> The walking gait of someone whose feet turn outwards is also likely to be referred to as waddling (typically used specifically of how ducks themselves walk), but that term can also refer to the way a bow-legged person walks (stereotypically, an old-time cowboy who's spent too many years sitting in a saddle, forcing his legs apart). <A> Well, firstly the plural of foot is feet . <S> No 's'. <S> The nearest of those to unambiguously mean what you want is the fourth. <S> The first (ignoring the obvious error) could mean a number of things in different contexts. <S> The second, ignoring the same error, might be very likely to result in people understanding you, but it doesn't sound like anything someone would say. <S> The third is jarringly close to "your feet sticking out", which means something else. <A> I googled some and found the adjective duck-footed : Duck-footed : <S> Having splayfoot; habitually standing or walking with the ends of the feet angled <S> outward Wikipedia provides the following example of usage: "Texas Southern's Jim Hines, 20, is not the least bit pigeon-toed— <S> in fact, he's just a little duck-footed , and it may be a good thing. <S> " <S> I don't know how to use this adjective in "Don't stand ___" though.
| It's often called being duck-footed or splay-footed ...
|
Is there an idiom that expresses the convenience of something you need to happen happening without the idea of luck? Let's say that there's a 80% odd of something happening and it happened. Is there an idiom that expresses the general idea of convenience of such thing happening in your favor? I don't think "by a stroke of luck" is appropriate or any term related to luck, because it was highly probable in the first place. <Q> Lucky for me, <S> (x happened)! <S> Fortunately, (x happened)! <S> All three work <S> no matter how likely x was. <S> There are plenty of other ways for this to be expressed also. <S> We tend to use the phrase "luck" as long as there was any chance of the thing not happening due to circumstances out of our control. <A> I've no clues about any such idiom, but I serendipitously know of a single word that should work fine. <S> Definition of serendipity : the faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for also : an instance of this <A> As it was expected... <S> or As it was highly expected... <S> they should both work. <S> There is no hard rule to determine words for numbers in this case. <S> The example above suggest not only possibility, but (high) probability.
| Informally, Good thing (x happened)!
|
Is there a comma before "and soon" at the end of a sentence? I'm proofreading for an author and his sentence is, in essence, written like this: Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds and soon. I think you need a comma before "and soon," but I can't find a reference for it anywhere. <Q> You say "in essence". <S> Do you mean there's more after this sentence, as in...? <S> Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds and soon will be thrown in jail (example, but you get the point) <S> In which case there should be a comma separating the two only if the two are complete sentences . <S> Hence Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds and soon will be jailed. <S> and Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds, and soon he will be arrested. <S> If the sentence just ends where you put the period, then writing "and soon" is either a mistake, or the author means "..., and the above will happen to him soon". <S> In which case, it should be: <S> Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds, and soon. <A> Sample sentence: <S> Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds and soon. <S> The sentence is fine. <S> That is an idiomatic usage usually associated with speech. <S> It is often used, for example, by parents: <S> "You better finish your homework and soon. <S> " <S> I don't know how to prove it other than sharing with you that it is common speech usage. <S> It is very difficult to google for purposes of obtaining other examples. <S> Therefore, I just have to say: it is often tacked on at the end of an admonition or warning. <S> That kind of thing. <S> Here is a slightly different usage but is also just tacked on: <S> George W. Bush, war message, Washington, DC, March 19, 2003:"I know that the families of our military are praying that all those whoserve will return safely and soon." <S> Same idea. <S> It refers to everything that comes earlier in the sentence being done or accomplished soon. <S> It is a shortening of the idea: and this had better happen soon. <S> No comma is used in this usage. <A> It depends on the emphasis you want to place on the soon. <S> The least emphasis would be to say: Bob will soon be exposed for his bad deeds or <S> Soon Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds <S> Greater emphasis would be: <S> Soon, Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds. <S> or Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds, and soon. <S> With greatest being: Bob will be exposed for his bad deeds, and soon!
| Adding the comma implies a pause for dramatic effect - especially if this is a line that someone is to be speaking.
|
What is the difference between ashamed and shamed? A sentence: Any journalist who takes money should be ashamed and shamed. What is the difference between ashamed and shamed ? Does the sentence Any journalist who takes money should be ashamed and shamed. contain more info than the sentence Any journalist who takes money should be ashamed. or Any journalist who takes money should shamed. <Q> Yes, these are two different words, and using both is not redundant. <S> to be ashamed means to feel embarrassed or guilty, as in: I am ashamed that I took money for my work. <S> to shame means to publicly humiliate someone, i.e. to make them feel embarrassed or guilty, as in: That journalist was shamed by her online readers for taking money. <A> Shamed is what one does to you. <S> Ashamed is about how you feel about yourself. <S> Shamed could be punitive, ashamed shows remorse sometimes repentance. <S> If a person has no shame, then others might view their behavior or conduct as shameful and thus shame them, but the individual who has no shame is not (yet) ashamed of anything they have done or are doing. <S> Below is paraphrased from Webster's fourth edition <S> To shame is to dishonor, or <S> disrespect Shamed is when others treat with dishonor and disrespect due to some action or trait of the one being shamed. <S> Ashamed is when you are embarrassed by these same traits - or when you fear shame/dishonor/loss of respect even before said actions are publicly known <A> " <S> Shamed" is the past participle of the verb "shame". <S> "To shame" can either mean to cause someone to be ashamed, or to expose someone to censure, or both. <S> In the first sense, it is redundant, so it is reasonable to infer that the second meaning is intended: the person should personally feel that they have done something wrong (ashamed), and other people should feel that this person has done something wrong (shamed). <A> The difference is that "ashamed" describes a person who is shamed or shameful, and "shamed" describes the condition of being the object of someone else's shame. <A> Ashamed is always an adjective. <S> He is ashamed. <S> Shamed can be a past-tense verb. <S> She was shamed and disgraced.
| "Ashamed" is an adjective meaning "feeling shame", that is, to feel that they have done something wrong.
|
Is the “of” in "A role you can be proud of" correct? This is for a headline on a website: "A role you can be proud of" One member of our team seems to disagree with the word "of" <Q> It is a perfectly good sentence. <S> Some people will maintain that 'sentences should not end in prepositions'. <S> They would suggest that you should say: A role of which you can be proud. <S> However, this is not a rule modern grammar experts believe in. <S> In normal standard English, speakers and writers end sentences with prepositions all the time. <S> Furthermore, 'to be proud of' is a phrasal verb, and it is more natural to use the words in their customary order than force a more elaborate structure on the sentence. <A> If this is correct: I threw a lot of balls and walked a lot of batters. <S> Not something I'm proud of, but something I learned from. <S> Randy Johnson <A> If you leave off the "of" (if this is what your team member is suggesting) then the phrase makes no sense. "to be proud of" takes an object, but "to be proud" does not. <S> The subject is "you" and the object is "a role". <S> Look what happens when you reorder the words in the sentence - you could say You can be proud of a (this) role <S> But you could not say You can be proud a (this) role
| "A role you can be proud of" will be correct too.
|
"The English ____ won the World Cup" - what should I put in the blank? This Question is in my Exam book. Q1.The English __ won the world cup A) Has B) Have C) Is D) Are Which is correct? Also explain why.Because as far i know we use Have with I, We, They, You. And Has with He, She, It, or with a name. So what is "The English" is this a name.? <Q> "won" can, in general, be either past tense or past participle. <S> Since another verb is being put in front of it, in this case it's past participle. <S> "is" and "are" are conjugations of "to be", which takes the present participle, not past participle, so that leaves "has" or "have". <S> " <S> However, if you're talking about a particular English person, and referring to that person as "The English" (which would be uncommon but not completely impossible), or if you're treating "The English" as a collective noun (as in "the English team"), then it would be "has". <A> When you use <S> the with an adjective that can be applied to people, it means all of the people who fit that adjective. <S> It can also mean all of the people who fit that adjective within a certain context. <S> Thus, the English means all English people, or in the context of football, it means English footballers (or, sometimes, fans), or by extension the English national team. <S> As such, any construction like that is plural : <S> The poor face many difficulties. <S> The disabled are often excluded from shops, bars and cinemas. <S> The French are widely considered haughty, but are actually a warm and friend people. <S> (Note that expressions like "the poor" and "the disabled" are often considered dehumanising and politically incorrect - but still widely used.) <S> So, we can see that "the English" in your question means the English sports team, or sports establishment, for whatever sport the World Cup in question is in. <S> As such: <S> The English have won the world cup. <A> You can say either England has won the world cup <S> Or The English have won the world cup
| The English" is generally plural, so it would take "have".
|
When should you change 'Facility Manager' to 'Facilities Manager' or should it stay 'Facility Manager'? In a document I am correcting the manager of the building is referred to as the Facilities Manager . Should it be Facility Manager if they are only the manager of one building? And when would, if ever, the Facility Manager be referred to as the Facilities Manager ? My Boss said that it should always be Facilities Manager . <Q> Facility doesn't just mean building. <S> A building may be a facility, but it will often contain many facilities . <S> Toilets, workshops, computer labs, clean rooms, classrooms - all of those are facilities. <A> If you are referring to facility manager and facilities manager generically (as common nouns, lowercase spelling), then either form might be acceptable. <S> A Google Ngram shows facility manager being more common in American English and facilities manager more common in British English, but they are not far apart. <S> if you are talking about formal titles, it is in the interest of accuracy to keep the original form and not exchange it for another one. <S> If someone introduces herself as the Facilities Manager , you should use Facilities Manager . <S> Since this is for work, however, the overriding rule will be to use whatever your organization or publication may prefer as a matter of house style. <S> If your boss says to always use facilities manager , you are well-advised to follow your boss's instructions. <S> Second, facility can be defined with a broad range of scopes. <S> It can refer to an entire complex of buildings, like NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility . <S> It can refer to a single toilet . <S> Even a small building may contain all manner of equipment and spaces, so it would not be inappropriate for someone to be the facilities manager of that building. <A> Facilities Manager or Facility Manager . <S> In terms of actual work (if the titles are used correctly) the scope of work will vary in scope. <S> Facility Manager , manages the complete building or site. <S> Cleaning, Gardening, Maintenance, Car Parks etc. <S> Facilities Manager will usually be in charge of building maintenance (Lighting, heating, Air conditioning etc), but the scope may be more inclusive. <S> facility <S> noun (BUILDING) a place, especially including buildings, where a particular activity happens: Cambridge English Dictionary facilities [ plural ]: the buildings, equipment, and services provided for a particular purpose:
| In other words, if an organization refers to one of its staff as Facility Manager , you should use Facility Manager .
|
Difference between 'stomach' and 'uterus' If a lady is pregnant, for her can this be said? She had a baby in her stomach . Or is it necessary to use the word womb or uterus ? <Q> The stomach is a digestive organ and is totally different from the uterus. <S> Women do not carry babies in their stomachs unless they are cannibals (eating babies). <S> When women are pregnant, they carry a child in their womb or uterus . <S> You will, however, regularly hear people say that a woman's belly grows when they are pregnant, or that there is a baby " in their belly ". <S> And the word " belly " is sometimes used in a manner that is synonymous with " stomach ", while at other times it refers to the external area of the body outside of the stomach. <S> But " stomach " is generally used to refer specifically to the internal digestive organ, and it would sound a bit strange to say that a woman " has a baby in her stomach " ... although you'd still be clearly understood by almost any English speaker. <A> Informally, 'stomach' (and the informal form of the word 'tummy') can refer to the abdomen as a whole - when someone is said to have a 'flat stomach', 'hard stomach' or 'distended stomach' <S> then it takes the wider meaning. <S> Examples talking about 'stomach' in pregnancy can be found 'Generally, you expect a hard stomach when you’re pregnant. ' <S> or 'Of course your stomach won't go back to pre-pregnancy size <S> right away' But generally you wouldn't use this meaning with 'in the stomach' as, while it would be understood, it could be ambiguous: Cartoon source <A> Stomach is used specifically to describe a place where food is digested, so it's not very useful for a baby. <S> I'd use belly as a generic term instead: <S> She has a baby in her belly <S> Womb and uterus would also be okay, but these words are more "medical". <A> It depends on whether you are speaking to an adult (who has a larger, more precise vocabulary) or a young child (whose vocabulary is limited and when accuracy does not matter as much). <S> Most speakers would use "pregnant", unless the other person doesn't know the word. <S> "She is pregnant." <S> The most accurate and shortest way to say it, and the most common expression between adults. <S> "She has a baby in her abdomen. <S> " <S> Uses the proper scientific term, but rarely used. <S> "She has a baby in her belly." <S> Occasionally said to both adults and children. <S> "She has a baby in her tummy." <S> Much more likely to be said to or by a child than an adult. <S> "She has a baby in her stomach." <S> Such a child would probably also know "tummy" or "belly", so it's not clear why this expression continues to be used. <A> If your goal is to speak like a native speaker, then you would say "she is pregnant" or "she is expecting (a baby.) <S> You likewise would not have to say "a baby in her uterus" because that is the natural location for a baby and anything else would be so unusual and even outlandish that it just wouldn't come up except in a medical context. <S> The words <S> belly and tummy <S> are colloquial terms that people use for the area on the front of the body between the hips and chest. <S> Belly is commonly used by adults and tummy by children or adults speaking to children. <S> You could say "baby in her belly" but that is kind of crude and not used in formal speech or even polite company. <S> However, it is perfectly acceptable to say "a baby in her tummy" when speaking to children. <A> Stomach or gaster is a part of digestive system, not of reproductive system. <S> The "baby in ones belly" would be in use when there are visible signs of pregnancy, let's say after 16 weeks of being pregnant. <A> Personally, I don't think many people refer to any part of the body when talking about a pregnant person, you could say: 'expecting' 'carrying' or 'carrying a baby' 'pregnant' 'with child' 'up the duff' <S> Although the last one should be reserved for your friends only, remember expectant women can be touchy about everything
| " You would not say "a baby in her stomach" as that is wrong enough to sound odd because it is the right area but the wrong organ. If woman had successful fertilization, we would use the term "pregnant". Anatomically wrong, but still very commonly said to or by a child, often because they already know the word "stomach".
|
A right or the right? I found lots of examples of both in dictionaries but cannot see any regularity. Usually choice of an article depends on whether I mean a specific object or a class of objects. But what exactly is meant when it comes to "right"? Is it ability to do something or a specific case when I do it? For example, in the sentence: I have _____ right to vote, because I'm 18. what should I use? There is the cite on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way. All these "rights" are used with "a". The first result of the search of "right examples" in Google reads: Some examples of human rights include: The right to life. The right to liberty and freedom. The right to the pursuit of happiness. The right to live your life free of discrimination. The right to control what happens to your own body and to make medical decisions for yourself. How can that be explained? <Q> Either option would be correct and sound just fine. <S> I have a right to vote because I’m 18. <S> I have the right to vote because I’m 18. <S> Sometimes the definite article is assuredly the correct one to use, and sometimes the indefinite article is the correct one to use, but other times the difference is so insignificant that it doesn’t really matter which one you use. <S> Additional context might tilt the circumstances one way or the other, but, in this case, either one of those is acceptable and they pretty much mean the same thing. <S> Put another way, if someone is standing in line at the polls, and they say: I have a right to vote in this election! <S> or: <S> I have the right to vote in this election! <S> no one is going to correct their grammar because they used the wrong article – no matter which version was uttered by the prospective voter. <S> This would hold true for other rights as well: <S> We all have a right to pursue happiness. <S> We all have the right to pursue happiness. <S> When we say the latter, we are referring to a specific right. <S> When we say the former, we implicitly acknowledge that we are not talking about our only right. <S> But no one will hear the latter and assume it implies we have no other rights. <S> You can even switch them around in the excerpts in your question with no adverse effects: The right to life, the right to choose; the right to vote, to work, to strike; the right to one phone call... <S> Some examples of human rights include: A right to life. <S> A right to liberty and freedom. <S> A right to the pursuit of happiness. <A> It's a matter of emphasis and style. <S> Both are correct. <S> For: I have the right to _____ <S> You are asserting/declaring that you do indeed possess a specific right. <S> In the case of: I have a right to _____ <S> You are more stating that you are justified to ____, that you are within your rights to do ____. <A> According to the Cambridge Dictionary the used to refer to things or people when only one exists at any one time From the Wikipedia <S> Suffrage , political franchise, or simply franchise is the right to vote in public, political elections (although the term is sometimes used for any right to vote). <S> 1 [3] In some languages, and occasionally in English, the right to vote is called active suffrage, as distinct from passive suffrage, which is the right to stand for election.[4] <S> The combination of active and passive suffrage is sometimes called full suffrage <S> Suffrage is the right to vote in public political elections. <S> Usually we just have <S> one <S> right to vote described in the Constitution of our country. <S> So the correct sentence is <S> I have the right to vote, because I'm 18 <S> But you could also say I have a right, the right to vote. <S> A right is used to refer one element in a class of objects, one of your many rights; <S> the right to vote is the only right, a specific right, that you have at that time that allows you to vote in public elections. <A> I'm not a native, but let me show a slightly different perspective. <S> The thing is those perspectives to some level interfere, making it actually correct to use both articles in more or less same cases. <S> Let's focus on your examples. <S> Human rights are inherent to every human. <S> It means every human has their rights. <S> As you can see you can then look at rights in general, so you use the undefined "a" article. <S> If you speak of a specific person and theirs right, you now restrict yourself more. <S> This is theirs inherent right. <S> So it uses now the specific "the" article. <S> Yet, you do not clarify, when you speak about human rights, if you refer to the right of a specific human or a general right of each human. <S> So you can safely use either of the articles here. <S> In some cases you focus on a specific right, as it constitutes something. <S> In such case the specific "the" article is required: <S> The right to live should be our consideration when we think of a life sentence <S> But for most other cases various views make it OK to use both articles in seemingly same examples (as those you provide). <S> For the case of voting rights this is pretty much similar. <S> Your voting right can be generalised even further. <S> Even if you look from a single person's perspective, you may consider it a generic right to vote, that is granted for all elections and referenda that might take place in your life, or the right to vote of a specific person. <S> So as other have already pointed out,
| in almost all cases both "a" and "the" article are interchangeable, however in some very specific cases one might be preferred over the other. In most cases you can look at rights from various perspectives, causing them to have various articles.
|
Does "legal poaching" exist? I heard the illegal poaching being uttered so many times in a TV show, about animals, that my ear of a non-native speaker, made me questioning the validity of the term. I have made some Ngram research here and looked up _poaching on Wikipedia , but that results haven't given me a satisfactory answer. As a result, I'm still puzzled. According to Wikipedia , poaching is defined as: the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals. Hence my question: can there be a legal and an illegal poaching? Please let me know your thoughts on this. PS: I am familiar with the word poaching since I first watched the movie Robin Hood, starring Kevin Costner, Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Morgan Freeman, etc., almost two decades ago. <Q> Poaching is always illegal, so the adjective "illegal" is redundant. <S> There is a (rare) word to describe this kind of redundancy: "Pleonastic". <S> It means using more words than needed. <S> Many style guides recommend reducing redundancy in your writing: You should say "tuna" not "tuna fish". <S> You should not say "the two twins" (since twins implies two) <S> you do not need to say "new innovations" (since innovations are always new). <S> But pleonastic expressions are not ungrammatical, and some are very common and natural, especially in speech or less formal writing. <S> Sometimes a writer will use a redundant word to emphasise a point. <S> There are three types of hunting: Legal trophy hunting, illegal poaching and subsistence hunting for food. <S> The author wants to emphasise and contrast trophy hunting, which is legal, with poaching, which is illegal. <S> As pointed out in comments, there may be situations in which there is a legal defence to poaching, such as "necessity". <S> And there are extended or metaphorical uses of "poaching" which do not refer to illegal acts. <S> However in the context of hunting, "poaching" would imply that the act was illegal and so in most contexts saying "illegal poaching" is redundant, but serves the purpose of emphasising a point. <A> I agree with other answers that say this is redundant. <S> Some people said the duplication of "illegal poaching" can be used for emphasis which I also agree with. <S> I want to add that where someone says "legal poaching" or "legalised poaching" sometimes they are trying to indicate their opinion of how things should be instead of how the are. <S> So a farmer might complain about a law which allowed people to hunt on his land as "legal(ised) poaching" to indicate that while the practice is legal (and therefore not really poaching) they consider it to be no better than poaching and that is should be illegal. <S> Another example being those who insist on referring to taxation as "legalized theft". <A> The word "poaching" can be used metaphorically to mean "hiring someone away from another organization". <S> It usually implies that that person being poached was either important to their former organization, or expected to be important to their new organization, or both. <S> In countries where individuals are free to choose for whom they will work, this version of poaching is legal. <S> In situations where trade secrets or national security secrets are involved, there may be severe restrictions on what the poached employee is legally permitted to tell their new employer. <A> the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission. <S> Such repetitive constructions are used to add emphasis, but are not technically needed.
| The very definition of poaching contains the word "illegal", so it is a bit repetitive to say illegal poaching.
|
I didn't feel like very much The Poet says Four o'clock in the afternoon And I didn't feel like very much. and, while I have a grasp of the meaning (I know about the idiom "I don't feel like ..." and the context makes clear that the subject has a bad feeling about himself), I wonder if "I don't feel like very much" is a well recognized idiom to express self-discomfort or it is an unicum out of the shiny brain of Leonard Cohen. <Q> It means "I didn't feel like very much (of something)". <S> The something is omitted for poetic reasons. <S> What might that be? <S> At four o'clock you might be expected to be hungry, so you don't "feel like very much (to eat)". <S> In this form it is used informally, e.g.: "What do you want to eat?" <S> "I don't feel like very much" (to eat) <S> So he is copying that form, but changing it. <S> Other possibilities: <S> I didn't feel like (I was) very much (of a person) <S> I didn't feel like (doing) very much <S> I didn't feel like (eating) very much <S> I didn't feel (feelings) like very much (in particular) <S> (i.e. not happy, sad, excited etc.) <S> This is Leonard Cohen. <S> What exactly it is he doesn't feel like is omitted to keep the listener suspended. <S> The suspense is resolved in the next sentence. <S> Four o'clock in the afternoon <S> And I didn't feel like very much. <S> I said to myself, "Where are you golden boy, Where is your famous golden touch?" <S> In this case I think he means he doesn't feel like doing or creating very much, even shaving. <S> He is depressed. <A> Well, you are very correct. <S> I have, however, heard it being used on several occasions especially by the British(of course, this is from my experience). <S> So i guess, the use of this phrase depends on region. <A> A search on Google reveals that the expression (to) feel like very much is not usual. <S> Additionally, Leonard Cohen's songs are usually quite strange, sometimes difficult to understand anyway. <S> I am not even sure that the "feel like" in this context has the known meaning of "to feel like (doing something)". <S> The overall meaning is similar to: "I feel empty", "I am in the state of what-the-heck ..."
| The phrase "I don't feel like very much" is indeed used for expressing feelings of discomfort especially when it pertains to how you feel.
|
"seeing as you don't know anyone but me" meaning in this context "I didn't want anyone to talk to me," said Harry, who was feeling more and more nettled. "Well, that was a bit stupid of you," said Ginny angrily, " seeing as you don't know anyone but me who's been possessed by You-Know-Who, and I can tell you how it feels." Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I don't quite get the meaning " seeing as you don't know anyone but me " in this context. Probably, the phrase "seeing as" confuses me. How should we understand it here? <Q> It is essentially the same as "given that". <S> It introduces some fact that is essential to a question or situation. <S> Sometimes this is the same as giving a reason, as it is here - the reason that it was stupid of Harry not to talk to Ginny is that she had experienced being possessed by Voldemort. <A> The phrase "seeing as" is a way of introducing a fact. <S> The sentence could have used other words that convey the same idea, e.g.: considering that you don't know anyone but me <S> It just means that Ginny is explaining why Harry was stupid for not talking to her. <S> As for the "anyone but me" part, that is Ginny's way of saying that she is the only person that Harry knows who has had this experience. <S> She is saying that Harry doesn't know anyone who could help him here except for her . <S> She can help him because she has also been possessed by Voldemort before. <A> Your example can also be interpreted as " <S> Well, that was a bit stupid of you," said Ginny angrily, "because, you don't know anyone but me who's been possessed by You-Know- <S> Who, and I can tell you how it feels." <A> "A, seeing as B" means "seeing B shows why A is true". "but" means "except". <S> We can also move the "but me" around, giving "you don't know anyone who's been possessed by You-Know <S> -Who except me, and that shows you not wanting to talk to me to be stupid" or "other than me <S> , you don't know anyone who's been possessed by You-Know-Who". <S> The "but me" isn't separate from "who's been possessed by You-Know-Who"; Ginny is saying she is the only person that Harry knows AND who has been possessed by You-Know-Who.
| Ginny is stating the fact that she is the only person Harry knows who has been possessed by Voldemort, and that he is therefore stupid for not talking to her about it. "Seeing as" is a synonymous phrase of "Because". Given that she had experienced that, and could thus tell him what it felt like, he should have spoken to her if he was worried that that was happening.
|
“I had a flat in the centre of town, but I didn’t like living there, so …” I had a flat in the centre of town, but I didn’t like living there, so … Why is there no article before “town”? (The quotation comes from Murphy’s “English grammar in use” 4th edition, page 318). <Q> That is a really interesting question! <S> Why indeed? <S> You can say "center of town", "edge of town", "into town" and it's fine, but if you replace "town" with "city" (or "village" or "neighborhood" or really any similar word), you sound like Borat. <S> I think it's this : town : Any more urbanized center than the place of reference <S> I'll be in Yonkers, then I'm driving into town to see the Knicks at the Garden tonight. <S> "Town" can mean urbanized areas in general, not just a specific municipality. <S> "City" and "village" and so forth, do not have that secondary meaning: they refer to specific places and so must have an article. <S> In the sentence above, "town" refers to Manhattan, which is a borough of a city and not a town at all. <S> If you substituted "the town", that would simply be wrong; Manhattan is not a town. <S> If you substituted "the city", that would refer to New York City as a whole, which would make sense coming from Yonkers, a small city just north of New York, but people in Queens and Staten Island (suburban-like boroughs of New York) can say "going into town" to mean visiting the far-denser Manhattan. <S> By contrast, "country", which means a less urbanized place (as in "country road" or "country music"), still takes the definite article when used as a noun. <S> I am going to drive into the country. <S> means "I am going to drive into some rural area." <S> I am going to drive into a country. <S> is a odd way to say <S> "I am going to drive into the territory of some nation-state." <S> I am going to drive into country. <S> is nonsense and means nothing. <A> A flat in town; going (or going up) to town; "In Town Tonight" was a long running BBC radio programme; it's nice to get out of town at the weekend. <S> Town <A> There is no need, as " the centre of town " is an understood phrase that might refer to any town, a specific town, or the idea of a town, depending on context. <S> In a sense, the necessary article is in front of the phrase "centre of town". <S> Indeed, town often operates without any article at all in any case, centre , edge , or no specific location at all. <S> I'm driving into town. <S> I like to get out of town when I can. <S> She lives just in town. <S> It is, perhaps, just a quirk of the word. <A> In this case, "town" is implied to be (or as @SamBC puts it, "behaves as") <S> a proper noun. <S> For example, "He owns a flat in London." <S> "He owns a flat in town." <S> If you owned a flat in London, were visiting Manchester and said, "I own a flat in town," then Mancunians would rightly presume that you have a flat in Manchester. <S> If you were out in the middle of the Highlands, they'd ask which town, literally meaning a town , not the city. <S> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imply to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement"
| The word "town" can be used without an article when discussing the centre or business district of a town or city whose identity is irrelevant, obvious or previously mentioned.
|
Is "cogitate" used appropriately in "I cogitate that success relies on hard work"? I have been thinking about other ways to say "I believe" in an essay and I came across "cogitate". Do you think it would be appropriate to use this word in an essay's conclusion? For instance, does this sound all right? In conclusion, I cogitate that success solely relies on hard work. <Q> No, that sounds kind of pretentious and just wrong, as though you looked through a thesaurus to find a synonym. <S> What is wrong with just using “believe”? <S> You wouldn’t use “cogitate” exactly this way either. <S> This word means “to meditate (on)”: <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cogitate <S> - you would use this to describe thinking about something deeply and intently. <S> Not to describe something you think or know to be true. <S> “Cogitating” is more of an active process, and “believing” might be the result of “cogitating”. <S> In any case the word “cogitate” is not very common, and does sound pretentious to me. <S> “Meditate on” or “ponder” are preferable and more common (but still, none of these words are appropriate in this context). <A> Firstly, it's pretty rare to use cogitate at all. <S> Using any word related to it, the most common is "cogitation", the action noun for the act of cogitating. <S> Second, think has two main senses in English. <S> Most of us native speakers don't even necessarily realise it, but if we learn a language that has separate words for the two, like French, it kind of clicks. <S> In French, there is penser , the active sense of think , where we might say think about , and croire , the stative sense of think , which is closely matched in sense to believe (though clearly with some difference). <S> Cogitate is a close match to penser , not to croire . <S> It means the act of thinking, pondering, and so on. <S> You might, if you wished to be pretentious, say: <S> Let me cogitate on that a minute. <S> You can't say what you want to say. <S> It doesn't make sense. <A> I don't know where you have found that word but what about checking the Oxford Thesaurus ? <S> Let me suggest some alternatives <S> In conclusion, I think that success solely relies on hard work. <S> In conclusion, I consider that success solely relies on hard work. <S> In conclusion, I' m of the opinion that success solely relies on hard work. <A> As Mixolydian states, cogitate is more about meditation or consideration of something. <S> However, you could use it by rearranging your sentence a bit: <S> After some cogitation, I conclude that success solely relies on hard work. <S> This implies that the conclusion was reached after the cogitation. <A> If you're looking to be the opposite of pretentious, you could say I reckon that success solely relies on hard work. <A> I think you are trying to suggest that your conclusion is based on some careful consideration. <S> So you might try: <S> In conclusion, I determine (or have determined) that success solely relies on hard work. <S> From the OED. <S> Verb Ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation. <S> ‘the inquest is entrusted with the task of determining the cause of death’with clause ‘the point of our study was to determine what is true, not what is practicable’ <A> In my native French language, the verb "cogiter" has specific meaning. <S> It is used when one experiences deep, chronical thoughts about a subject. <S> It often refers to an unpleasant feeling, an obsessive thinking, which sticks to you for a relatively long period. <S> So when I read In conclusion, I cogitate that success solely relies on hard work. <S> I get a weird feeling about your sentence's time consistency. <A> In English, the word "Cogitate" is used almost exclusively for humorous or comic effect. <S> I've been cogitating whether to go for a perambulation, but I fear it may precipitate. <S> Means <S> I've been thinking about going for a walk, but I think it's going to rain. <S> It's not that they aren't proper words, it's that they are ten shilling words used in a ha'penny sentence. <A> The word "cogitate" means to ponder on think about intently. <S> A deliberate thought process whereas "believe" is relative to a matter of faith or speculation. <S> Perhaps the phase "I speculate that" might be more appropriate.
| I agree with Mixolydian, "cogitate" sounds pretentious and doesn't fullfil exactly your intention.
|
Changing the orders of the words He has taken a picture. The picture he has taken become popular He has his picture taken. The picture he ...... become popular Fill in the blanks please. I don’t think I can say something like “The picture he has it taken become popular” so don’t know what to say. Thanks <Q> Firstly, the second sentence in the first example is not grammatical. <S> It should be <S> The picture he has taken has become popular. <S> The picture he has taken is a noun phrase. <S> "he has taken" describes "the picture." has become popular is a verb phrase, where the verb "to become" is in the present perfect tense. <S> As for the second example, I guess the answer could be <S> But this is kind of ambiguous. <S> It sounds like someone else is taking his picture (because of the use of the passive voice in the first sentence), but then the phrasing in this second sentence makes it unclear whether "has" is an auxiliary verb (present perfect tense) or a "regular" transitive verb (as in the first sentence). <S> To avoid this ambiguity, it could be reworded as: <S> The picture he gets taken of himself has become popular. <S> since "to get a picture taken" has a similar meaning to "to have a picture taken". <A> There is some ambiguity between using the helping verb "have" for the perfect tense, and using it as an imperative. <S> Nevertheless, there are certain conventions. <S> He has taken a picture means that he took the picture himself. <S> He has his picture taken <S> means that someone takes a picture of him. <S> However, The picture he has taken . <S> by itself, suggests that he is the one who took the picture. <S> If he asked or paid someone else to take a picture of him, it would be more natural to use the past perfect. <S> The picture he had taken This is still somewhat ambiguous, so for clarity you should add more detail to define the subject of the picture: <S> The picture he had taken of himself became popular Note that it's became popular <S> , not become popular, as the action happens in the past, relative to the current moment. <A> The first translation looks like this (note that I am providing the two simplest ways of correcting the issue with become popular ): <S> He has taken a picture. <S> → The picture he has taken became popular. <S> → The picture he has taken becomes popular. <S> Given that, the equivalent translation (keeping it as close as possible in terms of equivalent phrasing) would be this: <S> He has his picture taken. <S> → His picture he has had taken became popular. <S> → His picture he has had taken becomes popular. <S> This is because, in the second version, he has had somebody else take his picture. <S> We can't say he has taken it, because he hasn't, so we have to say he has had it taken. <S> Also, while a picture becomes the picture in the first pair, his picture can remain as it is. <S> The phrasing isn't entirely natural, but it's still acceptable—and it follows the same pattern of translation.
| The picture he has taken of himself has become popular.
|
What exactly is the meaning of "fine wine"? I read an article which was titled as: Ageing like fine wine I'm sill pondering over what does it mean? And, where does it trace it's origin from? For context, the article talks about a person's achievement? <Q> A good wine supposedly gets better with age. <S> See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_wine <S> If this expression is used to describe a person (“aging like a fine wine”) <S> it is meant to compliment the person, saying the more they age, the better they become as a person, like a wine (and unlike most other things, which get worse with age). <A> To add to the existing excellent answer from Mixolydian, you may also be interested in the ultimate origin of fine . <S> Etymologists don't seem to be 100% sure, but it seems to come from the same Latin root as finished , and was originally meant as complete, well-rounded, or indeed well-finished. <S> "Fine wine" typically means the best sorts of wine, though exactly what that means is subjective - though wine critics largely agree in practice. <S> It also means they will be more expensive. <S> I have heard it said that a truly fine wine is such a different experience from a typical supermarket wine that they do not really compare, not any more than wine to grape juice. <S> I have never had what anyone would call a fine wine - and fine wines tend to be red more often than white, in my limited experience, so my opportunities to do so are limited by the fact that red wine gives me a migraine. <S> I did once have a wine that was supermarket price, but superior to anything I've had before or since - including the next year's vintage from the same vineyard. <S> If that's one tenth of the difference between typical wines and fine wines, then I can see why people pay a lot of money for them. <S> Whatever it is that makes a wine "fine" also tends to affect how it develops after bottling. <S> Wines being produced for the supermarket or local wine shop are intended to be drunk after a short, set aging period, and are as good as they will get when you buy them - and after a few years, they will degrade. <S> Wines that are being made to be as good as they can get them take far longer to "peak" - to reach their optimum drinking quality. <S> Wine buffs even put a lot of effort into working out when it will be, or knowing when it has happened so they can drink it as soon after peaking as possible. <S> Of course, one bottle won't age the same as another if they are kept in different conditions. <S> To say something, or someone, has aged like a fine wine is to say that they have improved with age. <A> This seems to be a pretty complicated question. <S> Most wines actually don't age well at all. <S> Only some wines age well, and it's not really true that wines that are more expensive before <S> they are aged are the ones that age better. <S> The aging process itself is expensive, so aged wines don't necessarily cost more because of the costs of growing those varietals or costs of making the wine from the grapes, it's the aging itself that drives up the cost. <S> The other tricky aspect of this question is the word fine . <S> It doesn't just mean "good", especially in the area of wine-making. <S> There is a process that is sometimes done to wine called fining , which is adding any of several substances that captures certain solutes and suspended substances in the wine and causes them to precipitate out. <S> So is it really that wine that has been fined ages better? <S> Well not so fast, because over fining of wine can make it age more poorly, since some of the solutes that would be caused to precipitate by fining, like tannins, contribute to improvement of the wine when it's aged. <S> Very few wines improve with age, but those that do can become far more subtle and complex than unaged single-varietal wines, and while blends can be much more complex than single-varietals, an aged wine can have flavors that don't seem to be present in any kind of unaged wine. <S> Then again, wines that age well often aren't very good when they have not yet been aged. <S> Would they be called "fine" as in "good" before they have been aged? <S> Probably not. <S> At the same time, wine that ages well and has been well-aged, can easily be some of the best wine, and it makes sense to call it "fine wine" after it's been aged. <S> One possibility is that the phrase is just poetry. <S> "Fine" and "wine" rhyme - and "aged like fine wine" rolls off the tongue quite well. <S> Or it could spring from a misunderstanding of what it means for a wine to age well or be well-suited for aging. <S> Even wine aficionados don't all agree on what "fine wine" means.
| So, fine wines, unlike most foods or drinks, get better when they age, at least up to a point.
|
What do you call someone who likes to pick fights? What do you call someone who's always looking for a fight? The only adjective I'm familiar with is "shit-stirrer" (I apologize for the inappropriate language). Are there any other terms I could use that would be less slangy? <Q> The first word that jumped to my mind is the adjective belligerent . <S> Some published definitions include: inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive. <S> Aggressively hostile, eager to fight; acting violently towards others. <S> hostile and aggressive: a bull-necked, belligerent old man . <A> According to Vocabulary.com, A hothead is someone who's suddenly and easily angered or agitated. <S> It's usually a hothead who starts a riot or turns a peaceful protest violent. <S> Source: <S> https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hothead <S> According to CollinsDictionary.com, A bruiser is someone who is tough, strong, and aggressive, and enjoys a fight or argument. <S> Source: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bruiser <A> Pugnacious fits: <S> Eager or quick to argue, quarrel, or fight. <S> Oxford Dictionaries <S> You can also check its synonyms. <S> Merriam Webster has a good comparison of them. <A> The adjective quarrelsome is a good word to describe someone who likes to argue with other people. <S> Many times, they do that just for the heck of it. <S> A quarrel is a fight, but not one <S> that's physical. <S> The following is the definition of quarrelsome as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary: <S> A quarrelsome person repeatedly argues with other people. <A> Definition: "a person who brings about or initiates something." <S> (Google) <S> You will still have to use the word "fight" (or a synonym of it): <S> He really likes instigating fights. <S> I still think belligerent is a better answer, but using "instigator" specifically focuses on the fact that the person in question likes to initiate <S> the fights, as opposed to someone who has a high temper and reacts to instigations violently. <A> You may want to use the word troublemaker . <S> A person who consciously or unconsciously causes trouble (merriam-webster). <S> It's flexible enough to be used for physical or verbal situations. <S> The word is also free from profanities and is often used in professional settings. <A> Consider the words below: <S> Scrapper (informal) - a fighter or aggressive competitor, especially one always ready or eager for a fight, argument, orcontest ( source ). <S> Fighter - a person who physically fights another person (note that the word is often used to talk about professional boxers and just strong people who don't give up easily, <S> but in the right context the word may be what you are looking for). <S> By the way, a shit stirrer is a person who takes pleasure in causing trouble or discord. <S> It's not specifically someone who loves picking fights. <S> They may like that too, though. <A> belligerent , contentious , aggressive , truculent , combative , pugnacious , etc. <S> depending on the exact context. <S> I agree with Laurel <S> that M-W has good guides for choosing the right word - you can see one such guide here under “choose the right synonym”. <A> Instead of saying He's a shit-stirrer . <S> You can say He's a fire-eater . <S> (synonym of belligerent in this case) From the American Heritage Dictionary: <S> fire-eater : <S> A belligerent person or a militant partisan. <S> Other synonyms: <S> bellicose , pugnacious , combative , belligerent . <S> These adjectives mean having or showing an eagerness to fight. <S> More referring to willingness/tending to get into an argument: <S> antagonistic , contentious , quarrelsome , argumentative ... <S> (in itself an idiom, for both arguments and physical fights) <S> He's always asking for a fight / trouble . <S> He's always crusing for a bruising . <S> (slang) <S> He's always spoiling for a fight . <S> He's always arguing for the sake of arguing / the argument . <S> Slightly more specific, but appliable to general cases <S> : He's always arguing the toss . <S> (chiefly British, arguing over something already decided) <S> He has a chip on his shoulder . <S> (showing resentfulness) <S> He always ends up cutting up rough . <S> (chiefly British, suddenly becomes angry and violent) <A> If you're talking about a non-physical fight, "rabble-rouser" is a clean alternative to "shit-stirrer". <A> Another option which no one else seems to have mentioned: Combative, defined as : ready or eager to fight; pugnacious <A> I like fractious — it originally referred one inclined to make “fraction” (discord), <S> now it means “irritable; argumentative; quarrelsome”. <S> “...in his present fractious mood, she dared whisper no observations, nor ask of him any information.” <S> — Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre <A> If it's someone who picks fights they know they'll win, they're a bully . <S> This still works when the fights are purely verbal. <S> Someone who simply likes to fight, and may not necessarily bear any ill will towards their opponent, is a brawler . <S> This only applies to physical violence. <S> If they're prone to picking verbal fights, you might describe them as argumentative (adjective). <S> Someone who is prone to sudden and unpredictable violence may colloquially be described as a psycho , nutter , or variations on the theme of mental instability.
| Regarding idioms, you can simply say He's always looking to pick a fight / quarrel . Such a person is a hothead or a bruiser , or has a chip on his/her shoulder . Another possible answer, though more general, is " instigator ."
|
Idiom for feeling after taking risk and someone else being rewarded Is there an English idiom about describing the feelings of ones who work hard, get risk and finally achieved it but the others are being promoted and get all benefits as if they did it? <Q> To give one example from history is as follows: <S> An old or Roman soldier would say that there are two things in a soldier’s life : blood and gold. <S> The soldiers supply the blood and the generals get the gold... <A> You might even think of yourself as an unsung hero , although that term would be more likely applied to you by someone who discovers your contribution after the fact and tries to "correct the record". <A> Not an idiom but a proverb: <S> One beats the bush, and another catches the birds. <S> Explanation at proverbhunter : <S> One man does all the hard work, and another reaps the benefits. <S> The reference is to the beater, whose job is to strike the bushes and rouse the birds or other game so that the sportsman with a gun can take a shot at them.
| You could say that you've been left (out) in the cold or given the shaft because the others have taken the credit .
|
What does it mean to be “in black” Listening to several songs of late musician Amy Winehouse she often sings the word black . For example in the song Back to black I'll go back to black Similar in the song Rehab she sings: Yes, I been black but when I come back [..] What does black mean? I assume it means something like “depressed”/“depression”? Is this a phrase that is commonly used in English - or is it a “made up term”? Would people understand the meaning if used in a real sentence? <Q> Trying something out, but realizing it wasn't for you, and going back to what you know . <S> It is also like you said, sorrowful . <S> Rehab is talking about Amy plays on the phrase “once you go black you don’t go back”. <S> She went through a very dark time involving tumultuous relationships and drug abuse. <A> You are right. <S> Going to black usually refers to drinking, drug use, and depression. <S> I found a very nice annotation on genius.com: <S> When in a depressive state, everything seems black and dark. <S> Winehouse was known to suffer from depression from a young age. <S> Black is also often associated with death, so this may indicative of the singer coming to terms with the “death” of the relationship – a mourning of sorts. <S> This coincides with the music video, where the singer attends a funeral. <S> “Black” is also the end result of her drinking. <S> In attempting to escape from depression brought by her boyfriend, she blacks out. <S> ‘Back to black’ may also allude to returning to heroin use (i.e. black tar heroin), in which case ‘troubled track’ from two lines previous is suggestive of track marks that remain from injecting heroin. <A> The particular expression "back to black" is a metaphor, created by Amy, for that song. <S> The figurative use of "black" or "dark" related to depression is idiomatic. <S> We say "A black mood" to mean feeling depressed, irritable and short-tempered. <S> Compare this with "feeling blue" - a much calmer sort of sadness, with no anger. <S> A "Black day" is a day of tragedy. <S> "6 February 1958 was a black day for Manchester United Football club as many of the first team died in an aeroplane crash." <S> On the other hand the expressions "I'll go back to black" and "I've been black" are not idiomatic and are poetic creations of Amy.
| Black is a metaphor for depression.
|
Street obstacles in New Zealand Some streets in New Zealand get very narrow because of the things shown in this picture. What are they called? <Q> I would venture to say there is no commonplace word. <S> Motorists just see them as inconveniences, as indeed they are specifically designed to be. <S> For a technical term, I would venture the photo shows a chicane , i.e. a sharp bend or narrowing in the road. <S> It is created by offset curb extensions , for which Wikipedia suggests the alternative terms neckdown , kerb extension , bulb-out , bump-out , kerb build-out , nib , elephant ear , curb bulge , curb bulb , or blister , but without any indication of what terms might be used for what specific constructions in which specific parts of the world. <S> More broadly, this and similar measures designed to slow traffic by introducing physical and psychological barriers to drivers are known as traffic calming . <S> I always found this term somewhat Orwellian, but it is apparently a calque of the German Verkehrsberuhigung ( transportation calming ), even though the concept was first investigated in the Netherlands. <A> In Britain we call those things 'kerb extensions'. <S> I think they do in Australasia too. <S> The path they form for drivers is called a chicane. <S> Kerb is spelled 'curb' in some countries. <S> You will see pictures and other names (e.g. curb bulb out, curb bump out) if you type 'kerb extension' into Google Images. <A> so I'm not sure if they have a slang name. <S> " Kerb extension A localised widening of the footpath at an intersection or mid-block, which extends the footpath into and across parking lanes to the edge of the traffic lane. <S> " <S> I was quite surprised as I initially had a look through the Road Code - there isn't a single mention of them there. <A> In Australia they're called "Traffic Calming" features. <S> They don't really calm the drivers though. <S> As Wikipedia says: Traffic calming uses physical design and other measures to improve safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. <S> It aims to encourage safer, more responsible driving and potentially reduce traffic flow. <S> Urban planners and traffic engineers have many strategies for traffic calming, including narrowed roads and speed humps. <S> Such measures are common in Australia and Europe (especially Northern Europe), but less so in North America.
| Kerb Extensions , according to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).I am from NZ, but I don't encounter them too often They are part of what are known as 'traffic calming measures'.
|
Does "Until when" sound natural for native speakers? In some languages such as my native languages (Kurdish and Persian), when we want to ask about the exact limit point of time for something, we use two words which are exactly equal to this two words in English: Until When? For example, we say: Until when do I have time to finish this project? I would like to know how much this way of asking is natural in different English speaking countries? Or if it sounds pretty weird to you, please tell me how you say the above sentence in English. <Q> I think the “until when” construct can work fine in a question like this, although I think I’d be inclined to change the order of the words: I have until when to finish this project? <S> Also, it’s worth noting that we will often put additional emphasis on the word when in such questions, particularly when expressing surprise. <S> For example: Ted: I’ll need this project done by Friday. <S> Ned: I have until when to finish this project? <S> In this dialogue, Ned isn’t really asking Ted for a deadline; he is expressing incredulity that the deadline is coming so soon. <S> In other words, Ned knows the project needs to be done by Friday, but he is astonished that he has so little time to accomplish so much work. <S> Of course, there are many other ways people can ask about an upcoming deadline. <S> I especially like the suggestions provided by Bob Jarvis and Ronnie Childs elsewhere in answers and comments under this question: When is the deadline for this project? <S> How long do I have to finish this project? <A> There are certainly sentences where it would sound entirely appropriate. <S> Boss: <S> Keep working on this. <S> Employee <S> : Until when? <S> Parent: You are grounded! <S> Child <S> : Until when? <S> Both usages are complete sentences. <S> Used as part of a sentence sounds a bit more strained and unnatural. <A> So most common are: <S> When do I have to finish this project <S> and <S> By when do I have to finish this project. <S> But these two constructions don't necessarily mean the same thing. <S> The first is ambiguous; it can be understood either as at what time/on what day do I have to finish it - or by when do I have to finish it . <S> The second means by <S> when must it be completed - by what time, day or other period. <S> People also ask: What is the deadline for completion <S> So my recommendation is that you stick to: <S> By when does it have to be completed . <S> Here is a related Ngram , comparing the use of by when and until when . <A> Until when is not a particularly common construct in this situation. <S> You would be more likely to hear How long , as in: <S> How long do I have to finish this assignment? <A> Not a native, but I think natives would most commonly use <S> How much time do I have to finish this project? <S> However, I believe Until when do I have to finish this project? <S> Might be grammatically sound. <S> Now I am not entirely sure whether a native would use that or not <A> (Note: This is from a Northeastern U.S. native speaker's perspective.) <S> "Until when ..." is okay-ish, if a bit stilted. <S> But "Until when do I have time ... <S> " is just too clunky to be considered good colloquial English. <S> See J.R.'s response for good ways to use "until when". <S> But this answer is to highlight what a previous comment pointed out: that the most natural way to say this would use the word "due": <S> When is the/this/our project due? <S> This is exactly how my students would ask me, multiple times throughout the semester. <A> Until when do I have time to finish this project? <S> I think there are two problems here: <S> We don't need the word 'time' if we are using a preposition that relates the concept of time. <S> Until is a general word for something that is going to be happening, or true, for a certain time, and then stop being true (focusing on the period before the stop time). <S> However, to focus on the deadline itself, we tend to use by (see Common Mistakes in Business English: <S> The difference between “by” and “until” ). <S> So we could say <S> By when do I have to finish this project? <S> ... <S> and if we aren't squeamish about finishing a sentence with a preposition, a UK speaker speaking informally might be likely to say: <S> When do I have to finish this project by? <S> To answer your title question though, "Until when" is perfectly natural for other cases: <S> "I'm working in the library." <S> "Until when?" <S> " 'Til lunchtime. <S> I have to hand in this project by this afternoon"
| Until when is occasionally used but not nearly as often as just when or by when .
|
what is the connotation of precariously normal life in this context? In the preface of the book the author says: My life is precariously normal. Does he mean his life is suspiciously normal and its all greatness may collapse in any moment? By reading the previous and next sentences I get this impression that he means he doesn't take the his life normalcy for granted or he takes it with a grain of salt. Am I right? Another possible connotation that strikes my mind is the fact that the author may have used the adverb precariously as an emphatic or intensifier modifier. Precariously: in a way that is likely to fall, be damaged, fail, etc. Cambridge Dictionary <Q> "Precarious" and "normal" are not two words that you would usually put together, but the juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory things can be read as funny or clever or both, depending on the context. <S> "Precariously normal" suggests that (as you guessed) his life is continually on the verge of becoming abnormal . <S> This kind of contradiction also creates a sort of dramatic tension , so we can assume the writer is about to describe his life in some detail. <S> It would be awkward for the writer to just drop something like this in a story without adding the supporting context. <S> To give another example. <S> Suppose, say, there is a guy who builds a wall, and he goes on and on about how it's a really great wall, the best wall, how it would stop anyone from crossing it, and how it would be the ultimate protection. <S> It would be, he said, like a "solid steel barricade" . <S> And then videos appear showing hundreds of people easily crossing over the wall with ladders, or cutting through it, or digging under it. <S> In response someone writes: "Solid steel"? <S> Looks more like a tissue paper barricade to me. <S> By itself a "tissue paper barricade" obviously means the barricade is not effective at what it's supposed to do, but it's not funny or clever (or possibly just stupid and insipid) without the context to explain the contrast. <A> I think you were right with the reading "suspiciously normal". <S> That makes sense in the context of his story and fits general usage. <S> For an adverb to act as an intensifier the adverb needs to mean roughly the same thing as the word it's emphasizing. <A> His life is alarmingly normal. <S> He has everything an average person would long for: a family, a wife, three daughters. <S> However, he doesn't describe them vividly or enthusiastically. <S> There is no "little beautiful girls" or "a lovely wife". <S> I feel like his outstanding and decent aren't sincere at all. <S> He doesn't tell how happy he is, how consummate his life is. <S> Instead, he narrates the story in bleak colours: <S> Nothing is wrong with my life. <S> I am not unhappy . <S> which gives you a scintilla of anxiety: Is he really happy? <S> Is he truly passionate about all these things in his life? <S> Does he have everything he wants? <S> Is "normal life" the thing he is striving for? <A> As others have said, dangerously normal. <S> In context he is saying that it is abnormally normal. <S> This doesn’t mean that he is in imminent danger of it becoming abnormal or exciting, just the opposite — he’s afraid if he doesn’t take action it will continue being absolutely normal and forgettable. <S> That his life is in danger of being meaningless both to him and the world at large. <S> He is giving his initial justification for going AWOL, which he continues in the next sentence by admitting it may be irresponsible but defending it by saying his parents have both recently had life threatening conditions.
| His life is dangerously normal. Precariously could not be used for emphasis in this context, because as you note, precariously suggests abnormality.
|
Is "conspicuously missing" or "conspicuously" the subject of this sentence? I can't understand the meaning of this paragraph! But in our brief description of TCP and UDP, conspicuously missing was any mention of throughput or timing guarantees— services not provided by today’s Internet transport protocols. is "conspicuously missing" the subject of the sentence? or "conspicuously" is the subject?What does that dash mean before "services"?It doesn't make sense to me not at all! In other words I can't understand meaning of conspicuously missing was any mention of throughput or timing guarantees— part! I can't detect the verbs too! One of them is "not provided" and another is "was" but I don't know the role of "missing" in the sentence. <Q> There are two verbs in that sentence that have a subject. <S> These are was and provided . <S> Was <S> is a little confusing because it's in a non-standard order. <S> To be is a linking verb, so it can take an adjective as object - and in certain circumstances it can be OVS rather than SVO, which is what has happened here. <S> The subject is any mention of throughput or timing guarantees , a noun phrase. <S> Provided is in passive voice, so the subject is services <S> and there's no object, but the adverbial provides what would have been the subject if it were in active voice - today's Internet transport protocols . <S> If it were in active voice, it would be "today's Internet transport protocols do not provide these services". <A> But in our brief description of TCP and UDP, conspicuously missing was any mention of throughput or timing guarantees— services not provided by today’s Internet transport protocols. <S> The subject of the sentence as a whole is “any mention of throughput or timing guarantees”. <S> The dash signals what appears to be a supplementary appositive NP, one that can substitute for the matrix NP. <S> "Conspicuously missing" is a preposed adjective phrase in which "conspicuously" modifies "missing". <S> It functions as predicative complement of "be" in its ascriptive sense. <S> The basic non-preposed equivalent makes things clearer: <S> But in our brief description of TCP and UDP, any mention of throughput or timing guarantees – services not provided by today’s <S> Internet transport protocols -- was conspicuously missing . <A> " It's a case where, when people try to sound smarter OR want to prequalify something, they place the syntax in a non-standard order. <S> The sentence essentially reads: <S> The mention of throughput and timing guarantees, which are services not provided by todays Internet transport protocols, was conspicuously missing in our brief description of TCP and UDP <S> For the second part, we have "conspicuously," meaning "obviously" or "clearly;" "throughput," or "amount passing through a system or process" or "what passes through the process;" and "timing guarantees," which research shows is the "amount of time a website is active." <S> The phrase as a whole says that "Information on the amount of data passing through the system and the amount of uptime of a website are obviously missing" <S> The dash in front of "guarantees" indicates that this was a pause, and that the following phrase was describing the prior two. <S> As such, the whole sentence reads: <S> "Information on the amount of data passing through the system and the amount of uptime of a website, which are services not provided by today's Internet transport protocols, was obviously missing in our short description of TCP and UDP" <S> Or, more succinctly: <S> "Information on data transportation and website uptime was obviously not in our description of TCP and UDP, and these services are not provided by Internet Transport protocols"
| The subject of the sentence is "any mention of throughput or timing guarantees. The object is conspicuously missing , that is the adjective missing modified by the adverb conspicuously .
|
Why is it not correct to write, "The boy, who has a limp, was in an auto accident"? 1. The boy who has a limp was in an auto accident. We do not know which boy is meant without further description; therefore, no commas are used. 2. The man, knowing it was late, hurried home. We used comma as the phrase/clause knowing it was late is not necessary to get the meaning of sentence. That means knowing it was late is not restrictive here. My question is why the sentence #1 is not correct without the clause who has a limp although the sentences have the same categorised subject the man ** and **the boy in the first and second sentence respectively. Why is it not correct to write by using comma The boy, who has a limp, was in an auto accident ? and by not using comma The man knowing it was late hurried home ?I'm confused about the defination of restrictive and non-restrictive here. <Q> In sentence 1, "who has a limp" identifies the boy we are talking about in a group of other boys he may be in at the moment of speaking (identifying clause—no commas needed). <S> In sentence 2, "knowing it was late" is the Participle Clause , which should be surrounded by commas. <S> The sentence might be written: The man, who knew it was late, hurried home <S> (non-identifying clause <S> ; commas needed)—we know the man that hurried home. <S> If the sentence was <S> The man who knew it was late hurried home <S> it would mean that the other men he was with, didn't know it was late; otherwise, they too might hurry home. <A> Rompey is correct that 2 is a participle clause. <S> But 1 can be correct either way, but it depends on what you're expressing. <S> Consider these examples: <S> My brother, who is married, won the lottery. <S> I have one brother. <S> He is married. <S> He won the lottery. <S> My brother who is married won the lottery. <S> I have multiple brothers, but only one of them is married. <S> That specific brother has won the lottery. <S> In the second example, "who is married" is used to uniquely identify the brother I'm talking about. <S> In the first example, "who is married" is tangential information which isn't used to identify the brother. <S> Therefore: <S> The boy who has a limp was in an auto accident. <S> We're focusing on not just any boy, but specifically the boy who has a limp. <S> There are presumably boys who don't have a limp <S> but we're not talking about them. <A> As per your first phrase, you need to think of the whole phrase "boy who has a limp" as the subject, rather than "boy" as the subject and "who as a limp" as additional information. <S> This is why we don't need commas in the first phrase,* but do need commas in the second, since "man knowing it was late" can not be taken as the entire subject of the sentence. <S> Also, having a secondary phrase between two commas usually means it is not essential to the sentence (grammatically) and, <S> more importantly, will make the sentence grammatically incorrect if removed. <S> In the second phrase, removing the commas makes your sentence grammatically incorrect. <S> * <S> Not sure about the grammatical aspect of it, though. <A> I see no reason for the first sentence to be wrong. <S> Using commas to set apart the relative clause makes it a non-restrict relative clause, which suggests that it is not a necessary information about the subject. <S> It is a rule.
| I personally think adding commas in the first sentence is perfectly valid, and accurately depicts the cadence/way I would speak out the sentence. It would be wrong if the subject could not be identified through the context, in such a case, you could not really use commas to separate the relative clause since it is a necessary information that helps identify the subject, and necessary description about subjects can't be placed between commas.
|
About the negative form I got a question about negative form. Could you please help me deal with that? Here is the question. If someone says, “I don’t think that he will come tomorrow.”What does it mean actually? “I disagree on his coming” or “I agree on his not coming?” I am trying to figure out where “not” is put in the whole sentence. <Q> It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. <S> It's about your judgement, opinion, guess. <S> In other words, if you say that you don't think something will happen, you mean that from your point of view, it will not happen. <S> But if someone said he was not coming, and you replied, "OK," you would possibly express your agreement. <S> As for "I don't think...," it's used to express what you believe will not happen or take place: <S> I don't think he will come. <S> = <S> I think he will not come. <A> The opposite of thinking that he will come is thinking that he will not come. <S> The opposite of thinking that he will come is also not thinking that he will come. <S> One implies the other and vice versa. <S> However, if you're asking if this sentence has any implications like "I don't think he will ever come" or "I think he might come another day" - <S> that depends on what words are stressed in speech and/or the overall context. <A> It's about what he is thinking , so he thinks that he will not come, if you want him to not come <S> say: I don't want him to come tomorrow. <S> If you want him to come say: I want him to come tomorrow. <A> As mentioned in the Mixolydian's post, both "I disagree on his coming" and "I agree on his not coming" mean essentially the same thing. <S> Let's take a look at the whole sentence again: <S> I don’t think that he will come tomorrow. <S> The emphasis on this sentence's "not" is on "think". <S> Everything after the "that" is just a description of what the speaker thinks. <S> We can expand the contraction, apply emphasis, omit the sentence after "that" (for illustration purposes), and get this result: <S> I do not think that (...) . <S> Which basically means, the speaker does not agree with whichever thought he/she has. <S> We can also replace that word "think" with some synonyms, and the sentence would still mean the same thing. <S> Some examples: <S> I don’t believe that he will come tomorrow. <S> and I don’t agree that he will come tomorrow.
| Well, "I disagree that he will come" and "I agree that he will not come" mean essentially the same thing.
|
Grey hair or white hair In my region is it usual that we say 'white' for hair which is not black or brown anymore as the age passes. But I've recently come to know that the word 'grey' can also be used instead of 'white'. Which word do you native use? The colour that I mean to ask about can be seen in the image. <Q> In America, at least, "gray hair" is a catch-all category that includes white. <S> It would not be surprising to refer to someone with white hair and beard as having gray hair. <S> Still, the more precise description of the beard in your picture would be white . <S> Santa Claus is always depicted with white hair and a white beard, and almost nobody thinks of that image as being in any way gray. <S> (And remember, the main difference between Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White in Peter Jackson's film series of The Lord of the Rings was the color of his robes .) <S> It really just depends on how fussy you are. <S> Hair color, like eye color, can be hard to pin down. <S> A redhead I dated once asked me to describe her hair color. <S> I told her it looked orange to me. <S> She was pleased, and told me I was the first one who didn't just automatically tell her it was red. <S> (For the record, it really was orange.) <S> N.B. "Gray" and "grey" are alternate spellings of the word, the latter being chiefly British. <S> But it doesn't matter which you use, unless you're trying to spell a proper name. <A> In my experience as a native speaker in Britain, grey hair is the catch-all term for hair faded with age. <S> If you were describing someone specific, and trying to be precise, you might say "white hair", or "grey, not white". <S> In that sort of specific case, the one in your picture is white . <A> This may be my idiosyncratic take on it <S> but I think grey hair and white hair are different, at least when talking about many hairs. <S> For individual hairs, I would use the terms interchangeably. <S> But as long as they still have an appreciable number of darker hairs, I would say their hair is grey. <A> It's the obvious thing. <S> Grey and white are just colours and you use whichever colour is most appropriate: "grey" if it's grey and "white" if it's white or very pale grey. <S> How pale is "very pale" is a subjective decision and will probably depend on the light, anyway. <S> If you do image searches for "grey hair" and "white hair", you'll see that most of the images for "white hair" are significantly paler than most of the "grey hair" images. <A> When my hair started "greying" (in my late 20s or so), I talked about grey hair. <S> As my original color went away and grey/white hair took it's place, I continued to refer to it as grey. <S> Now, a few decades later, my hair and beard are both white now, like Santa's, white like the driven snow. <A> We use grey to describe the colour of people's hair when it changes from its original colour, usually as they get old ( source ). <S> However, "white hair" can also be said to express the same thing: (of hair, a beard, etc.) <S> silvery or grey, usually from age ( source ). <A> My step-father's hair was grey for many, many years. <S> But now it's white . <S> That's why I hear and read people using both terms, when appropriate. <A> There are a lot of very good answers here. <S> The guy in the picture appears to me to have white rather than gray hair. <S> Though as @Flydog57 says, the verb that describes the process of hair lightening with age is graying (or greying ). <S> Also, if you want to be literary, you can use the word “hoary” to describe either the old person or their hair (not recommended for everyday speech, though): https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoary
| When all the hair on someone's head is grey / white, I would describe them as having white hair.
|
Does "prime" mean "to fill/load"? Caution shall be exercised when priming a carburetor. Does it mean "Caution shall be exercised when filling fuel to a carburetor"? I searched "prime" in macmillandictionary.com and dic.cambridge.org but I couldn't find any relevant definition that fits in this context. However, when searched in merriam-webster.com, there was a definition, which was "fill, load". So I want to be sure if "prime" has meaning of "fill" or "load", and if this meaning fits in the context. <Q> Yes, it does mean that, Caution shall be exercised when priming a carburetor. <S> = <S> (equals to) <S> Caution shall be exercised when filling fuel to a carburetor You can search up on the internet, it is well known. <A> In the Cambridge Dictionary <S> you can find: prime = to prepare someone or something for a particular situation: <S> It can include inspecting, cleaning, refilling, painting - whatever work is necessary to make sure that the carburetor is in good condition. <S> This meaning of the verb is related to the following meaning (as an adjective, see same dictionary page): prime (adj.) <S> = <S> of the best quality: <S> So this confirms the explanation: make the carburetor "of the best quality". <S> NOTE: this answer is about the definition of "to prime". <S> It is not as a manual on how to perform technical activities on a carburetor. <A> Practically, here it means to release undue amount of air from the carburetor so that there won't be cavitation or hammering .You can search self priming pump for instance, and see how it operates. <S> By the way, I'm mechanical engineer and this definition is in relation to my major. <S> When "priming" is mentioned in industry it mostly implies to the air releasing process. <S> At least we do so in oil and gas industry; in particular, for pumps and compressors . <S> However, it can include a set of instructions to fill the fuel to the carburetor
| So the meaning in the context is: to make sure that the carburetor is in good condition to be used .
|
Sitting position with backside visible A few days back I posted a question [I am making a sentence presenting the image in picture. I want to say that one shouldn't sit the way that the knees are wide open. Does this construction suits best? Note the bottom of the man should be resting on the floor, it's not in the image though.] Actually I couldn't find the exact image that time. That image didn't present the exact position of knees, thighs and bottom. I am posting another image that actually I wanted to ask about. Can I say: Don't sit with your legs pointed up. OR: Don't sit with your knees pointed up. OR What would be the best sentence for this? What I want the sitter to do is that they sit in a way that their bottom and thighs don't come into view. It is about the exercise in which there is a particular step in which one has to sit in a way that knees are pointed up but not so wide that bottom and thighs are seen. <Q> In short, you don't. <S> It might be appropriate for a mother to say to her daughter <S> Don't sit like that, dear, everyone can see your underwear. <S> But you would need to be as close as mother and daughter for this to be an appropriate thing to say. <S> If this is an exercise routine, you can demonstrate. <S> However if you need to support this by words, the language that you have already is sufficient: <S> In this step you sit in a way that the knees are pointed up, but not so wide that your thighs or bottom are exposed. <S> If you are writing generally, then focus on the actual problem and phrase as a statement, not as a command. <S> People should be careful about accidentally exposing their underwear when sitting. <A> Sitting so that the backs of the thighs are visible would be "sitting with your knees to your chest". <S> Some exercises require you to lift, bring, or pull "your knee to your chest". <S> If you want someone to sit with their knees bent, but not against their chest, you could say "sit with your knees bent at a 45-degree angle ". <S> In general with exercise instructions, it's helpful to use angles or relationships like "parallel" or "perpendicular" relative to the floor or other parts of the body to explain the correct position. <S> Usually it's better to tell someone how to do it correctly than to tell them not to do it incorrectly. <S> You might say "be careful not to bring your knees too close to your chest" if you're concerned that they might injure themselves by doing it incorrectly. <A> When you use the word “wide” that makes me think you’re talking about how open one’s knees and legs should be. <S> If you don’t want them open at all, maybe say: Sit on the floor with your legs together and knees bent. <S> where “together” tells you not to have any space between your legs. <S> If this is not what you mean by wide <S> and you are talking about how high your knees should be, then see ColleenV and SamBC’s answers. <S> Legs pointed up makes me think the feet are pointed up, in the air. <S> So telling someone not to do this will just suggest to them that they should keep their feet on the ground. <A> You should not be able to put the soles of your feet flat on the ground; if you can, your knees are too high. <S> That avoids you talking about thighs and bums, which will make you seem a little weird, but I'm pretty sure it gives the same effect.
| If the idea is that their knees are only slightly off the ground, I would say: Sit on the ground with your legs out, heels on the ground, and your knees together and slightly raised. “Dont sit with your legs pointed up” is not a good way to describe the instructions as I understand them.
|
infinitive telling the purpose He used his disability in order to win our votes, which is an evil way to win the election. This is a sentence which I submit for an English class assignment, but my teacher crossed out in order , which leaves the sentence to be: He used his disability to win our votes, which is an evil way to win the election. I asked the teacher why in order is crossed out, since it tells the purpose in this sentence structure, having in order should be right and does not affect the meaning of the sentence. But my teacher told me it sounds odd and doesn't flow well in her opinion, and also has nothing to do with redundancy. Must in order be omitted in this case and Why? <Q> I wouldn't say it's incorrect. <S> But it's rather verbose. <S> It doesn't change the meaning. <S> It doesn't add anything to it. <S> I think in order to would make more sense at the beginning of the sentence. <S> In order to win our votes, he used his disability. <A> He used his disability (in order) to win our votes , which is an evil way to win the election . <S> In many cases, it's optional, and a matter of style, though it is a useful test for determining whether an infinitival clause is a purpose adjunct. <S> In finite clause constructions, it is more or less obligatory in examples such as in Open the wine in order that it can breathe , where dropping "in order" results in an unacceptable sentence, though acceptability can be restored by replacing it with "so". <A> I don't think it must be omitted in this case, but I think your teacher's edit constitutes an improvement. <S> Not every correction from a teacher happens because something is "incorrect. <S> " <S> Teachers should help students improve their writing, and this change is an improvement. <S> In an article entitled 47 words and phrases that slow your reader down , the author urges: Cut the fluff (shortening "in order to" to "to" is one of the recommendations). <S> In an article entitled 15 Clunky Phrases to Eliminate From Your Writing Today – How to Crack Down on Wordiness, the author writes: In most cases, the phrase “in order to” works just as well without the “in order”, with the infinitive form of the verb on its own. <S> For example, the phrase, “In order to assess the author’s intentions” would work just as well if it read, “To assess the author’s intentions”, and no unnecessary words will have been used. <S> And #168 on this list of Flabby Words and Phrases reads: <S> In order to – Redundant phrase. <S> You don’t need in order . <S> Example: <S> In order to succeed, you must work hard . <S> Better: To succeed, you must work hard . <S> When that's the case, though, the more concise wording is generally preferred. <S> I think your teacher is giving sound advice. <A> “In order to” works in some contexts like this but not others. <S> I agree with your teacher. <S> One does something in order to achieve an end, but here, “He used his disability” is not something he did whose purpose needs to be explained by following it with “in order to”. <S> It’s kind of like “for the purpose of.” <S> This sounds bad: He used his disability for the purpose of winning our votes. <S> That doesn’t sound right, because he does not use his disability only for a certain purpose (like winning votes). <S> He always has a disability. <S> If you replaced “used” with “exploited” I think “for the purpose of” or “in order to” would sound less strange. <S> “Exploiting” is what he actually did . <S> Or “played up” or “emphasized”. <A> Actually, in this case "in order" does add something to the sentence, but it adds something that doesn't fit. "to" has several different senses. <S> Consider "He bought scissors to have something to open the package with" versus "He used the scissors to open the package". <S> In the first, we are talking about some future plans, while in the second we're talking about a present use. <S> "in order" fits with the first, but not the second. " <S> He bought scissors in order to have something to open the package with" would be overly wordy, but correct. " <S> He used to the scissors in order to open the package" would be just weird. <S> Here, the second sense makes sense. <S> But if you put "in order" in there, then you are saying "He used his disability, and the reason he used his disability was to get votes", when "He used his disability, and the thing he used his disability towards was getting votes" makes more sense. <S> If it were instead "He talked about his disability a lot to get votes", then putting "in order" in there would make sense, albeit still overly wordy. <A> Bit of a dissenting opinion: I prefer your original sentence, it's a perfectly natural use of "in order to", in my opinion. <S> It stresses the "for the purpose of" focus of the sentance, as with the simple "to" some readers will think the stress is "votes" or "win" or some other aspect. <S> It's certainly correct and grammatical and well within what I might expect to read or hear in public discourse.
| You were correct when you said that the extra words don't affect the meaning of your sentence.
|
Don't talk gibberish, I don't talk gibberish Someone replied to a question I asked( on a website). He wrote:Ajjdj skidid sksksko...... So I said: Sorry but I don't talk gibberish. Is the use of "talk gibberish" natural? Can it be: Please don't talk gibberish. Is it a natural alternative for "speak"(of course colloquially). <Q> Yep, “talk gibberish” is totally fine. <A> To talk can mean simply mean to utter, whereas to speak can mean that also, (e.g. speak fast, speak loudly, speak nonsense) or it can mean to understand a language (e.g. speak French), and 'speak gibberish' could have either of these meanings, and is thus ambiguous. <A> Yes. <S> I suspect how normal it is, and the relative prevalence of talk vs speak , depends on dialect. <S> For British English, that's normal, though people might frown on it in formal writing. <S> It probably exists because talk <S> would be normal when referring to the content, rather than the language: <S> You don't half talk a lot of rubbish. <S> (There are other British English dialect features there, like don't half , which is an emphatic.)
| That is a normal thing to say.
|
A word meaning “to take something with you since it is not difficult for you anyway” I am looking for a word that I could use when I am asking someone to help me by taking something with them, and I’d like to stress that I am asking for this favour because I know it is not a big deal. Examples: Your family member is leaving the house and you shout: — ??? the garbage please! meaning You are going outside anyway, so please take this garbage bag with you and dispose of it. You are hosting a party and call your friend and tell them: – ??? your playstation gamepads please! meaning We’d like to play some game for 4 players, and I have only 2 gamepads, I know it is not hard for you to bring yours too, so just throw them into your bag on your way out. I think I saw “grab” used in this context, but I am not sure if it was correct, as I was under the impression that “to grab” has this “quick” meaning, but does not convey “easy” and “you won’t even notice it”, which are more important in these cases, as well as “it is not for your own benefit, but a favour I am asking for”. <Q> You could also use the term "Pick-up" "Pick-up the garbage on your way out <S> please" This is slighly more formal and polite. <S> Hope this helps! <A> For garbage: <S> Would you mind taking (out) <S> the garbage on your way out? <S> For gamepads: Could you bring your Playstation gamepads with you when you come over? <S> These are both slightly more “polite” or “formal” ways of speaking than “Would you grab...” <S> but neither of these questions is all that formal. <S> Anyway, “grab” also works perfectly fine if you don’t mind speaking more casually, and I think it conveys the meaning you want. <A> To expand on user91243's answer of "pick up": <S> This is, I think, the best answer to the question asked, as it implies "take with you" and often "because it is convenient" (or, at least, "not too difficult") <S> Could you please pick up those cans and toss them in the recycling bin on your way out? <S> Thanks! <S> Be sure to pick up your controllers before you head home. <S> However, with "trash" the most common idiomatic expression is " take out the trash". <S> Could you take out the trash when you head out? <S> Thanks. <S> "Grab" is fine in some contexts, but it the literal sense it implies a kind of haste , or (to some extent) <S> sloppiness in movement. <S> For example, a child might grab for a piece of candy. <S> It's this same kind of unplanned feeling that you get in idioms such as: <S> Hey, let's grab some lunch. <S> I know a place nearby. <S> In this particular context, again, it's fine. <S> I just wanted to clarify the possible nuance: <S> Make sure to <S> grab all of your belongings before you head home.
| "Grab" Is correct in this context, though it is a very casual term you would probably only use with people you know very well such as family and friends.
|
Sibling order: "my sister NEXT TO ME Let's say you are the eldest in a family of 5. You, sister and brother. Your sister has a child now, and you are describing how you are related to your nephew to one of your guests. You say: This is my nephew, carl. The son of my sister next to me. Is this the correct phrase to explain what I am trying to say? <Q> I think nearest gets closest to the meaning you want - saying next to me is only used for physical proximity. <S> "My sister next to me " is the sister who is standing or sitting right beside me (physical proximity). <S> " <S> My sister who is closest in age [to me] " is somewhat long-winded, but is really the only unambiguous way to convey the meaning you want (age proximity). <S> also: <S> "My closest sister" usually means the sister you get along with the best or who you talk with most frequently (emotional proximity). <A> No. <S> If she’s your only sister it’s <S> “my sister” (or “my younger sister” if she’s younger than you; “my older sister” if she’s older than you). <S> If you have two sisters it’s <S> either “my older sister” or “my younger sister”. <S> If you have three sisters it could be either of those (EDIT: “oldest” or “youngest” are more appropriate for comparing more than two) or “my middle sister.” <S> If you have more than three sisters maybe you could say “my second-oldest sister” or “my fifth-youngest sister” etc. <A> If she's one down from you, it could be "my sister, the next oldest", leaving "of our sibling group" implicit because it sounds dumb. <S> If she's one up for you, it could be "my sister, the next youngest", similarly. <S> I wouldn't be confident people will understand what you mean first time (some will, some won't - there may be dialect impact), but it won't sound weird , just unfamiliar.
| "My nearest sister" is the sister who is immediately older or younger, though depending on context it could also be the sister who is the least far away at the moment (either age or physical proximity).
|
the word area for the chest I was watching a movie in which the hero expressed his feelings to the lady he loved. Signaling towards his chest he used the word 'area'. His words were something like this: I feel something for you right in this area. It was the first time I heard this word for some body part. We use the word 'area' in math or for locations on maps. Though it is understandable yet I need a consent over this from some natives. Is this a right use? Actually the point that has made me raise this question is that movies often have informal speech and I am a writer thus I have to establish my writings on the basis of some formal grounds. <Q> "Area" means more or less the same as "region" and can be used for any general location. <S> However, the reason it sounds odd in this context is because you would expect the person to know the name for that body part, i.e. "chest" or "heart". <S> The fact therefore that the character said "in this area" suggests additional nuance. <S> The person is either stupid (he really doesn't know the word) <S> coy (he is pretending not to know the word) <S> silly (he knows the word, but is making a joke) <S> vulnerable <S> (he is suggesting it's an unfamiliar sensation) plus various others. <S> You have to decide which from the context. <A> Yes, the context is correct. <S> Meanings in English can be deduced and for conversational English can be relaxed as in the context in question. <S> Metaphors and similes can be used in conversational English. <S> Some languages do not use such devices so it may take time to get use to. <S> For further usage of area one can think: If he was pointing to a general chest area mainly where his heart is then it communicates loving emotion. <S> Contrast this <S> to if he pointed at his head then it would be about intellect. <S> If he pointed towards his genitals then it would be more about sex. <A> So for instance, all of these are common uses of the word area: <S> "the area behind the building", "the area surrounding Denver, Colorado" "the area between the two galaxies", "this area of the chest (or any other body part)" <S> In the case of your example, it sounds when the speaker said "area" he was referring to the region of his chest where he feels emotions. <S> An alternative way of saying this that might be more familiar to you is <S> "I'm feeling something in this part of my chest" . <A> Several dictionaries confirm that "area" can refer to the body. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/area (1.2) <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/area (4) <S> https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/area#area__12 <S> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/area (4) <S> In the example you gave, referring to the area of the cutest seems to point metaphorically to the heart, which is in turn a metaphor for love (although all feelings are mental processes and occur in the brain...)
| " Area " can be used generally to refer to a spatial region of any size .
|
What is the difference between "shut" and "close"? It is obvious that shut and close are very similar in meaning. However, while learning English as non-native (a long time ago) the teacher underlined that the two words are not identical in meaning. I was unable to find a "clear" explanation about this difference yet - so I am still confused. I found: the definitions of the words; how the words are similar; I did not find: how are these words different. Edit: Based on the answers and on the comments, is it safe to assume that there is no "general" rule about when to use "shut" and "close"? And that one must learn the "correct" verb for each situation separately? <Q> The words have a sense which is completely identical, as seen in "shut/close the door". <S> However, close can be used in another way, too. <S> If we accelerate, we can close the gap . <S> getting closer. <S> Usually based on the phrase close the gap . <S> It can also be used metaphorically, as in "close the gender pay gap". <S> You cannot use shut for this sense. <S> Likewise, shut is used in certain instances where close would not be acceptable: <S> I've had enough of your lip, just shut up now! <S> ( Shut up meaning <S> "stop talking"; lip in this instance meaning impudent speech. <S> Shut up is idiomatic in most if not all varieties of English; lip in this instance may be British-specific. <S> Such instances of shut might be considered set phrases.) <S> Another thing to be wary of is that close has a homograph (same spelling, different pronunciation) meaning "near". <A> You can shut the window <S> You can close the door <S> You can close a highway <S> But you cannot shut the store <S> The verb close is an antonym for open . <S> Therefore, we can say things like: <S> Why did <S> you <S> close (or shut ) <S> the window? <S> Please open it again. <S> Please shut (or close ) the door. <S> Otherwise, the cat might get out. <S> In addition to doors, windows, briefcases, and cages, though, we can also open and close things like highways, runways, and restaurants. <S> In this sense of the word, shut does not function like an antonym – at least, not in American English (the following examples don’t seem to hold true in British English, based on some informative comments beneath my original answer): <S> Oak Street is closed due to flooding. <S> We will have to find another way there. <S> ( NOT : Oak Street is shut ...) <S> The restaurant is closed . <S> Let’s go find someplace else to eat. <S> ( NOT : The restaurant is shut... ) <S> As an aside, the phrasal verb shut down can be used in a similar way as closed , but that often connotes a longer period of inaccessibility: <S> That restaurant was shut down three months ago. <S> Put another way, a pub may have a closing time , but it will not have a shutting time . <A> It would be hard to come up with a comprehensive list. <S> You just have to pay attention to what meanings each as, and see which ones are had by only one. <S> If you want to replace one with the other, you have to check whether the meaning survives. <S> One are to be careful in is phrasal verbs. " <S> shut up" is generally used to mean "be quiet", while "close up", if it's used at all, is used for things like filling in holes. <S> " <S> shut out" means to exclude, while "close out" is used in liquidation sales. <S> " <S> shut in" refers to agoraphobics, "close in" means to get closer. <S> Also, the past tense and past participle of "shut" are just "shut", while the past tense of "close" is "closed". <S> So you shouldn't say "The door has been shutted" or "The door has been close". <A> From other answers we can see that English speakers do not always agree about when these words are used, or should be used, even if we only consider their use in isolation rather than in expressions such as shut up and close down . <S> I'm hard pressed to explain why I would more usually say the airport was shut rather than the airport was closed though I would view both as formally correct. <S> This may be due to my Yorkshire origins: shut sounds stronger in an Yorkshire accent. <S> If we go back to origins of words I note this etymology site has Old English scyttan "to put (a bolt) in place so as to fasten a door or gate, bolt, shut to; discharge, pay off," from West Germanic <S> *skutjan (source also of Old Frisian schetta, Middle Dutch schutten "to shut, shut up, obstruct") <S> and this sense of not only closing, but fixing closed accords with my personal feeling of shut as being more forceful than close. <A> I'm here because I'm reading a mystery from 1955 by Patricia Wentworth, The Gazebo, where a character finds a door 'only closed, not shut'. <S> The door is considered not properly shut because the catch hasn't engaged. <S> I have always considered shut and closed interchangeable and do not recollect anyone using it in the manner <S> Wentworth does. <S> I can only assume that the difference in use has been lost in the decades since the book was written, perhaps just as a door just open a little would now probably just be described as 'open' and not 'ajar' , so 'closed' could mean a little bit more closed than ajar?
| Essentially, close can be used to represent openings becoming smaller or objects
|
Is calling someone *difficult* enough to explain why they're hard to deal with? is there a need to specify why someone is difficult after calling them difficult? For example: Say, someone asks me: "How is your relationship with your roommates?" And I reply: "My roommates are too difficult ." Instead of "My roommates are too difficult to deal with" " difficult to deal with explains why they're difficult . Is there really a need to write that extra piece? Can only "They're too difficult " do the job? <Q> According to Cambridge Dictionary , a person who is difficult is not easy to deal with . <S> I loved him, but he could be difficult at times. <S> Sometimes, though, you want to clarify why you think that person is difficult. <S> His standards are sometimes impossibly high and because of this he is difficult to please . <S> His efforts to adhere to the programme of assumption-free thinking is one of the reasons why he is difficult to understand . <A> Neither is incorrect, but your meaning should be understood just fine either way. <S> I would say though that in my experience <S> "They're difficult " sounds more natural than "They're too difficult ", because the word "too" often (but not always) precedes some further explanation. <A> "My roommates are too difficult" seems entirely idiomatic to me. <S> With context, it's that they are too difficult for you to deal with. <S> Difficult , applied to a person, doesn't require further elaboration to say what might be difficult in relation to them. <S> Being difficult is a characteristic that people discern in others. <S> Too might seem to require a point of comparison, like the purpose for which they are too difficult, but people don't actually use it like that so much. <S> In common usage, it can be a general purpose emphatic, like very or really . <S> So, overall, your first version is fine. <S> Your second version has unnecessary - but not excessive - detail. <S> It's more specific about what you find difficult about them.
| I think it would be wordy to say difficult to deal with .
|
concern, the concern, or concerns? Any difference in meaning? The definition of concern can be found in any dictionaries like this link . Now, let's focus on a single example from that dictionary: Many people expressed concern over moves to restore the death penalty. I can understand this, according to the dictionary it's an uncountable noun and hence no article, but my question is what change in meaning occurs if I rewrite the above sentence to Many people expressed the concern over moves to restore the death penalty. Many people expressed concern s over moves to restore the death penalty. <Q> Many people expressed the concern over moves to restore the death penalty. <S> As a standalone sentence this is unnatural. <S> Upon hearing this, the natural response would be: <S> What concern are you talking about? <S> It's only if a particular concern had been previously mentioned that the use of the definite article would be natural: <S> There is concern about a new proposal. <S> Many people expressed the concern over moves to restore the death penalty. <S> Your second sentence, using the plural concerns and no article, is fine as a standalone sentence. <A> Concern can be a verb, a countable noun, and an uncountable noun. <S> As an uncountable noun it refers to a mental or emotional state - to express concern is to indicate that one is experiencing that state. <S> That can also be reflected by the adjective concerned (which has multiple meanings as well), with a meaning close to (but not identical to) worried . <S> So you might say: I have one or two concerns with this proposal. <S> And what you mean is there are a small number of specific things that bother you about it. <S> A person expressing concern might or might not have specific concerns that they could explain, but if they did, they would be expressing those concerns when they explained them. <S> If someone is expressing the concern , there should be a specific, already explained or identified concern - a particular thing they are worried about. <S> That wouldn't mean they were expressing concern specifically about the death penalty, but that they had a specific concern about it. <S> So you might use that if you had already talked about people being worried about people executed for crimes they didn't commit - and no other specific concerns. <A> There are no difference in the meaning of the three, the concern would mean that there is only one big concern, and that only one thing could happen. <S> There may be concern s that people may be falsely accused, and other concerns a long with it.
| To express a concern or express concerns is using the word in its countable noun sense, which refers to one or more specific concerns - a concern being particular element or thing to be concerned about.
|
Are "We've all" and "we all have" the same? i had been reading a paper but i haven't understood a paragraph. Can you help me? paragraph as follows " We've all left meetings feelings good about what we discussed only to later wonder why so little happened as a result? Where did the momentum go? does it mean same that 2 sentences "we've all left" and "we all have left"? <Q> To me, putting all before the auxiliary feels awkward, and I would only do it to put extra emphasis on all . <S> So, I would normally say: We have all left rather than We all have left <S> We are all going rather than <S> We all are going <S> We will all come <S> rather thant <S> We all will come . <S> Using the We all form for those sounds to me as if somebody has said that only some of use were leaving, going, coming, and the speaker is contradicting this with we all . <S> That is the case with an auxiliary, whether it is contracted or not. <S> So We've all left = <S> We have all left <S> When there is no auxiliary, just the main verb, of course all has to precede it, so We all have hats . <A> Yes, in this case they are interchangeable and mean the same thing. <S> I think the confusion from that bolded phrase comes from the 's' at the end of feelings. <S> To be correct, it should read like this: We've all left meetings feeling good <S> But yes, "We've all left meetings" and "We all have left meetings" or even "We have all left meetings" would all mean the same thing. <A> Both are the same meaning, however, “we have all left” indicates to this moment (by now) whereas “we all have left” doesn’t refer to this moment. <S> This is my understanding of the difference. <A> We've all have left meetings feeling good : <S> All of us at some point in time have done this. <S> We've all experienced this in our lives and we know it well, because it has happened to us before. <S> We all left (the?) <S> meetings feeling good : All of us attended several meetings in the speaker's present time, and we all left them feeling really good. <S> Both phrases are correct if used in the correct context. <A> For instance: ¨We've all been to a restaurant.¨ <S> This shows that we all went to a restaurant. <S> ¨We <S> all have¨ is in a possessive tense. <S> This means it shows ownership. <S> For instance: ¨We all have hats.¨ <S> This means that we all own hats.
| ¨We've all¨ means ¨we have all¨ The two terms are sometimes interchangeable, but have slightly different meanings.
|
What do you call the soldiers who had the job to whip people's backs for their crimes? I was watching passion of Christ and there's a scene when Jesus is whipped very badly before being crucified. I was wondering what you'd call one of those big brawny guys with the whip. Maybe punishers ? Whippers ? They can't be executioners can they? <Q> It depends on the situation Executioner a resident executioner would also administer non-lethal physical punishments, or apply torture. <S> — <S> Wikipedia: <S> Inquisitor <S> An inquisitor was an official (usually with judicial or investigative functions) in an Inquisition — Wikipedia: Inquisitor <S> The inquisitor was more of an administrator in the room, while the people carrying out the actual torture may have been anyone operating under the inquisitor. <S> (Jail) Torturer <S> These articles refer to the people who carried out the punishment as a "torturer": Working as a jail torturer ruined my life | Independent <S> What were the criteria for hiring torturers in medieval Europe? <S> | Quora <A> The Encyclopedia Britannica definition : <S> Lictor , plural lictors or lictores , member of an ancient Roman class of magisterial attendants, probably Etruscan in origin and dating in Rome from the regal period. <S> Lictors carried the fasces for their magistrate and were constantly in his attendance in public; they cleared his way in crowds and summoned and punished offenders for him . <A> A few whipping-specific words come to mind: flogger , scourger , and flagellator , all nouns formed from verbs. <S> scourge <S> v <S> 1. <S> FLOG, WHIP 2a. <S> :to punish severely flog v 1a. <S> : to beat with or as if with a rod or whip flagellate <S> v <S> 1. <S> : <S> WHIP, SCOURGE 2 : to drive or punish as if by whipping Definitions from Merriam-Webster Online <S> All have the additional benefit of being (ultimately) derived from Latin, the language of the Roman soldiers who did the scourging in that film.
| The Roman officials who carried out floggings were known as Lictors. Executioner This seems to be more of a full time job, where the local, well-trained executioner (who carried out a death sentence) would also carry out other punishments, possibly such as whipping or flogging.
|
What's the meaning of “spike” in the context of “adrenaline spike”? What's the meaning of “spike” in the context of “adrenaline spike”? how does it relate to the meaning of “dump” in the context of “adrenaline dump”? and which of the two is the correct version? <Q> One refers to a spike in a measurement, or a sharp rise (often followed by a fall that may not be as sharp, but is clear). <S> This is because such measurements would be drawn with a moving needle on paper, or otherwise graphed after the fact, and the spike looks like, well, a spike. <S> Thus, in an adrenaline spike <S> the level of adrenaline in a person's system has risen sharply, and may not be sustained. <S> We don't generally have ongoing measurement of things like that, but it means that if we did have that sort of ongoing measurement, the graph would show a visible spike. <S> An adrenaline dump <S> is also a sharp rise in adrenaline, speaking figuratively as the adrenal glands "dumping" a load of adrenaline into your system all at once. <S> Both of those terms are 'correct', they are just looking at it from a different perspective. <S> If you're really being a purist about the terminology, a spike shouldn't be sustained, whereas a dump might be. <A> The term comes from the appearance on a graph. <S> There are four main spikes in the following picture. <S> spike <S> 6 <S> a : a pointed element in a graph or tracing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spike <A> Spike in this context means a sharp increase in the magnitude or concentration of something. <S> Adrenaline spike would indicate an increase in adrenaline production <A> An adrenaline rush is when one experiences a sudden increase in the hormone adrenaline (also known as epinephrine ). <S> Apparently adrenaline dump <S> has the same meaning, as I see from looking this up, though I’ve never heard dump used in this context. <S> I guess spike (or surge ) could be used as a synonym of one of those other words. <S> However, as an American native speaker, the only one I’d say and that I think is most idiomatic is adrenaline rush . <S> Also, if you’re asking what this means, it’s a biological process in response to fear and/or excitement. <S> You might get this feeling while riding on a roller coaster or while skydiving, for example. <A> The visual image definitely is a time-series plot where you would see a spike-like projection if there was a rapid increase and a rapid decrease afterwards. <S> But people are more concerned about the consequences of any rapid increase, so the term came to be used more broadly. <S> If you imagine a graph depicting the rate of change, rather than the level of the quantity, then an abrupt increase followed by a leveling off or a decline will always look like a spike. <S> But I am not sure people thought it through in that much detail.
| In practice, a spike in something really refers to any abrupt increase, even if the decrease afterwards is not abrupt. In practice, they are used reasonably interchangeably, in my experience.
|
Use of the present tense along with simple past The following sounds awfully ungrammatical: He called the cops on us before the show begins. But can this be said if the show begins at 7:00 and the call was made before 7:00? What other cases could possibly make this sentence valid? Is the sentence valid at all? <Q> I don’t think it’s grammatically correct. <S> I would go with <S> He called the cops on us before the show began . <S> I believe you can write it leaving out began . <S> He called the cops on us before the show . <A> According to Cambridge dictionary preposition on can be used as used to show who suffers when something does not operate as it should Example <S> The phone suddenly went dead on me. <S> Their car broke down on them on the way home. <S> In this sentence the people(us) suffered by the calling of cops even before the show had begun. <S> This structure is quite common in informal English but a more appropriate construction would be He called the cops on us before the show had begun. <A> In describing your situation, he's called the cops—but the show hasn't begun yet. <S> It sounds like you want to express two different things: <S> He called the cops. <S> The show hasn't begun yet. <S> The first is in the past tense and the second is in the present tense. <S> You are correct that this is ungrammatical: <S> ✘ <S> He called the cops on us before the show begins. <S> This would be correct, except that it puts the first verb into the present tense: <S> ❔ He calls the cops on us before the show begins. <S> This also would be correct, except that it leaves the meaning of the sentence ambiguous: <S> ❔ He called the cops on us before the show began. <S> It is also grammatical, but it's not clear if the show has yet to start, or if it's already started, when the sentence is uttered. <S> So, it's not what you want either. <S> In order to make your meaning clear, you're going to have to do it by turning it into two clauses with a conjunction: <S> ✔ <S> He called the cops on us, (and <S> / but) the show hasn't started yet. <S> This is grammatical, natural, and conveys the meaning you want—even though it loses some of the simplicity of any of the single-clause sentences. <S> It's something that might be said to a third party about events that have transpired. <S> (Note that it's more natural to use started here than begun .)
| It is grammatical, but it doesn't convey the sense you want.
|
Complementing an indirect object Although the sentence is weird, I am wondering if it's grammatical: The branch was cut with a sword wielded by a swordsman . The problem is that "wielded by a swordsman" complements an indirect object "a sword", not sure if this is allowed. I am thinking it is, but we can never be too sure. <Q> " wielded by a swordsman " is a participle phrase acting as an adjective on sword . <S> The branch was cut with a sword. <S> The sword was wielded by a swordsman. <S> Thus: The branch was cut with a sword wielded by a swordsman. <S> You can parse it as <S> (The branch) (was cut) (with a (sword (wielded by a swordsman))) <S> It's an odd phrasing, but it's perfectly grammatical. <A> Agreed, nothing wrong with it. <S> It's just redundant, as a swordsman , by definition, cuts things with his sword . <S> However, since it's a bad idea to go around hacking up trees with one's sword (as it's not made for that task) <S> it might not be clear from swordsman <S> what tool was used. <S> So it's semantically odd -- suppose he used an axe? <S> Then why call him a "swordsman" at all? <S> Anyway, the real awkwardness comes from the passive voice. <S> If you change it to the active voice, you can write the sentence to include an explanation: <S> Since no other tool was available, the swordsman used his sword to chop down a few branches to make a fire, silently cursing the hours he's have to spend sharpening it afterward. <A> The branch was cut with [ a sword wielded by a swordsman ]. <S> But "sword" is not an indirect object <S> (there is no indirect object anywhere). <S> Its function is that of complement of the preposition "with". <S> The bracketed element is a noun phrase in which "sword" is modified by the past-participial clause in bold. <S> Semantically, past-participials (and gerund-participials) as modifiers in NP structure are similar to relative clauses, compare a sword that was wielded by a swordsman . <S> And past-participials are bare passives, as your example shows.
| It's perfectly grammatical, but a tad odd semantically (see Andrew's answer).
|
Do you use another terminology for bibliography when you use only links instead of books, quotes, etc.? I am developing new software and I want to have a list of resources for the web pages that I have used to develop this software. Example of my-resources.txt: - https://tutorialxyz.com/xxxx- https://domainxyz.com/xxxx- ... Do you use bibliography for this type of file or do you use another name? In Spanish we use webgrafía , maybe in English it could be webgraphy ? I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webography UPDATE 2019/03/17 I asked to other software developers, in this case, one of them is from UK and the other one is from USA. They tell that they usually use "webography" but sometimes they saw "webliography" too. I hope have explained this properly :S. Thanks!. <Q> In English, a bibliography is a bibliography, regardless of the media referred to. <S> Depending on what you're doing, you may need to be careful to use it correctly. <S> If it is a list of things you've used, or suggest that people read, that is a bibliography. <S> In some parts of academia, this is distinguished from a reference list , which is a list of things referred to in the text . <S> The coinage of webography is still new, and mostly used when talking about such lists, rather than as the heading or title for the list. <S> It is not a word that everyone would generally recognise. <A> For what it's worth, I develop software too. <S> I have never heard the word 'webography' before, but I suppose it is appropriate if you are only including URLs of websites. <S> It means, in essence, 'bibliography of websites'. <S> However, it is such a new word that some people may not know what it is. <S> To my mind, if you are storing it as a plain text file, there is nothing wrong with calling it 'my-resources.txt', or what about the traditional 'readme.txt'? <S> I think it is an uncommon enough item that you can, to an extent, make up your own rules. <A> I would avoid the neologism "webgraphy" and simply call such a list a "list of resources", "list of links to resources", "list of resource URLs" or the like. <S> It could be called a "Bibliography of online resources". <S> There is the precedant of "Discology" for a list of recorded music, but I don't think "webgraphy" is well enough established for use. <S> In fact, I am thinking that I should propose the deletion of the linked Wikipedia article.
| In your case, I would use bibliography, or just not use any name and say "list of web resources that were useful during development" or such.
|
Equivalents to the present tense Do this to avoid having to do the dishes. Do this to not do the dishes. I am not sure what tense the first sentence is, I feel it's in the simple present too, but I am not sure. Is there a temporal difference in meaning between the two? I feel the difference is that the first one implies doing the dishes is an obligation, but there doesn't seem to be a "temporal difference in meaning". <Q> ** <S> EDIT <S> ** <S> I see SamBC answered before me, and his answer is probably better and more accurate. <S> Just adding this in case it includes anything of use. <S> ** <S> END EDIT <S> ** <S> "Have to" is a fixed phrase meaning 'to be obligated [to do something in the infinitive]', so it is easiest to think of it as if it were a single verb rather than two words, when parsing. <S> Consider this phrase: <S> Why am I doing the dishes? <S> Because I have to . <S> For an English learner, it probably looks completely wrong. <S> In effect the sentence is being ended by a floating auxiliary 'to' from a verb which isn't even included ('do' is being implied). <S> But it is a very common English construction. <S> In this case the verb "have to do" is in the gerund form. <S> Why? <S> Because it is following a verb which can be (and commonly is) followed by the gerund form . <S> I avoid running for the bus. <S> He wants to avoid doing his English grammar homework. <S> Therefore, these sentences are equally correct: <S> We all avoided having to do the dishes. <S> You never avoid having to run for the bus. <S> The tense of the sentence depends on the first verb: avoid. <S> If avoid is present tense, then the sentence is present. <S> If you said: I avoided having to do the dishes. <S> then it would be past. <S> In your sentence you have the present infinitive. <A> It's simple present imperative, just like the second. <S> They just have the adverbial of purpose ("to...") phrased differently. <S> The first uses a catenative, where a verb takes another verb or verb phrase as its argument. <S> Avoid is catenative, with having to do the dishes as its argument. <S> To have here can also be described as a catenative verb, but it's easier to just think of it as a modal auxiliary showing obligation. <S> As a catenative, avoid takes a gerund or gerund phrase, representing the action that you are avoiding. <S> That action is having to do the dishes. <S> Thus, it is avoiding the obligation to do the dishes. <S> You could simplify it by removing the explicit obligation: <S> Do this to avoid doing the dishes . <S> In all of these versions, the principal verb is the first do , and the other verbs - avoid , having , and the second do ( <S> whether it's negated or not) - are in non-finite forms, and have nothing to indicate time. <S> Non-finite verbs can have indications of time, but often they do not. <S> Thus, there is no difference in time between them - one simple expresses, with clarity, that doing ' this ' will allow you to avoid the obligation to do the dishes. <S> The other says that doing ' this ' will allow you to not do the dishes. <S> The eventual meaning is the same, the difference is there but is not of practical importance, and there is no difference in time between the two. <A> Do this to avoid having to do the dishes . <S> Do this to not do the dishes. <S> No, they are not simple present. <S> They both have embedded infinitival clauses functioning as purpose adjuncts, the first containing a further embedded gerund-participial clause as catenative complement of "avoid", which in turn contains a further embedded infinitival clause as catenative complement of "having". <S> The second is quite unnatural. <S> Stick with the first.
| These are both imperative clauses, which use the plain form of the verb and thus are tenseless, though finite.
|
Kids! You're (disgusted/disgusting)! Don't talk with your mouths full! adjective when ended with ed or ing Kids! You're ( disgusted / disgusting )! Don't talk with your mouths full! I would like to know why the answer is disgusting? <Q> Present participles (V-ing) are active and are used to express that the person (in this case) in question causes a certain feeling, such as disgust: <S> You are disgusting = <S> You cause disgust <S> Instead, past participles (V-ed) are passive and are used to express that the person in question experiences a certain feeling: <S> You are disgusted = <S> You experience disgust <S> Similar pairs are: boring/bored <S> You are boring (you cause boredom) <S> / You are bored (you experience boredom) <S> interesting/interested <S> You are interesting (you arouse interest) <S> / You are interested (you show interest) <S> amusing/amused <S> You are amusing (you cause amusement) <S> / You are amused (you experience amusement) <A> The question you have to answer is WHO is being disgusted and by whom. <S> That's to say, who is behaving in a disgusting manner and who is being upset by that behaviour. <S> If the kids are disgusting, it is the kids who are behaving in an upsetting manner - and it is this behaviour that leaves (presumably) their parents feeling disgusted. <S> If the kids are disgusted themselves, it is the kids who are upset and not their parents. <S> So, if you say: I am disgusted you are saying that you yourself are upset by something or somebody. <S> If you say: I am disgusting you are saying that it is your behaviour/habits (or similar) that upset other people. <A> It can be helpful, when there are adjectives that are based on forms of verbs, to think about the verb sense. <S> If someone "has been disgusted" 1 , something has affected how they feel. <S> If they "are disgusting", they are affecting how other people feel. <S> Consider: <S> I'm sorry that I disgust you . <S> I'm sorry that you're disgusted by me . <S> The thing doing the disgusting , the subject, is the thing that prompts the disgusted reaction. <S> The first example has the verb to disgust in the active voice, the second in the passive. <S> Thus, anyone who is disgusting is the one doing something that causes people to feel disgusted . <S> The person saying the example is disgusted by the kids speaking with their mouths full; the kids are disgusting the speaker, so the kids are disgusting <S> 1 <S> : The adjective use of disgusted has more or less completely displaced its use as a real past participle, but this is about thinking how it could be used as a verb. <S> The verb to disgust isn't really used so much, but it is what gives us the adjectives <S> disgusted and disgusting . <A> We add the -ing ending to a verb to talk about the verb's action, and the -ed ending to talk about its effect. <S> If something is tiring, it makes people feel tired. <S> Adjectives ending -ing and -ed
| If something is disgusting, it makes people feel disgusted.
|
What do you call the act of synchronizing your flight to that of another plane so that you remain on its side never overtaking it? I am not quite sure if there's any word for this very precise idea, but I would like to know how I can succinctly express it. So I am looking for a verb or a noun that would allow me to express the idea of a plane or many planes synchronizing its or their flight to another reference plane either in the middle of the group or not, or next if it's a single plane or not, so that they remain on it's side and never overtake the reference plane or fall behind, where we would never have a V shape formation, a \ formation and whatnot, just a _ formation so to speak. For example: The planes flew side by side next to Jimmy's plane so as to form a straight line. <Q> That would be " flying in formation ". <S> The pattern of two flying side by side is the formation. <S> Alternatively, if you are just maintaining position relative to it without its cooperation, it would be keeping pace with the other plane. <A> It is in origin a nautical term for ships in the same formation. <S> Whether it is still used by modern pilots, I have no idea. <S> It does at least seem like a phrase the reader would have a decent chance of working out for themselves, if they had never seen it before. <S> *Douglas Bader FTW <A> When plane B flys keeping pace with plane A, it is often said to fly "on A's wing" and if this is habitual, the pilot of B may be said to be the "wingman" of the pilot of A. <S> This implies that B is beside, and perhaps slightly behind A. <S> It is originally a military formation, and the terms is still primarily used in that context, or in metaphoric extensions of it. <S> If a set of three or more plains fly in a diagonal line, so that the second is beside and behind the first, and th third further beside and behind the second, they may be said to fly "in echelon". <S> This is again originally and primarily a military term. <S> But then formation flying is primarily a military practice. <S> "On the wing of" is both more specific and less formal than "in formation". <S> Metaphorically when two friends go out together, particularly two young men, one may be said to be the other's "wingman". <S> This implies that the wingman is there largely to assist the first person, perhaps in finding a date.
| If you are looking for a phrase which specifically refers to planes flying exactly side by side, I recall from reading books about the Second World War RAF* that it is called ' line abreast '.
|
What are idioms that are antonymous to "don't skimp on"? The idiom "don't skimp on" means don't be shy and put as much as necessary. I am now wondering if there are idioms that mean the opposite of that. I am sure there are many, but it's hard to look for idioms since you can't look them up on a dictionary unless you know them. For example: Please, don't skimp on the butter. It's good stuff! <Q> " <S> "Be sparing with ..." <S> "Don't get carried away with the ..." "Take it easy with the ..." "Be judicious with ..." <S> "Use a light touch with the ..." or even the simple, "Not too much ..." <A> We are unlikely to use the antonym in the imperative form. <S> We don't tell people to "use less than is needed". <S> There are plenty of ways to describe someone using less of something <S> He was scrimping (and saving) <S> He was being frugal <S> He was stingy <S> He was mean with the butter <S> He was being careful with the butter. <S> These have a different nuance. <S> Being "frugal" and "careful" are generally positive. <S> Being mean or stingy are negative. <A> Please give me [just adjectives] - just a little butter. <S> - a tad of butter. <S> - just a dab of butter.- just a teeny bit of butter. <S> Actual idioms: <S> Please go light on the butter. <S> To go light on butter or cream or sugar. <S> Anything you add to food or drink. <S> Please don't overdo it on the butter. <S> [not too much, same as above] <S> Please hold off on the butter. <S> [not any]
| You could say:"Go easy on the ..." "Light on the ..." "Don't over-do it on ...
|
Usage of the word "Paucity" What word should pair with paucity when paucity is being decreased? For example, if there is a paucity of food and new supply has arrived, would it be a correct usage to say "New supply has decreased the paucity of food" . "Reduce" as an alternative to "decrease" has crossed my mind. Google didn't help much. <Q> "New supply has decreased paucity" is awkward, and potentially unclear, and at least arguably incorrect. <S> One could write <S> The new supply has decreased the paucity of food. <S> However, that is a somewhat stilted expression. <S> Better would be <S> or alternatively The food is no longer in as short a supply, with the new arrival. <S> or The food is now more plentiful than it was. <S> I would not use paucity when describing a change in the level, but only to describe a static condition of shortage. <S> One might say There has been a paucity of food since the drought. <S> or There is a paucity of registered socialists in the US Congress. <A> If I had to use the word paucity to describe this situation <S> I’d probably say something like <S> There is no longer a paucity of food since the new supply came in. <S> I agree with @David Siegel that the word is best used to describe the state of there being a shortage or scarcity, not a change in the amount. <S> It’s similar to the noun lack . <S> You would probably not say The new supply has decreased the lack of food. <S> That just sounds awkward. <S> One might also wonder why you wouldn’t just use language to describe what is increasing (since this is the real “action”) like <S> The new supply has increased the amount of food. <A> The state of there being a small amount of something. <S> The paucity of food has caused a resupply panic. <S> The paucity of food in the region is problematic. <S> The paucity of his words is astounding. <S> paucity is not decrease or diminish. <S> It simply means "little of something". <S> Paucity cannot be decreased. <S> It already denotes scarcity of something.
| A paucity cannot be decreased , it just is. The new supply has decreased the shortage of food.
|
"High" as an adverb? They maintained high prices. They maintained the prices high . Is there any difference between these two sentences? Is the former grammatical correct? Why or why not? <Q> They are both technically grammatical, and they both mean essentially the same thing. <S> However, the second sentence seems unidiomatic to me. <S> Typically, maintain is used in only a few ways. <S> It's first use <S> is maintain [adjective] (noun) : <S> She maintained the machinery . <S> He couldn't maintain his argument . <S> They tried to maintain their high hopes . <S> This is the construction that the first sentence takes. <S> Second, it can be (phrase) <S> (to / be) maintain : <S> There were to many components to maintain. <S> The level of excellence could not be maintained. <S> To survive, it was a feat <S> he had to maintain. <S> Last, with a difference sense of maintain , there is maintain that (phrase) : <S> I maintain that this is how it's done . <S> You maintain that you need to go to sleep . <S> We maintain that we will not be denied . <S> Your second sentence follows none of those constructions. <S> Instead, its construction follows maintain (noun) <S> [adjective] . <S> That's unusual. <S> Any of these seem normal to me: <S> They maintained the prices. <S> They maintained high prices. <S> They maintained the high prices. <S> But, typically, I would not expect to see your second sentence: <S> They maintained the prices high . <S> Instead, I'd expect to more commonly see a different verb: <S> They kept the prices high . <A> Both are grammatically correct, and strictly analytically, there is no difference between the sentences. <S> That's not to say there is no difference, as there clearly is. <S> The difference is a matter of what is being emphasized. <S> As a general rule, the earlier a word is in the sentence, the more emphasis it is given. <S> With your sentences: They maintained high prices. <S> The emphasis is on "high". <S> The maintaining is happening to high prices. <S> We care that these prices are high. <S> They maintained prices high. <S> The emphasis is on "prices". <S> The maintaining is happening to prices. <S> We care about the price... which is being maintained, as opposed to changing. <S> The high part is an afterthought, not the focus. <A> Not really First of all I would say that I see no valid purpose for the quotation marks in these two sentences. <S> The word high is not being referred to as a word, and it is not quoted from a speaker or another source. <S> Unless the author means to imply that the prices were said to be high but were not really high, and makes this clear in some nearby sentence. <S> In the second case "high" is also an adjective. <S> Most adjectives can appear either after or before the noun that they modify. <S> Perhaps the second form suggests a reference to some absolute or external standard of high price, but no such standard is included in the sentence, and the difference is a very subtle one. <S> For all practical purposes, the meaning of the two sentence is the same. <S> Consider other sentences with a simialr form: <S> The pilot kept the plane in level flight. <S> vs <S> The pilot kept the plane's flight level. <S> and another pair <S> He made a timely arrival. <S> vs <S> His arrival was timely. <S> In each case, the first, with the adjective before the noun, is a bit more natural, but the difference is hardly worth remarking. <S> In a more complex sentence, this difference might matter more. <A> Both sentences are correct, and without the context, there isn't any clear difference in meaning between the two of them. <S> However, "high" is not used as an adverb in either. <S> "High" is an adjective modifying "prices" in both of them. <S> "High" can sometimes be an adverb. <S> Examples: <S> "After we won the championship we were flying high." <S> "Even as a pre-teen, he was able to throw high and fast." <S> But the adverb "high ly ", formed from "high", is more common. <S> Examples: "That sports car is very highly rated by Consumer Reports. <S> " <S> "Rocket fuel is highly flammable."
| In each case the two sentences are of pretty much identical meaning. In the first case "high" is an adjective modifying "prices".
|
Difference between 'tips on study' and 'tips at study'? I am confused between Today i would like to give you tips on study and Today i would like to give you tips at study Can anyone explain which one should i use. <Q> Can anyone give me some tips on how to study English more efficiently? <A> If you want to know what phrase is idiomatically the most common, it wouldn't be either of them. <S> The most common would be: <S> Today, I would like to give you study tips . <S> You could also use: Today, I would like to give you tips on <S> how to study. <S> Today, I would like to give you tips on studying . <S> At least in terms of writing, you can see this from Google Books Ngram Viewer : <S> Notice the frequency of the variations, and the fact that where a preposition is used, it's on , not at . <S> (And I actually queried tips at how , not just tips at how to study , and got no hits for anything.) <A> According to Oxford's advanced learner's dictionary tips on sth/tips for sth/tips for/on doing sth are acceptable
| Tips on is what is more commonly said in the US in my opinion.
|
Why is "bad news seemS" and not "bad news seem"? In an online English test I found that "bad news seem" is wrong, the correct would be "bad news seems" as in the sentence: Bad news seems to be more attractive than good news. I'm considering news is a plural, but I could be wrong. Someone said about uncountable nouns. Other said about news being singular. Could anyone explain to me why the use of the "s" and also if news is both singular what and uncountable and how can I tell if any other word follows the same conjugation? <Q> "News is not the plural of "A new". "News" is an uncountable noun. <S> For example, we say, Is there much news today? <S> (not "Are there many news today?") <S> Uncountable nouns are singular and so the third person singular form of the verb is used. <S> Therefore bad news seems... <S> is correct. <A> Why the use of s in seem_s_: <S> News is a collection of information on recent events. <S> We cannot count how many is in the collection, so the noun news is uncountable. <S> We don't say "8 news", "many news" or "I've got a news" because 8, many and a can be counted. <S> What we do is: Add a quantifier to make news countable and say: "8 articles of news" <S> Use much for uncountable nouns and say: "much news" Omit " <S> a" and say: "I've got news" <S> News has a plural ending <S> (the s in news makes it appear plural; there is no "newses") and followed by a singular verb. <S> Hence, "news seems " is correct. <S> Is news both singular what and uncountable? <S> News is an uncountable noun that take singular verbs (new_s_ seems ) and use singular forms of words such as this or that (" this news seems good", " that news was good"). <S> How can I tell if any other word follows the same conjugation? <S> I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but on the subject - verb agreement of words such as news, " Uncountable nouns that have a plural ending (mathematics, academics, aerodynamics etc.) <S> take a singular verb, so the verb is conjugated in the singular:"Mathematics fascinates me. <S> ""Mathematics has fascinated me." <S> Therefore, these types of words follow the same conjugation. <S> I hope this is helpful. <A> That's why the 's' is there. <S> However, over time, people thought of it as a kind of stuff, not a bunch of things - that is, a mass or uncountable noun. <S> Since uncountable nouns are treated as singular for verb agreement, I would argue that both answers you heard were correct.
| Historically, "news" was actually the plural of "new".
|
"Break the doubt with certainty", is there such a phrase? If I wanted to confront someone, suppose a girl, whom I doubt of doing certain things, but still not sure if she is the one who actually did them. So, I go to her and say: I'm here to overcome my doubts about you by asking you directly if you did this and this...etc My question: Is there a common/known phrase or maybe idiom that summarizes that saying (doesn't necessarily have to be that one, but anything with the same case)? I think there's a phrase that would be similar to break the doubt with certainty , but I searched it on the internet and found nothing similar to it. I have used "break" as in the idiom "Break the news" where it isn't used literally; however, I don't want it to mean "reveal". <Q> Clear up Clarify, explain, solve, as in: <S> Let's try to clear up this misunderstanding. <S> Straighten out To resolve, clarify, or organize some confusion, disorder, or misunderstanding. <S> A noun or pronoun can be used between "straighten" and "out." <S> I need to go straighten things out between me and Sandy. <S> The project got so muddled that they had to bring in an outside advisor to <S> straighten it all out. <S> Please straighten out those files before you go. <S> Sort out To understand or resolve a problem or conflict. <S> A noun can be used between "sort" and "out." <S> They brought in the head of human resources to sort the issue out. <S> I've spent nearly an hour on this math problem, but I still can't sort it out. <S> Come clean To admit something to someone, often regarding a wrongdoing that one has tried to hide. <S> I need you to come clean with me and tell me what happened. <A> ("Shut up!" <S> he explained.) <S> If you get rid of the doubts by removing any sensible basis for them, you "dispel" them. <A> As for your example sentence- one thing I would do as an American English speaker is to replace the word <S> doubts with the word suspicions - to overcome suspicions sounds better to me than to overcome doubts . <S> I think for this example sentence the phrases suggested by Kyle in his answer <S> are all good, as well as “clear the air” as suggested by Canadian Yankee. <S> “Smooth things over” is a phrase with a similar meaning also. <S> In terms of the phrase you mention that you translate as “break the doubt with certainty”, sometimes expressions in other languages sound awkward when translated into English literally. <S> Though I understand your frustration at not having an exact translation, I am not sure there is a particular idiom that exactly matches the original (either in overall meaning or in using the same words). <S> The best I can think of is let the truth speak for itself .
| If you get rid of the doubts by ignoring them, you "quash" those doubts.
|
Started in 1987 vs. Starting in 1987 I think both started and starting make sense. Which is preferred? Is there any subtle difference in meaning? Started in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. Starting in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <Q> The two sentences are both grammatically correct, but they mean different things. <S> Started in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> The above sentence says two things: that the festival was started in 1987, and that the festival exhibits mangoes. <S> (This sentence would be clearer if it said "First held in 1987" instead of "Started in 1987".) <S> Starting in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> This sentence still sounds a little awkward, though. <S> I would phrase it like this: <S> Each year starting in 1987, the festival has exhibited more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <A> Your first sentence sounds fine and natural to me. <S> Started in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> We are standing in the present ("exhibits" and "provides") looking back into the past ("started"). <S> In the past it was started, now it exhibits. <S> It's clear that the festival itself started in 1987, and that the present activities are "exhibiting" and "providing". <S> Your second sentence sounds a little odd. <S> Starting in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> We are in the past ("starting") progressing towards the future (or the present, or the more recent past). <S> Then suddenly we're in the present ("exhibits" and "provides") and (grammatically speaking) <S> we don't know how we got here! <S> It sounds like the "exhibiting" and "providing" started in 1987, not the festival. <S> A third way is: Starting in 1987, the festival ( has ) exhibited more than 550 varieties of mangoes and ( has ) provided a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> Now everything happens in the past, however, I don't think this is what you want. <S> It would appear this festival is still being run, so you want to use the present tense. <S> Of course there are other tenses you could use as well as some that wouldn't work, and whichever tenses you decide to use should be consistent with each other. <S> Fix your grammatical feet in once base tense (most likely the present), and go from there. <A> To summarize: Started in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> Meaning: <S> The festival held in 1987 for the first time. <S> Starting in 1987, the festival exhibits more than 550 varieties of mangoes and provides a rare opportunity to taste them all for free. <S> Meaning: <S> The festival exhibited varieties of mangoes in 1987 for the first time. <A> The second version uses a present participle to refer to a past action. <S> At best, it is awkward and arguably, it is grammatically incorrect.
| The above sentence says that the festival exhibits mangoes, and that 1987 is the year that the festival started doing that. There is a thin difference in the meaning of both the sentences which becomes very obvious if we look closely.
|
Put the phone down / Put down the phone what's the difference between "Put the phone down" and "Put down the phone"? Is it the same? As for me the first one means literally to put the phone (the thing) down and the last one is to end the conversation, am I right? <Q> They both mean the same thing. <S> You can say "Put down the [something]" or "Put the [something] down". <S> Using old fashioned, wired, phones, you terminate a call by replacing the receiver in its cradle ("putting it down"). <S> On a modern mobile or cordless phone, you have to to press a button or touch a place on the screen. <S> For either of these actions, people can say they "put down", or even "hang up" the phone. <A> The actual meaning is the same, but in normal conversation I would be more likely to say "put the phone down", but if I lost patience with you because you are not listening this would turn to "Put Down The Phone". <A> Perhaps some people think they're different <S> but, if you want to communicate clearly, you shouldn't rely on people picking up such subtle differences. <A> They mean the same thing, but there can be differences of emphasis. <S> For instance, if someone is holding two things, you might say "Put the phone down" to make it clear that you're just talking about putting that one thing down. <S> However, this is a very slight nuance, and when speaking you can use tone of voice to override it. <S> " <S> Put the phone down " emphasizes "down" by saying it more forcefully. <A> The difference between the two sentence variations amounts to a principle of grammatical best practice that urges a speaker never to split a verb and its auxiliary preposition unnecessarily. <S> "Put down the knife!" <S> not "Put the knife down!" <S> "The student looked up the definition" not "The student looked the definition up." <S> However, recognizing when not to split up a prepositional phrase requires a certain fluency in English rather than a hard-and-fast rule. <S> "Could you please switch it off? <S> " not "Could you please switch off it?"
| In general, the phrase with more significance often comes back, so "Put the phone down" emphasizes draws attention to the phone, while "Put down the phone" emphasizes the action of putting it down. I don't think there's any difference between the two phrases.
|
What can be used instead of the word 'depressed'? I heard that 'depressed' is used for serious conditions such as melancholiacs. Then what word could be used for daily lives? <Q> 'Depressed' is used in a multitude of ways by English speakers, and its meaning may even be evolving at the present time. <S> It is used in a strict technical sense, but also in a more casual and lazy way by speakers to mean anything between 'a minor case of the blues' to 'severe mental health challenges'. <S> As Virolino said, if you say: I feel depressed on rainy days. <S> Most people will immediately understand that you mean <S> I often feel a bit sad on rainy days. <S> Technically, that person is not depressed at all (does not have clinical depression), and some would probably suggest that we should be phasing out this casual usage as it can both stereotype and belittle genuine sufferers. <S> If society is trying to reduce the stigma associated with depression and mental illness, it does not help to have people suggesting it is the same thing as a minor case of the glums. <S> So, I would suggest you are right to try to find more accurate descriptions for cases of ephemeral sadness to cases of serious clinical depression. <S> I feel a bit sad. <S> I sometimes feel blue. <S> He's not on top form. <S> Her mood is affected by the weather. <S> I feel really sad. <S> They are suffering from (clinical) depression. <S> It may even be helpful to avoid the verb 'to be depressed' entirely (if talking of mental illness, and not 'I depressed the button with my finger'), because it is used so carelessly to mean many different things. ' <S> Depression' is the illness, and is less likely to be underestimated or misinterpreted. <S> I have depression. <S> Is clearly about someone with clinical depression. <S> I am depressed. <S> Can mean just about anything on the scale of sadness. <A> I feel depressed on rainy days. <S> It is perfectly fine. <S> As I presented in a comment earlier, you can also use: feel blue , feel down , apathetic . <S> If you use a dictionary (there are plenty on the net) you can find other synonyms. <A>
| You can use: despondent, desolated, devastated
|
Which Tense is appropriate to tell Fact Telling in English Past or Simple Present tense? While introducing someone if I Use past tense sentence is it correct to say or not? a) I joined this company in the year 2005. Reason being I am asking this question is because this is fact which I am telling and to tell fact we use Present tense.So can we use present tense also? b) I join this company in the year 2005. Similarly, If I clear the exam and want to tell this to my parents. a) I cleared the Exam. (Past Tense) b) I clear the Exam (Present Tense) Which one is the correct Tense to describe fact? <Q> The simple present can be used for facts, but only for statements of general truth (or absolutely current things), and even then it's not always idiomatic. <S> Your joining the company is very specific, about you and the company, so it is not a statement of general truth. <S> The same for 'clearing' the exam, whatever that might mean. <S> Those both want to be given in a tense that signifies past time, as they both happened in the past. <A> You're mistaken about this: to tell fact we use Present tense. <S> By which you seem to be saying: to tell facts we have to use the present tense, not the past tense. <S> If so, I don't know who's 'we', but that's not how English works. <S> (a) <S> I joined this company in the year 2005. <S> (a) is a factual statement about a past event. <S> In fact, when you describe a past event, you'd normally have to use the past tense, not the present tense. <S> Therefore, (b) is ungrammatical: <S> (b <S> ) *I join this company in the year 2005. <S> The difference between the present simple tense and the past simple tense is not that only the former denotes a fact but that the latter is limited to a specific past time whereas the former generally is not. <A> The other answers are right on, and present tense is incorrect. <S> For statement 2, you could also use present perfect: "I have cleared the exam. <S> " <S> You wouldn't want to do that for statement 1 though, because present perfect cannot correctly be used to refer to a specific time in the past (because it's a present tense). <A> I understand your question, that you are concerned speaking in the past tense ("I joined") makes it sound like you worked there in the past, not in the present. <S> You have to say "joined", because the moment of your joining was in the past. <S> However, the fact that you say "I joined this company" and not "I joined the company" makes it pretty clear that you are still working there. <S> If you were telling a story about somewhere that you used to work then you would probably name that company and then refer to it as "the company". <S> Saying " this company" puts it in the present quite clearly. <S> If you wanted to make it even more obvious than that, you could instead say: I have worked here since ... <S> [date] " <S> Since" refers to the time period between the date you specify and the time under consideration, which in this case is the present. <A> It is possible to use the Simple Present to retell a personal story or an important historical event. <S> We use this construction in narratives and history books to make events seem more alive and real to our readers. <S> This tense is known as the historical present , also called the historic present , dramatic present , and narrative present . <S> Here is one example that I made up: <S> At the age of twenty <S> I join the army, <S> I learn about medicine and sport and help <S> the injured to become stronger, fitter and regain their self confidence. <S> Three years later, in 1980, I follow my calling and leave the army to become a swimming instructor in the Netherlands... <S> Note that the above paragraph is firmly established in the past, I even included a specific date,1980. <S> Richard Nordquist, linguist and former English professor, provides the following example, <S> "There is a famous story of President Abraham Lincoln, taking a vote at a cabinet meeting on whether to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. <S> All his cabinet secretaries vote nay, whereupon Lincoln raises his right hand and declares : 'The ayes have it.'" <S> That's not to say the historical present is always correct, it has to be used with discretion. <S> If we look at the OP's examples we see they are short and devoid of further context, using the historical present would serve little purpose. <S> 1. <S> I join Google in 2005. <S> (HP) <S> 2. <S> I joined Google in 2005. <S> (SP) <S> Without further context, some listeners might dismiss the first sentence as being ungrammatical (it's not) but by adding another clause things improve. <S> 3. <S> I pass my university exams and immediately join Google in 2005 <S> Here is a similar version using the Simple Past 4. <S> I earned my degree and immediately joined Google in 2005 <S> To sum up, it is far more common (and preferable) to use the Simple Past for events and short factual statements that happened in the past, see examples 2 and 4. <S> However, the Historical Present is a useful rhetorical device (to be used sparingly) that can evoke immediacy and tension in a story, be it real or make believe.
| The past simple tense as well as the present simple tense can be used to make a factual statement.
|
‘Whether or not’ VS ‘whether’ He wants to know whether we want dinner. He wants to know whether or not we want dinner. What is the difference between two sentences above？ <Q> He wants to know [ whether (or not) we want dinner ]. <S> The inclusion of "or not" is entirely optional here, though one might say that it's redundant. <S> The bracketed expression is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question) functioning as complement of "know". <S> The meaning can be glossed as " <S> He wants to know the answer to the question 'Do we want dinner (or not)?'" <A> Semantically, there is no difference. <S> There is a difference in how they tend to be used, I believe, though I suspect it is dialect-dependent. <S> In my experience (native British English speaker), we would tend to use the first when it's simply an offer. <S> The second is used when there's a possible expectation that dinner will be provided. <S> Depending on tone and context, it might be that everyone knew he would be feeding you and something has happened that calls it into question. <S> It might also be used if you're going to be spending the evening at someone's home <S> and it unclear <S> if good manners mean they should be expected to provide dinner. <S> The second would also be used, as in many "whether ... or not" cases, when someone is impatient for an answer. <A> It's similar to the "at" added to the end of "Where's the dog at? <S> " - it's not necessary and the entire meaning could be conveyed with a simpler "Where's the dog?" <S> In both examples, the question is "Do you want dinner, or not?". <S> The word "whether" incorporates the "or not", but sometimes people choose to be more explicit. <S> Over time, it just becomes part of the language, and is more of a turn of phrase than a grammatical necessity. <S> You could, perhaps, assign a slight semantic difference in meaning. <S> For the purposes of this example I'll simplify the scenario to a "One person asking another", but it applies to your example too. <S> The sentence <S> Do you want dinner? <S> Is more likely to be seen as an open-ended "Do you want to eat?", eg "Should we make dinner?" <S> or while Do you want dinner, or not? Is more akin to "I've made some dinner, do you want some of it?" <S> That's very minor and certainly isn't a grammatical rule <S> , it's just a difference in the context they are most likely to be used. <S> This is also likely to be dependant on your locale: in some areas this difference is more pronounced, in others the two would have identical meanings
| There's no grammatical difference or difference in meaning: the "or not" is just an informal addition to the sentence, often seen in colloquial and informal language.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.