source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
"The cow" OR "a cow" OR "cows" in this context Article before a common noun: The cow--- a particular cow. A cow--- any cow. Cow s. ---all of them. But while reading an essay on cow , we usually get to see: The cow is a very useful domestic animal. In my opinion I should be: Cows are very useful domestic animals. And the title should be Cows instead of The cow. Please help. Thank you. <Q> This is a special usage of the word "the". <S> It is listed in the MacMillan <S> Dictionary <S> under definition #2 as follows, "used before a singular noun when making a general statement about people or things of a particular type" They give two examples: <S> The average university student is not very interested in politics. <S> People have come to depend on the car as their only means of transport. <S> Used in this way, "the + singular noun" means basically the same thing as that same noun pluralized: the cow = cows <S> the English garden = <S> English gardens <S> the computer = computers <S> This construction is very common in titles and introductory sentences within paragraphs and chapters because it has a certain air of scholarliness about it that the simple plural form just doesn't convey. <A> It's a difference between the abstract and the concrete. <S> Adding "the" before a noun this way changes the meaning, from actual instances of the concept to the concept itself . <S> Other answers have stated correctly that semantically the two are equivalent but one just "sounds" more formal or more academic. <S> That's true, but I believe the reason is that "the cow" refers to the concept of cows, whereas "cows" refers more directly to, well, actual cows; and speaking at the conceptual level is common in scholarly writing. <A> Cows refers to all of them. <S> It's slightly more formal to write of "the cow" than "cows", and is normally preferred in an essay. <A> A cow is a useful domestic animal. <S> is semantically equivalent to: <S> Cows are useful domestic animals. <S> ANDThe cow is a useful domestic animal. <S> Usually, the use with <S> the is more academic. <S> In everyday language, we tend to use the plural. <S> So, in fact, any of them could be used in a title. <A> You have only recognised three meanings for the grammatical forms. <S> There are at least six: <S> Introduce into context <S> a cow - used to introduce a single cow into context cows - used to introduce multiple cows into context <S> Cows were grazing by the side of the road. <S> A cow wandered off. <S> Refer to existing context <S> the cow - a single cow already in context the cows - multiple cows already in context <S> The cow wandered into town. <S> The other cows returned to the farm. <S> Refer to entire species <S> the cow - the species known as "cow" cows - all individuals of the species "cow" <S> The cow is a bovine. <S> Cows are large animals. <S> Both the original and your sentence are correct to refer to the entire species: <S> The cow is a very useful domestic animal . <S> Cows are very useful domestic animals .
| The cow is a common way of referring to a species, as well as just a specific individual cow.
|
Is there a word for the censored part of a video? Sometimes, TV shows censor people's faces with pixels that hide the details, I am wondering if there's a noun for that, because I am trying to say something in an idiomatic way, but I find it hard without being able to refer to it. For example, look at this sentence: They removed the censored part , thereby showing the face of the person who decided to speak in anonymity. Censored part sounds odd in this context, so is there a better alternative? <Q> You can write: They removed the pixelation , thereby showing the face of the person who decided to speak in anonymity. <S> Wikipedia gives "pixelization", but pixelate appears more common. <S> Many will write "pixelated" even when it would be more correct to use another word (eg <S> I News referring to a blurred image as "pixelated"): <S> blurred out (if the image is made blurry) <S> blacked out (made black) <S> blanked out (made black or white) <S> blocked out <S> masked out (any kind of blurring/rectangle/pixelation which prevents you seeing the face) <S> So you can have <S> If it is actually censorship and not privacy, you can also write <S> The removed the censoring / censorship , thereby showing the offensive symbol <S> Very occasionally you see redaction bar <S> Guardian which would be appropriate for both privacy and censorship. <S> You could certainly write <S> They removed the redaction , thereby showing the face ... <S> "Redaction" is quite a formal word. <A> You ask if there's a noun for it. <S> There is: pixelation. <S> So you could say They removed the pixelation from the face of ... . <S> You could also use unpixelate or depixelate: <S> They unpixelated the face of the person ... . <S> or They depixelated the face of the person ... . <S> or They deobfuscated the face of the person ... . <S> Of course, you can say unpixelated the video, unpixelated that portion of the video that had obscured the face of ... . <S> Etc. <S> You can search online and find many examples of unpixelate and depixelate. <A> That type of censoring is called "pixelation" or "mosaic", so you can say "They removed the censoring mosaic...". <S> Or you could just say "they removed the censorship..." <S> The "censored part" would refer not to the mosaic, but to the face that was being hidden, or possibly the section of the video that contained censoring. <S> This would not reveal the face that had been hidden. <S> Note that hiding faces in this way is usually about privacy, not censorship <A> better alternative: uncensored <S> Removing a censor is pretty much impossible; the data is lost. <S> Likely what you have is the original uncensored video . <S> They removed the censored part <S> released the uncensored video which shows the face of a person who had requested anonymity, which was previously obfuscated through the use of [words in the other answers].
| When it's done as pixels, we use pixelated and pixelation . They removed the blurring , thereby showing the face ...
|
Is there a better way to say "see someone's dreams"? By dream I mean the dreams you experience during sleep. Saying "see my dream" sounds weird, I think "experienced" would be a better word, but even then it sounds awkward. The following example makes clear what I mean: Dreams are boring, but weird. You haven't seen my dreams, sweetheart. They're exciting and fun for the most part. <Q> It is a little weird, but the idea that you want to express is a little weird. <S> In a wider sense, consider "You don't (or can't) share my dreams." <A> As James's answer mentions, this is a bit of an abstract concept to begin with, but You haven't dreamt my dreams. <S> might have the connotation that you are seeking. <S> This implies that the "sweetheart" has never experienced first-hand in his/her own dreams what the dreamer has experienced. <A> When people talk about their dreams, they almost always talk about dreams they've had : You wouldn't believe the dream I had last night. <S> I've been having these strange dreams lately! <S> So, in your sentence, it would most likely be: <S> You haven't had my dreams, sweetheart. <S> They're exciting and fun for the most part. <S> It would be highly unusual for anybody to talk about seeing dreams. <S> Especially since most people also hear things in dreams. <S> (Other senses are also possible.) <S> In fact, if you don't say that you've had a dream, you would just say, as you mention, that you've experienced a dream. <S> But if you don't like how experienced sounds, go with had —which is more common.
| "You haven't seen my dreams" is the best expression. In the exact context, I'd probably just say "Not my dreams, they're exciting and fun"
|
Do you twist your pillow when you sleep Some people have the habit of moving their pillow and also twisting it (it makes them feel more comfortable). So is it natural to use "twist" in this context? If not, what are the more common alternatives? Do you twist your pillow when you sleep? Is the use of "twist" natural? P.S. It's just twisted randomly and not along a plane. It becomes a little spiral shapedand not a square (like when it's folded. It's two ends don't overlap each other.) <Q> I think "to fold" fits better the situation you describe. <S> fold (verb) = to bend something, especially paper or cloth, so that one part of it lies on the other part, or to be able to be bent in this way <S> : I folded the letter (in half) and put it in an envelope. <S> He had a neatly folded handkerchief in his jacket pocket. <S> Will you help me to fold (up) <S> the sheets? <S> The table folds up when not in use. <S> However, since you mention a spiral-like shape, then it is " twisting ". <S> I am not aware of anybody doing this, I cannot imagine why one would undergo the effort, but " twist " seems to be the right word for that particular action. <A> Twist can be used here, but usually narrower things are twisted. <S> Squeezed can be used here too. <A> This definition includes the term violently , but I don't think in practice that's necessarily a requirement (even some of their examples don't occur in violent contexts). <S> to (cause something to) twist or bend violently and unnaturally into a different shape or form:
| Contort would also work in this context: Twist or bend out of the normal shape
|
Your bread will be buttered on both sides Imagine a person who's been looking for a better hierarchical position in the organization where he works in order to obtain more salary! The day comes and he achieves his favorite position! His colleague (his close friend) comes to him and says: Congratulations! I heard the news and happy for you bro! Your bread is/will be buttered on both sides. (he says humorously, with a smile) Does the bold sentence above work here or it sounds odd to you? <Q> To want one's bread buttered on both sides is a mainly British English idiom meaning to want to benefit or profit from two opposite or contradictory things, or to want to achieve or gain something without payment or effort, e.g. "Young people these days want their bread buttered on both sides - they want high paying jobs, but they aren't prepared to work for them!" <S> A similar idiom is to want to "have one's cake and eat it". <S> It might be acceptable if clearly meant humorously, and said to someone you know well. <S> Bread buttered on both sides <A> Considering that "bread buttered on both sides" usually refers to benefiting from an impossible condition, then to say that as a congratulation would be a remark about an improbable windfall and "works" in the same way that any other play on an established idiom does. <S> If, as Michael Harvey has noted, there is a chance that the sentence could be viewed as a backhanded compliment, then " every dog has his day " could work if the recipient has been recently unlucky, or " good things come to those who wait " as a more generic congratulation. <S> EDIT: <S> Added "benefiting from" <A> Never heard it before, but if you change You're to <S> Your <S> then the meaning is obvious to a native, and reasonably grammatical. <S> (I would go with <S> is rather than will be but its fifty-fifty really.
| To have one's bread buttered on both sides is an unusual usage, and might well convey the implication that the success was not deserved, or achieved by unfair means, so I would use it with care.
|
Can we say “you can pay when the order gets ready”? Is it true to say “you can pay when the order gets ready”?Can we use “get + ready” for the things that will happen in future?? <Q> Everyone would know what you meant if you said "you can pay when the order gets ready," but it is a less accurate way of saying what you want to say. <S> Using "gets" implies action. <S> Actually, it implies that the order is taking action itself. <S> It is making itself ready on its own. <S> Obviously, that is not true. <S> Someone is making or preparing the order. <S> This works because "is" is a state of being, rather than an implied action. <S> Alternatively, if you are talking about a person being ready for something, then it is perfectly fine to say " <S> when he/she gets ready" because the person is performing the action of getting ready themselves, unlike an object. <S> I hope that makes sense. <A> We would normally say "when the order is ready" to express that particular future eventuality. <S> We normally use <S> get ready to express a person's preparedness for an activity, and it is important to note that it is a present action, something undertaken now , that prepares for the future necessity. <A> The objection that orders do not get themselves ready could be answered by rewriting the sentence this way: You can pay when _____ gets your order ready. <S> Fill in the blank with a description of the person or persons <S> you prepare the kind of order you are waiting for. <S> There is a second problem with this sentence, however, which is that the act of getting an order ready takes some time. <S> It is usually a process with a beginning and an end. <S> Do you pay when the process starts, or when it ends? <S> If the answer to that question is that you can pay at the beginning of the process, at the end, or at any time in between, one would more likely say, You can pay while _____ gets your order ready. <S> One could imagine someone in a shop or restaurant saying this as a way to save some of the customer's time: by the time the order has been completely prepared they will already have paid and can leave immediately. <S> On the other hand, if the answer is that you pay at the end of the process(which is the most likely interpretation of the word "when" in this context),then the idiomatic phrase is "when your order is ready,"as explained in the other answers. <S> This is unambiguous enough, since the order is ready when the process has been completed but is not ready before then.
| A better way to say this would be "you can pay when the order is ready."
|
A verb or an idiom for "half believe, half doubt" Is there any word or some idiomatic expression that would mean "half believe, half doubt"? For example, Having listened to that weird story, children half believed it, half doubted . Meaning that none of the children fully believed the story. <Q> I would say: The children were skeptical about the story. <S> https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/skeptical <A> Of course, one cannot half believe, half doubt something. <S> If you are not certain whether it is true, you simply doubt it. <S> https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dubious <A> Do you think it will work out? <S> I'm on the fence about it. <S> I"m of two minds about it. <S> From Merriam-Webster: on the fence : in a position of neutrality or indecision of two minds : not decided or certain about something : having two opinions or ideas about something Or, in a different context: <S> How sure are you about the plan? <S> I think it has a fifty-fifty chance of success. <S> I think it could go either way . <S> Also from Merriam-Webster: fifty-fifty 2 <S> : half favorable and half unfavorable // <S> a fifty-fifty chance go either way —used to say that either of two possible results is likely to occur and that neither is more likely than the other // <S> I don't know who's going to win. <S> The game could go either way .
| The children were dubious, uncertain, unsure or suspicious about the truthfulness or accuracy of the story. As far as idioms are concerned, it's quite possible to express "half belief, half doubt" about something.
|
"He ought to love her forever" or "He oughts to love her forever" Can anyone explain to me? But I found that most of the sentences use 'he ought'. <Q> Modal verbs are never conjugated. <S> Use "ought" plus the infinitive of another verb. <S> I have to disagree with the other answer that it's almost dead. <S> Here in Texas anyway, we use "ought to" (oughtta) fairly often. <A> To add on to HiddenBabel's correct answer: <S> The proper use is always "ought". <S> Modal verbs are not conjugated: <S> They ought to leave now if they want to catch the bus. <S> I ought to stop watching TV and start studying for my exam <S> However, some English dialects do say "oughts" instead of "ought". <S> This usually would be written only in narrative dialogue. <S> "You oughts <S> not to 'ave done that," the thief warned, recovering from the ineffectual blow and raising his knife. " <S> Now we're gonna do this the 'ard way." <S> It's specious to say that "ought" is not used in modern English, as it's still quite common. <S> That being said, it can be more emphatic than "should", so it's a little strange to say something like " <S> He ought to love her forever". <S> It sounds like a command , like <S> He is morally obligated to love her forever or a threat : <S> He will suffer dire consequences <S> if he does not love her forever or (as Michael Harvey suggests) <S> uncertainty : It should be true that he will love her forever, but I'm not sure. <S> rather than an ideal or a prediction <S> He looks so happy, I expect that he will love her forever. <A> Ought there is a modal verb like 'can', 'could', 'will', 'would', etc. <S> You don't say "he cans <S> do that" <S> but instead you say "he can do that"Hence, " he ought to love her forever " is correct.
| "Ought" is a modal verb just like "can" or "should."
|
Fizzy, soft, pop and still drinks I was curious what people call a carbonated (with gas) and non-carbonated (gas-free) beverages / drinks in English speaking regions around the world. I need two fixed terms in everyday English which can be acceptable for both American and British while I guess there should be some geographical distinctions. For instance, what would you call a bottle of water when it contains gas within and when it does not?! <Q> As Lambie says, drinks are either carbonated or non-carbonated . <S> I believe these are universal terms used in government or official communication. <S> In the US: Carbonated soft drinks are collectively referred to as soda , pop , and in some parts of the country <S> Coke (even for carbonated drinks that are not Coca-Cola). <S> Non-carbonated drinks are referred to by name ( fruit punch, lemonade, iced tea, etc.) <S> Regular water can be either bottled or tap (meaning from the faucet). <S> Carbonated water can be called soda water , and still may be referred to that way when ordering mixed drinks, (e.g. a scotch and soda ). <S> Fizzy water also works. <S> In some fancier restaurants, if you ask for bottled water you may need to specify whether you want sparkling or flat . <S> Recently there are some naturally carbonated drinks such as kombucha which would not be grouped in with soda , as that usually refers to sweet carbonated drinks like Coke. <S> Because it doesn't really fit into any category, just call it by name, kombucha . <S> Side note: Historically "soft" drinks were those without alcohol . <S> At a large social gathering, for example, there may be a "soft" punch for the children and adults who didn't drink, and a "hard" punch for the rest. <S> These days when you say "soft drinks" people mostly think of soda, but, technically, it does include any flavored non-alcoholic beverage. <A> In the US, the terms "soda," "pop," and "coke" (small "c") <S> all refer to carbonated non-alcoholic beverages, but depending on locale, only one will actually be used with regularity. <S> In general : "Coke" is most used in the South . <S> Note that "the South" does not extend west of Texas, despite the name. <S> I have been advised by Southerners that, if you ask for "a Coke" in a restaurant, a common response is "What kind of Coke? <S> " It is acceptable to answer this question with "Coke" if you specifically want a Coca-Cola. <S> "Pop" is common in the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest , as well as the space between them. <S> "Soda" is most used in coastal regions other than those mentioned above (i.e. the Northeast and California), and it also extends into Nevada and Arizona. <S> It also sees a fair amount of usage in urban areas regardless of specific location, but less so in the South. <S> As for water , specifically, you can call it "sparkling" (fizzy) or "still" (flat). <S> "Fizzy" and "flat" will also be understood by most people, but some people will interpret "flat" as referring to the flavor or mineral content of the water instead. <S> Additionally, you may hear people refer to sparkling water as "seltzer water," "soda water," "club soda," or a variety of other terms (some of which have minor differences in meaning). <S> In the US, "water" without further qualification almost always means still or flat water, so if you want it fizzy, you have to specifically ask for it that way. <S> This is different from Europe, where the waiter will (usually) ask your preference. <A> The basic term is carbonated/uncarbonated water or carbonated/uncarbonated drinks. <S> It would be the "technical" term. <S> Not the everyday one. <S> In the UK, they say fizzy drinks for stuff like Coke and in the US, they say soft drinks. <S> As for water, sparkling water is used in both for carbonated water. <S> carbonated carbonated and fizzy drinks [UK] <A> In Australia soft drinks are carbonated drinks. <S> Some older folk call them fizzy drinks <S> but this is phasing out as they do.
| These days, however, bottled carbonated water is usually sparkling water , or colloquially bubbly water .
|
A food that doesn't have enough salt In English we use the adjective "saltless" to describe a food with "no salt"; but I need to know whether there is a particular adjective for a food which doesn't have "enough" salt? (i.e. intentionally for diet / or when a cook forgets to sprinkle enough salt etc.) <Q> The usual way to say this (especially if you're talking about food you're cooking or eating) is "it needs salt" or "it needs more salt". <S> If it has to be an adjective, I would say "undersalted" or "not salty enough". <S> For example, "The bread was really good, but the soup wasn't salty enough." <S> It's also possible to say "insufficiently salty", but that's very formal. <A> I've never heard anyone say "saltless", and I don't believe that's correct English. <S> Americans would usually say it has "no sodium" or "low sodium", especially when we're discussing dietary or nutritional contents of a dish. <A> "Saltless" is not idiomatic for foods without salt. <S> Instead we would say they are "unsalted". <S> I'm going to buy us some peanuts. <S> Do you want salted or unsalted ? <S> Foods without enough salt would be described as "under-salted", or simply, "needs more salt". <A> The fact we have no antonym for salty has recently cone to my attention. <S> For the time being, we can say unsalty.
| A dish is "too salty" or "has too much salt", or in cases where it needs more salt, the dish "tastes bland and needs more salt".
|
Please, smoke with good manners In Tokyo, I saw this sign next to the smoking area. It says Please smoke with good manners in the area surrounded by planters. The part "with good manners" sounds a bit weird to me. Is it just me, or is it not idiomatic? One can have/teach/forget manners He dressed well and had impeccable manners. They taught him his manners. I'm sorry, I was forgetting my manners. but "with manners" seems a bit off, doesn't it? How would you say it? <Q> While you can do things with good manners, it is rare to direct someone to do so in imperatives. <S> Unless addressing children, it is not required to remind people to be polite— a person with good upbringing has good manners out of habit; an poorly raised person cannot tell the difference, anyway. <S> This may reflect a difference of cultural perception, but I think more likely that it is simply a poor translation from Japanese. <S> A search on "smoke with good manners" mostly returns results from Japan. <S> Considerate would be the more idiomatic adjective to use to remind people to think of others, so a similar campaign in an English-speaking city might be please be a considerate smoker or please be considerate when smoking , phrasings which are common in such signs. <S> When speaking generally of politeness, consideration, and other positive social behavior, good manners are something you have , not something you do (as with one's habits or one's nature ). <A> In Japan, there are many odd (and sometimes unintentionally hilarious) signs with translations of Japanese phrases into English. <S> This is a good example, as "please smoke with good manners" <S> is not at all idiomatic. <S> A more idiomatic version might be: <S> Please be considerate of others when smoking in the area surrounded by planters. <S> or Please be courteous when smoking in the area surrounded by planters. <S> Side note: One of the funniest "Japlish" signs I ever saw was from a train station, which advised passengers: <S> Please do not run into the train. <S> Good advice to be sure, but more likely they meant to say Please to not run onto the train. <S> / <S> Please do not run to get on board <S> the train <S> Logically, "into" makes sense, but unfortunately the phrasal verb "run into" something <S> means "collide with", usually "head-on". <S> I suspect most people know it's not a good idea to run into trains. <S> (Edit) <S> For general interest: A direct translation from the Japanese マナーを守って (mana o mamotte) would be: <S> Please mind your manners when ... <S> However this is somewhat too strong for a public sign, as it's the kind of thing parents might say their children, or a teacher to her students. <S> Now children, be sure to mind your manners <S> when we are at the museum, otherwise they won't allow us to come back. <S> A more nuanced translation would be "be courteous". <A> It is not uncommon to see "with good manners". <S> For example see Google and Google Books . <S> You can learn good manners, practice good manners, or keep good manners. <A> A Japanese speaker might offer a better phrased translation, but this doesn’t seem too bad. <S> One can use good manners in other actions. <S> A smoker can be mindful of those nearby and carefully dispose of the remains. <S> That would seem to be good manners. <S> As others noted, “be considerate” would be how one would word this in English, typically. <A> A native Japanese. <S> We are so embarrassed that our English literacy is so low despite the mandatory English study span is 6 years in the shortest. <S> For example, a guidance of a community bus of one of the wealthiest district of a prefecture says, Abide by Low . <S> O.K. <S> How can we abide by Low , man! <S> Correct it to Law right now! <S> But towards 2020 Tokyo Olympic, the English guidance or announcements are getting improved gradually, but especially in rural areas, there are still many signs with strange English. <S> For example, Please notify the train crews if you find unclaimed and suspicious objects or persons <S> Okay, so if I find someone whose behavior seems to be strange, am I obliged to call the crews? <S> F::k my country's English. <S> Hahahaha, An another odd guidance from one of the wealthiest districts. <S> (Many native English speakers live here.) <S> PLEASE STAND AT SEAT AFTER STOPPING. <S> So do we need to stand up at the seat every time bus stops? <S> Did the guidance try to mean "Please stand up from your seat after the bus stops"? <S> Oh..my lovely country always full of harmless and innocent but stupid instruction everywhere lol. <S> (Found today)Did the guidance try to mean "Please stand up from your seat after the bus stops"? <S> Oh..my lovely country always full of harmless and innocent but stupid instruction everywhere lol. <S> (Found today) <S> Hahaha, here is an another shot from a Tokyo metropolitan subway. <S> As the Tokyo Olmpic gets closer, the "announcement" in English is getting improved in rapid pace. <S> But the banner of the central Tokyo subway is still behind the schedule? <S> Even though it looks they are appointing the "professional" English speakers? <S> Enjoy Tokyo with Good Manners! <A> Alternatively, keeping "manners" in the title, it could be phrased as: Practice good manners while smoking in the area surrounded by planters. <S> Although "courteous" is what they're trying for with that translation, it is understandable.
| Someone with good manners may be said to be well-mannered , and someone without good manners is ill-mannered ; it is more usually expressed that someone has good manners, than that they do something with good manners.
|
What are the names for physical compounds of letters? What's the name for a group of letters that create a unified information/message like this? (I'm looking for a general name whether they are on a sign, engraved, or written) letters If I write myself a note on a paper, is it a sign ? If a building has a name of the enterprise on it, can I say it's written on it whatever is the format of the letters? If the name of the enterprise is engraved or embossed, what to call it? Can I call it a sign ? letters 3D In Czech, I'd call all of these nápis , which translates as sign, inscription, lettering but I'm confused about differences between them. <Q> In Czech, I'd call all of these nápis, which translates as sign, inscription, lettering <S> but I'm confused about differences between them. <S> There's a difficulty, because from what I understand, nápis means thing that has been written or printed . <S> But of course, there are some things not usually called nápis in Czech. <S> Some things are better called věta or zpráva or značka or anything else. <S> In English, you're hard pressed to come up with a word as vague as nápis . <S> So each of your examples I'll translate one by one. <S> Sign, engraving, lettering, font, ... <S> There are many ways to refer to it, depending on what you mean . <S> That's a note. <S> If you mean something you or someone else is going to use privately, such as a reminder. <S> It could be a sign if you attach it to the wall so that others would be alerted to a fact, like "wet paint" or "no entry" or "quiet -- exams in progress". <S> written usually means written by hand . <S> So better might be to say "there's a sign or logo on the side of the building" An engraving or an embossing, if the fact that it's engraved or embossed is important to what you're trying to say. <S> Or a sign, if you're more interested in what it says or what condition it's in. <S> Or lettering, if you are talking about the style or the design. <A> Based off of the question with additional context in the comments for Wilson's answer, I believe the actual answer to your question is that there is no equivalent word in English . <S> Until context is provided, letters are simply letters . <S> Once context is provided, those letters become a specific grouping of letters for some purpose. <S> Letters written on a piece of paper intended to be referenced later are referred to as a note . <S> Letters arranged on the side of a building that spell out the name of the company that owns the building are a name or brand ; if the arrangement is peculiar or especially colorful, it may qualify as a logo . <S> Letters that are placed in order to be hidden are hidden messages . <A> The text shown in your image would generally simply be referred to as “text” unless it’s also something more specific (e.g., “branding“ or “logo”). <S> The text could also be qualified as, for example, “decorative text”, “futuristic text”, “neon text”, “text content”, “word art”, or “words”. <S> “Note” and “sign” are mutually exclusive terms. <S> Notes are for personal—typically private—consumption whereas signs are for public consumption. <S> Notes are also often longer and more likely to contain complete sentences. <S> So, no, a note cannot be called a “sign”. <S> You <S> can say that text is “written on” a building regardless of the format of the letters or whether or not the letters are literally written by hand on the building. <S> However, it’d be slightly more preferable to instead refer to the “word(s)”, “letter(s)”, “lettering”, “text”, “sign(s)”, “signage”, etc. <S> “on the building”. <S> The terms “signage” and “text“ work too and are, perhaps, slightly more preferable because “signs“ are typically single, whole objects. <A> That's called a logo. <S> a symbol or other design adopted by an organization to identify its products, uniform, vehicles, etc. <S> A note on a paper would be a message. <S> The name of the enterprise would be what it's called. <S> It's still a logo. <S> It's hard to put a suitable word/label on your first photo because it looks more like an abstract piece of art with no accurate name. <S> It's just embossed or emboldened letters/words. <S> In real life, the closest thing to it is a logo or a sign of a business/store.
| Yes, you can collectively refer to letters which are independently mounted on the side of a building as a “sign”.
|
You look catfish vs You look like a catfish? Catfishing is the term used for anyone stealing other people's identities on the internet, so they can pretend to be someone they're not (mainly on dating websites) with the aim of tricking others into going out with them. The example phrase given was something I heard from friend while speaking about this topic which almost led into a more dragged out discussion on whether someone who is catfishing on the internet should be called "A catfish" as in "You look like A catfish" (using the word as a noun) or whether the word catfish should only be used as an (adjective) as in "You look catfish ". What do you guys think? Can the word catfish be used as both a noun and an adjective ? You look catfish (y)! You look like a catfish! To me saying someone looks like "A catfish" is like saying that someone "looks like A gorgeous." it just doesn't sound right. <Q> I believe the most appropriate phrase would be: <S> You look like a catfish er . <S> That is, you look like a person who catfishes. <S> The sentence " <S> You look like a catfish" just makes me think someone is being compared to an actual catfish, likely as commentary about their mouth or facial hair. <S> If you want to use the verb, a "-y" or "-ey" suffix is typically added to make the verb into an adjective. <S> You look jumpy. <S> You look catfishy . <A> This is a very new use of a word, and doubtless the usage is in flux. <S> It seems that the first use was as a verb. <S> "To catfish" (often in form "catfishing") <S> meaning to deceive by the use of fake images on a dating site. <S> It is sometimes used to mean "to be deceived". <S> It should be compared with the existing term "phishing", and the non-internet meaning of "to catfish" = <S> to angle for catfish. <S> It is also used as a noun, meaning "a person who catfishes". <S> The BBC has examples of all three usages <S> It's easy to copy someone's pictures and set up a fake online account - a phenomenon known as catfishing. <S> The Circle's Dan 'furious' after catfishing ... <S> BBC reporter Jennifer Meierhans became a catfish victim... <S> The BBC don't use "catfish" as an adjective. <S> In the last example it is a noun used attributively. <S> There are a small number of examples on instagram in which it does seem to be used as an adjective. <S> But often it seems to be an error, or referring to the fish, not the social media troll. <S> So, for me, "You look like a catfish" would be acceptable, but <S> "You look catfish" would not be acceptable. <S> However the use of new words is often unstable and may change. <A> As a general pattern, you can't say "you look X" where X is something other than an actual adjective, even if that something-else looks like or functions like an adjective in other contexts. <S> For example: You look running . <S> vs "A running person" <S> You look baby . <S> vs "A baby bird" ... <S> As noted by James K, in this case catfish isn't adjective-like at all; it's used as "a noun used attributively". <S> But even if it were, it wouldn't work. <S> Note that there may be specific "exceptions" to this rule I've put forth, but from an ELL context you should just assume you can't do it unless there are specific exceptions you've found. <S> Trying to do it with a word that's not an exception will definitely sound broken to someone who hears/reads it. <A> As a native speaker, first, I agree with CrescentSickle's statement that "You look like a catfish" would be understood to mean that the addressee looks like an actual catfish . <S> I would never say this to someone on a dating site, or on an in-person date, even if I thought it was true, because it would be really insulting. <S> I might say it to a friend who trusted me to give them an honest opinion regarding a changeable aspect of their appearance: "Yes, your mustache makes you look like a catfish, you should shave it." <S> Second, if I was chatting someone up on a dating site <S> and I thought they were catfishing me, that would mean they haven't shown me real photos of themselves and therefore I don't know what they look like. <S> So it would be weird to say "You look like you are catfishing" or "You look like a catfisher" or anything like that. <S> Rather, it would be their photos or the content of their site profile that made me suspicious. <S> So I would talk about it in those terms: "These photos look awfully polished, are you catfishing me?"
| "You look catfishy" could also be a pun, as "[noun] looks fishy" or "[noun] smells fishy" is a very common saying that means something seems deceitful.
|
Is "But, I later realized, have no car" grammatical? I was engaged in some informal but I hope grammatical conversation with a friend who is less fluent in English than me (so I didn't want to confuse them!). It went: So why are you so upset? You really want to know? Sure! Well, you know how I was telling you how I sold my car? Yeah I was excited about driving up to Manchester... OK. But, I later realized, have no car. Is "But, I later realized, have no car" grammatical? I think maybe, and with the following reason. "But, I later realized, have no car"? sounds better than "But I later realized, have no car". I think the former sounds better due to the grammar, and one answer for why that is, is that it's grammatical (rather than, say, more rhetorical or I'm not interested in their reply). I am concerned with the elided "I" in what would be the independent clause "have no car", and so I'm guessing it may be grammatical because in the latter the phrase "I later realized" is parenthesized (so that the conditional conjunction 'but' belongs to the independent clause "[I] have no car"), if that's not a misunderstanding. Or perhaps it's because the conjunction 'but' in the former, used, example need not be read as set off with a comma. The question seems a difficult one, as wikipedia says: the dropping of pronouns is generally restricted to very informal speech and certain fixed expressions, and the rules for their use are complex and vary among dialects and register I would be asking for BrSE, at least foremostly. <Q> I was excited about driving up to Manchester... <S> OK. <S> But, I later realized, have no car. <S> If we consider only the last line then, after removing the "parenthetical clause", we get "But have no car." <S> This is clearly non-grammatical (though comprehensible). <S> However, if we consider the first line, and regard the two lines as simply being a single (though disjointed) sentence, we get "I was excited about driving up to Manchester but have no car." <S> This is valid syntax and semantics. <S> Often in speech a perfectly valid sentence can get disjointed in this fashion, especially when the listener interjects an "OK" or some such to acknowledge his comprehension. <S> Within reason this doesn't affect the validity of the overall statement. <A> I am willing to bet you imagined something like below but didn't type it out as such because is quite esoteric outside of train-of-thought writing (disclaimer: <S> I am including the book here merely as an example): <S> "But I -- I later realized -- have no car." <S> There should be 2 "I"s; it is a interjected independent clause, the subject does not carry over. <A> Why does it seem okay with the comma, but not without? <S> When you have two parallel clauses with the same subject, you can drop the subject from the second one. <S> I had a book I was reading, but left it on the airplane. <S> I was excited about driving up to Manchester, but have no car. <S> I was excited about driving up to Manchester <S> but, I later realized, have no car. <S> Now, in dialog, when somebody interrupts that sentence, you still might be able to argue that it's grammatical: <S> I was excited about driving up to Manchester ... <S> OK ... <S> but, I later realized, have no car. <S> On the other hand, if you have a main clause and a dependent clause with the same subject, you cannot leave the subject off the dependent clause. <S> The following are ungrammatical. <S> (Asterisks indicate ungrammaticality.) <S> * <S> I told him would drive him home. <S> * <S> I realized have no car. <S> So if I later realized is not an interjection (which it isn't unless you put a comma after <S> the but ), the whole thing is ungrammatical: <S> * <S> I was excited about driving up to Manchester, but I later realized, have no car. <S> Without the first part of the interrupted sentence, "I was excited about driving up to Manchester," the second half of the interrupted sentence, " <S> but, I realized, have no car" is ungrammatical whether or not there is a comma after the <S> but . <A> The dropping of subject pronouns in spoken English is analysed as a phonological phenomenon, following work by Gerken (1991); specifically, that the first syllable in an intonational phrase, if unstressed, can be deleted in English <S> ' <S> I have no car' can be analyzed as a separate intonational phrase, dependent on what is meant. <S> There's a difference between <S> I later realized | <S> I have no car <S> and I later realized I have no car <S> The former intonation suggests I still have no car. <S> Because the "I" is not stressed (the speaker is not emphasizing that they rather than someone else lack a car) <S> in spoken English you can use pro-drop there. <S> In writing it would be an example of "diary drop" (the dropping of subject pronouns in informal written English, common in diaries), which some claim is permitted if the dropped pronoun (I) is the " topic " of the sentence, which it is here (the topic is myself).
| When you add an interjection, it's still grammatical.
|
sanctify or speak of sanctity... of God While reading a text the following question occurred to me: Do we sanctify God? Or do we speak of sanctity of God? Actually I was reading a text in which I found the following: ...while praising You, o God, we sanctify You... It doesn't sound to fit best, does it? I think it is God who sanctifies men and things. Thus, it may be: ...while praising You, o God, we speak of Your sanctity. <Q> Although there are religious meanings to the word you are asking about, this question is essentially about the difference between a related noun and an adjective. <S> I hope that people can accept this question and answer regardless of their personal religious or secular beliefs. <S> Sanctify (verb) is the action of making something holy. <S> "Holy" in Christianity means spiritual cleanness , or the state of being clean in God's eyes. <S> The Bible describes God as holy himself, so you could rightly speak of "the sanctity of God" to mean his permanent state or condition. <S> When the Bible speaks of humans sanctifying God or sanctifying God's name <S> it means actions of people which honour God and his name. <S> You might ask why does someone need to sanctify (or make clean) something that is already holy (or clean)? <S> Imagine that someone wrongly accuses you of a crime - it might be said that the person has "smeared your name". <S> Someone else, however, gives a character testimony in your favour - they might be said to have "cleared your name". <S> The whole time you remained innocent. <S> This is why in the Bible and Christianity humans can be spoken of as "sanctifying" God when they advocate that he is holy, even though a core teaching of the faith is that he already is holy. <S> You are also correct though that God can "sanctify" things. <S> Another core belief of Christianity is that Christians can become clean in God's eyes by putting faith in Christ. <A> Your second example uses sanctify in a sense which is now obsolete, but which the OED attests from about 1450, 3a. <S> To honour as holy; to ascribe holiness to; = hallow v.1 3. <S> Obsolete . <S> The OED gives an example from Shakespeare's All's <S> Well That Ends <S> Well (1623): <S> Whilst I from farre, His name with zealous feruour sanctifie. <S> Hallow , similarly, can mean to make something holy, but can also mean to venerate something as holy. <S> These are specialized meanings limited to theological writing, and have been for some time, but it is not uncommon to speak of sanctifying God, God's words, or God's name in Christian writings <S> (and I see a few examples from Jewish writings as well). <A> Phrases such as "Sanctify God's name" and "Sanctify your name" (when addressing God) or "Sanctify your name and keep it holy" and many variants, all in he sense suggested by @choster are very common in the English-language liturgy published for use by Jewish congregations of the Reform and Re-constructionist denominations. <S> The Temple I used to attend switched from Reform to Reconstructionist, and switched prayer books, but these ph5rases were so common in the High Holy Days services from both sets of books that I couldn't begin to count the number of times that they appeared. <S> Each Jewish congregation is independent, and no one has to use the published liturgy texts, but many Temples do use them. <S> This wording is not recent, but it remains in active use in this context at least.
| Sanctity (noun) is the state of being holy.
|
What's the word that best describes a service that helps set up a business So my friend and me where talking about starting a service that helps people set up a business. Things like finding space, creating logos/signboards, business cards etc. What would something like this be called? We tried to come up with a word for this but failed. <Q> The most common term I have heard is business support , or a business support service . <S> This is a wide term which could include existing businesses as well as new startups. <S> If you wanted to specify that you only help with new businesses, you could perhaps use the term "business start-up support". <A> Could it be "business coaching service"? <A> It's called an "incorporation service" or "incorporation consultant". <S> They help you "incorporate", or form a business officially and legally. <S> The legal aspect is the primary focus, since this is what most people need professional help with. <S> But many firms that do that also provide some services similar to those you describe (they would call them "logistics" and "provisioning", "promotion", or "brand-building" services, depending on the specific goals you want to accomplish) Services such as Rocket Lawyer, Legal Zoom, and many others that provide these service describe themselves with these terms.
| The correct general term for one firm providing help to another firm in running the second's business is "business consultancy" - which covers everything mentioned above.
|
A verb to convey "taking no notice to something for awhile" I was wondering which verb is usually used instead of the bold verb below: During my journey to that country, I hired a bicycle. When I was taking some pictures at the X square, I just took no notice to my bicycle for a few seconds, and as soon as I turned my face it was vanished into thin air; I even didn't realize how they stole it! In the sentence above, I have no idea what (phrasal)verb normally is used to indicate "usually" a short period of unawreness of something or taking no notice to something or paying no attention to something often because you are distracted or paying attention to something/someone else? Please help me to find the proper verb for this meaning. <Q> You could also use the idiom: <S> "I took my eyes off my bike for a few seconds." <S> According to Macmillan : take your eyes off ( phrase ) to stop looking at someone or something <S> She only took her eyes off the child for a moment . <A> Your own suggestion, I just didn't pay attention to my bicycle for a few seconds <S> works fine. <S> Another option would be to use to leave unattended : <S> I just left my bicycle unattended for a few seconds <S> Both sound more idiomatic than 'to take no notice'. <S> Note that the 'short while' is already conveyed by the words 'just' and (more clearly) 'for a few seconds'. <S> I'm not sure if there is a verb that also encompasses this time component. <A> From Merriam-Webster <S> : <S> 4 <S> a of the eyes : to move swiftly from one thing to another 4 b : to take a quick look at something // <S> glanced at his watch <S> Since glance already implies quickly or briefly, adding for a few seconds <S> isn't actually necessary, and the sentence can be shortened considerably.
| I would say: I glanced away from my bicycle (and when I looked back it was gone).
|
Why is it "She wrote articles" and not "she has written" or "she was writing"? Why is the past simple and not the present perfect used in the following context? One day, Jack told Anne about John’s life in Canada. She wrote articles for her school Internet magazine. And she was always looking for new stories. Why did the author choose to use past simple in ( She wrote articles ) instead of the present perfect simple or even the past continuous like he did in ( And she was always looking ), as 'Anne' was still writing articles, in general, at the time of speaking. Thanks in Advance. <Q> It's used to more clearly differentiate between the two meanings of writing for a magazine. <S> It can be both the physical act of writing (pen on paper, on a computer etc.) <S> or it can also mean the act of being employed by the magazine submitting articles sometimes. <S> By writing it this way, it's shown that we're talking about her being employed by the magazine, and not that she is writing physically while jack is talking. <S> (presumably taking notes about jacks story) <A> It's perfectly good to write " <S> She was writing articles for her magazine" which can mean one of two things: <S> At the moment When Jack spoke to her she was actually in the act of writing or, On the day when Jack spoke to her she was habitually writing The context which follows ("was always looking") <S> makes it clear that it means 2: it describes a habitual action. <S> "One day, Jack [did something]" is a typical phrase to introduce an instant, at some unspecified time in the past, which is only notable because of what Jack did that day. <A> One of the uses of the past simple is to indicate activities that the person habitually engaged in. <S> So by using the simple past, the writer is indicating that she habitually wrote articles, not that she necessarily was at that moment writing. <S> The past perfect is used to indicate an action that is completed. <S> Since the writer wants to discuss ongoing conduct, the past perfect is not appropriate.
| The past continuous is used to indicate an activity that the person was, at that time, engaged in.
|
OVER / THROUGH / FROM / IN sections 1 to 5 I will explain Over sections 1 to 5 I will explain this problem. Through sections 1 to 5 I will explain this problem. From sections 1 to 5 I will explain this problem. In sections 1 to 5 I will explain this problem. I'm not sure which preposition to use in the sentences above. If none of the first four I listed work, I'd appreciate it if you could suggest one that does work. <Q> Of the choices you offer I would prefer 4. <S> I would even more prefer something like the following. <S> I explain this problem in Section 1 through Section 5. <S> Note that this indicates the explanation is in those sections, not that it will be. <S> It is there already, right? <S> Also, hyperlinks have pushed me to use Section 1 through Section 5 rather than Sections 1 through 5. <S> I do the same with figures, tables, and references. <S> And the "through" rather than "to" is just because that's what my office culture prefers. <S> Possibly this is also a place for a passive voice. <S> That depends on if this is a technical report (go for the passive) or a familiar essay (keep the "I" form). <S> This problem is explained in Section 1 through Section 5. <A> “ Over sections one to (or through) five…” is acceptable, but the use of “over“ suggests that you’re collaboratively “going over ” (i.e., reviewing or studying) <S> the sections with the audience you’re communicating with (e.g., as a teacher). <S> “ Through sections one to (or through) five…” is also acceptable. <S> This usage of “through” shares its meaning with the words “using“ and “via” and implies that you’re using the sections in question as a tool to accomplish some purpose. <S> This is probably the least likely usage of the four. <S> Technically, one could also interpret this usage as “Through information from …”, but in that case, I would just use the preposition “in”. <S> “ In sections one to (or through) five…” is the most natural phrasing and also the most generic. <S> You’re simply describing what happens in these sections. <S> Furthermore, the word “through” sounds more natural here since you’re describing the process of going through a process. <S> Lastly, numbers of ten or less are preferably written using words instead of numerals probably because most of those numbers only consist of one digit and all consist of one syllable. <A> Sometimes putting a prepositional phrase at the beginning of the sentence can make the meaning awkward. <S> That said, the prepositions you mentioned are not interchangeable. <S> If something is contained in a section it is inside or in the section. <S> To express what you are trying to say, I would write the following: I will explain the problem in the following sections 1-5.
| “ From sections one to (or through) five…” is also acceptable and implies that your use of the relevant sections serves as a starting point for some goal.
|
The precise meaning of "often" in this sentence? Old houses are often damp. Does the sentence mean: Many/a lot of old houses are damp. or Most of old houses are damp. ? <Q> "Most" is objective (more than 50%). <S> The rest of the terms in your question ("often", "many", "a lot") are pretty subjective. <S> So your first choice is probably the intended meaning. <S> "Often" (along with "many" and "a lot") just means more frequently than you would expect, not necessarily more frequently than 50% (which would be "most"). <A> As others have pointed out, the term "often" is subjective. <S> One person might say it often rains in their local city, because it rains once a week, but someone from somewhere it rains daily might call that "infrequent". <S> Where the intention is ambiguous, it's best to assume to treat this as a general opinion or observation, rather than any specific value. <S> Without further context, "Old houses are often damp," means this a common issue with these houses, and something people should keep in mind when choosing to live in one. <S> A similar example: <S> This time of year, we often see whales swimming off the coast. <S> This doesn't mean it happens every year, or some specific value like "more than 50% of the time". <S> It also doesn't mean that the whales are there but we don't always see them. <S> It also suggests that people who visit the area hoping to whale-watch might not see them, otherwise we would say: <S> This time of year, we always see whales swimming off the coast. <S> One more example: <S> In San Diego it's often cold and overcast in May and June. <S> Actually, it's almost always cold and overcast at this time of year, so much so that we have a saying: " <S> May grey; June gloom". <S> However, while it happens many days of the month, I can't predict the weather. <S> I have no idea whether this month will be the same as last year, or whether it will definitely be overcast on May 15th. <S> I'm simply making an observation about a known trend . <A> often means frequently. <S> often, never, always, frequently, usually are adverbs. <S> An adverb cannot be switched to become a noun. <S> You can have most and lots of and often in the same sentence. <S> Most people in my class are often late. <S> Lots of people are often funny without realizing it. <S> Often above means how people are. <S> Google Dictionaryad·verb/ˈadˌvərb/ <S> nounGRAMMARplural <S> noun: adverbs a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc. <S> (e.g., gently, quite, then, there ).
| It simply describes a common, and regularly occurring phenomenon.
|
What is the term for a physical division in a newspaper? There are newspapers that are made up of several "mini-newspapers" (or "physical volumes"), for example, the "main news" "mini-newspaper", the "classifieds" "mini-newspaper", and the "sports" "mini-newspaper". These "mini-newspapers"/"physical volumes" are placed one on top of another (the "main news" is always the top "mini-newspaper"), and sold to the reader. What is the correct term for a "mini-newspaper"/"physical volume"? I thought about "newspaper section", but each "mini-newspaper" could consist of sections too (e.g. the "main news" "mini-newspaper" could consist of sections named "domestic news" and "international news"). "newspaper section" also doesn't capture the fact that the divisions are physical. <Q> I believe it is in the same in the UK, but in any case in the US these can be referred to as "page" or "pages", depending on the context. <S> Historically, a child might nave said to his father, reading the morning paper over breakfast: <S> Can you turn to the sports page , Dad? <S> I want to see who won last night's match. <S> The term still applies to the online version of the newspaper: <S> Hey, go click over to the sports page , would you? <S> I want to see who won last night's match. <S> In many larger newspapers there is the front page, the financial pages, the local pages, the sports pages, the editorial pages, the entertainment pages, and the classified ads , as well as various others. <S> Some newspapers have specialized pages on different days of the week, like food pages (with recipes and restaurant reviews) or society pages (with news about the local rich and famous). <S> Note that these are called different "sections" of the newspaper as well, <S> but you asked for an idiomatic alternative. <A> Section is, in my experience, the conventional, everyday term for the different physical parts of a newspaper, excluding the magazine, advertising inserts, and other components that are not printed at the same size. <S> The science pages might be two pages with a "Science" heading within the main news section, <S> the religion page might be a single article in the lifestyle section. <S> What is idiomatic will likely depend on what kind of newspapers you are accustomed to reading. <S> It is mostly broadsheets that are traditionally split up into different areas of focus, whereas the division is less useful and less common in tabloid-sized publications, although the latter may have a central section that can be pulled out. <S> Growing up in the 1980s mostly reading the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register , I would ask for the business section or opinion section ; on weekdays, when there was no separate opinion section, I would ask for the news section or front page section because the editorials were printed at the back of it, where I could find the opinion pages . <S> Macmillan's first definition states 1a. <S> a part of a newspaper, book, or other piece of writing that may be considered separately The story was reported on the front page of the business section. <S> The sports section is probably the most universal, and indeed has its own OED sub-entry with three examples: 1912 <S> Oakland <S> (Calif.) <S> Tribune 15 June 1/1 <S> A well-edited sports section, contributed to by experts. <S> 1940 <S> G. Marx Let. <S> in G. Marx et al. <S> Groucho Lett. <S> (1967) <S> 46 <S> I picked up the paper Tuesday morning, nervously turned to the sports section. <S> 2004 <S> Guardian <S> 12 Jan. (Media section) <S> 8/1 <S> We expect not just a newspaper, but also a weekend section, an arts section, a blow-by-blow sports section, [etc.]. <S> For examples of other kinds of sections, you might consult guides from the Boston Globe and The Washington Post . <A> Sometimes the additional material takes the form of supplements - these might be a magazine, TV listings, art reviews, etc, each inserted in the newspaper as a kind of mini newspaper (or magazine). <S> (Source here: https://www.inpublishing.co.uk/articles/supplements-1682 ) <A> The Oxford Dictionaries has pull-out NOUN 1A pull-out section of a magazine or newspaper. <S> don't miss Monday's 8-page Games pull-out . <S> The question and this definition mention the word section NOUN <S> 1.1 <S> A relatively distinct part of a book, newspaper, statute, or other document. <S> the New York Times business section
| Page or pages as Andrew suggests are also in use, as well as feature , but I think of these as parts of the newspaper within a section, rather than as discrete components of it.
|
an adjective for a written assignment that is given partly as a punishment It is a common practice in Asian schools for teachers to give students a written assignment that would consist of re-writing several times some words or phrases that the student failed to spell correctly in an essay or in a spelling test. Usually, such assignment is purported to be of two purposes: one is to improve students' spelling, which is especially important in case of characters; and the other one, even if the students already know how to write those characters, is "building up their diligence", that is, students are asked to re-write the same characters again and again to train them to be "diligent, patient and submissive", an idea that may look ridiculous to a westerner. What would be the right adjective for that kind of written assignment? Could I call it a punitive written assignment? <Q> In British English, you can say "The teacher gave us lines ", where the children have to write the same thing out again and again, typically 100 times. <S> Usually the sentences have the form "I must not do X", which is a punishment for having done X. <S> You can see Bart doing this on the blackboard in the opening sequence of The Simpsons, but I don't believe it's called that in US English. <S> In many British films of the 1950s you'll see children doing this, but on paper to hand to the teacher once done. <S> Directly answering: if the teacher demanded an essay, you can't call it lines. <S> While "punitive" is a perfectly correct word, it's not often used. <S> If the punishment was specifically about perfecting the shapes of the letters, (or characters if Chinese, Korean etc), you might say "The teacher gave us calligraphy as punishment ". <A> This question is specific to languages with characters, i.e. Chinese characters. <S> Since Chinese characters can only be learned by memorization, I imagine they write them down by copying them from a source: <S> A teacher writing on a blackboard or from a book. <S> That said, since Western languages do not have characters, we first have to think about how to say practicing characters through writing them. <S> Then, comes the punishment part. <S> I would say: the teacher gave us: phrases to copy as punishment phrase writing punishment <S> That pre-supposes <S> one knows that the texts are in Chinese and, therefore, that they contain characters, and not letters. <S> I would not use the word punitive, as that is not an educational term really. <S> The terms are to punish a student, punishment of a student. <S> In any event, this would not be called an assignment, really. <S> Assignments are for homework or classwork. <S> This is called punishment. <A> In some schools in Britain, it would be referred to as an Imposition. <S> St Benedict's Discipline Policy - St Benedict's Schoolwww.stbenedicts.org.uk/MainFolder/Parents/.../sbws_discipline_policy_april_2017.pdf Behaviour and Discipline in Schools – A guide for head teachers and school staff ... <S> Senior school students can receive an Imposition paper for repeated poor ... <S> The Complete Stalky & Co : Rudyard Kipling (Explanatory notes) <S> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jUJ4PZInW8gC&lpg=PA301&ots=6u_PLKPkRC&dq=school%20%22imposition%20paper%22&pg=PA301#v=onepage&q=school%20%22imposition%20paper%22&f=false <S> imposition-paper. <S> paper used for impositions, written tasks imposed as punishments, generally lines by the hundred, often Latin, colloqially called "impots"
| I'd expect you to say "The teacher gave us an essay as punishment ", or a punishment essay .
|
Is there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word? Is there a word that describes the unjustified use of a more complex word? For example, using "didactic" instead of using the simpler "instructive" when the use of "didactic" is not justified in the context, as it could have been swapped with "instructive" without changing the meaning at all. There are some cases where it might be justified, but in our fictional example it is not. How would you describe such writing or such a literary choice? <Q> Pretentious <S> if the intention is to unnecessarily create an impression that the writer is more intelligent than the reader. <A> Except for verbose, none of the following are common, but I've marked the very rare: <S> rococo (adj) <S> having elaborate ornamentation wiktionary (rare) <S> baroque (adj) very elaborate <S> wiktionary elegant variation describes using synonyms to avoid reusing a word wikipedia <S> the lure of the abstract describes the use abstract words instead of concrete ones <S> Plain Words <S> (rare) <S> circumlocution (noun) is a speaking around the topic and being very indirect (rare) <S> pleonasm (noun) covers the case of using too many words <S> wikipedia <S> (academic, rare) <S> sesquipedalian (adj) is the use of long words instead of short, only ever seen humourously wiktionary (academic, rare) <S> logorrhea (noun, rare) is using too many words, also verbosity and prolix <S> high falutin' (adj) is a pejorative phrase for "over-educated": "You and your high-falutin' words, just trying to confuse us!" <S> (US, very informal) <A> You can call this flowery language . <S> According to Cambridge : <S> flowery <S> ( adj. <S> ): <S> disapproving <S> If a speech or writing style is flowery, it uses too many complicated or unusual words or phrases. <S> Collins says: <S> flowery ( adj. <S> ): <S> full of figurative and ornate expressions and fine words (said of language, style, etc.) <S> One writing coach advises: <S> Avoid “flowery” language at all costs! <S> If necessary, throw out your Thesaurus! <S> Readers are more impressed by the quality of your ideas than your use of multi-syllabic terms. <A> You can say that they are using big words . <S> The idea behind the expression <S> big words <S> is that instead of using much simpler and more understandable to the average person words, some people intentionally choose to use words that sound more sophisticated, too intellectual or just clever. <S> Oftentimes, the use of such words is unjustified. <S> The main reason people do that is that they probably want to make themselves sound smarter than they really are. <S> Here's how the Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes this expression: a difficult word used to try to impress someone <S> And it also alongside the definition provides the following example sentence: <S> You don't need to use big words to make your point. <A> The word pedantic would fit, in the sense of an ostentatious display of knowledge. <S> Edit: Apparently this sense of pedantic is not very well known so to back the sense I mentioned: pedantic , Merriam Webster (sense 2): "narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned" pedantry , Collins : "(British English) the habit or an instance of being a pedant, esp in the display of useless knowledge or minute observance of petty rules or details" <S> pedantic , Free dictionary (citing the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): "Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules" <A> Such a choice is a matter of tone and style. <S> I'm not sure that I would ever agree that it could be "not justified" as there is always at least a subtle difference in rhythm and flow, and often in meaning. <S> Intentionally choosing or avoiding words with latinate roots, for instance, can be valid style choices. <S> Intentionally choosing a less well-known term can affect style, possibly giving an academic air, or a more everyday feel to a piece of prose. <S> Also, a word's history, via its etymology, can influence how it will affect knowledgeable readers. <S> So I might describe such a choice as "using a more intricate style" or "a more complex style". <S> Style should suit purpose, of course. <S> If the intended audience will not be likely to get a nuance, and may well misunderstand a word <S> , that was a stylistically poor choice. <S> If the intended effect will not be enhanced by a particular choice, that is also poor style. <A> sesquipedalian To use long words, usually to sound clever, confuse someone or obfuscate a point. <A> The word bombastic seems to exactly describe what you're looking for, because it implies the use of complicated words. <S> Cambridge's definition:- using long and difficult words, usually to make people think you know more than you do: <A> An answer has already been accepted, but I think a reasonable alternative that comes to mind is jargon , which usually implies unnecessarily complex language, usually specific to a certain field. <S> Using the more complex word outside of that field is almost always unjustified. <A> To add a few more useful words: <S> Grandiloquent : <S> Pompous or extravagant in language, style, or manner, especially in a way that is intended to impress. <S> Magniloquent : Using high-flown or bombastic language. <S> Definitons are from Oxford English. <S> (These definitions also indicate pompous, extravagant, high-flown & bombastic as useful words.) <S> I appreciate the irony that these words are themselves grandiloquent :) <A> Most of the answers above involve such uncommon words as to be self-referential. <S> A more common idiom only mentioned in @Canadian_Yankee's comment would be any of [ using a ] twenty-five cent word five-dollar word ten-dollar word <S> [There's been a bit of inflation over the years. <S> My dialect still uses the middle one.] <S> They all have the same sense: A long and uncommon word used in place of a shorter and simpler one with the intent to appear sophisticated
| Normally you'd say something like "that's an unnecessarily elaborate word". Obfuscation where the result (intended or otherwise) is to make the meaning unclear.
|
What are "will have" and "shall have"? How is "may have" used? Firstly, I want to know whether will have and shall have are model verbs, or do they have future perfect tenses, or both? If these are model verbs, can I use them in both the past and present? Secondly, can I use may have in both the past and present? <Q> Firstly, you should not say "Firstly", secondly, will have and shall have mean the same thing: in the future you will have something. <S> May have means the possibility of having something or having done something, or it can be used when asking for something like "May I have an apple?". <A> the prof. said: "You will have five minutes to answer the question. <S> " shall means the same of will but old-fashioned. <S> May I have your name? <S> equals what's your name? <S> she may have a bf already <S> I said to my fellow. <S> = <S> = <S> Sha maybe has a bf or not, 50% respectively. <S> in all examples above, May Will Shall are model verbs and Have is just a verb. <A> Modal verbs are will , shall , and to have only, not their combination will have or shall have. <S> (So your another question “If these are model verbs, ...” is irrelevant.)
| To answer your last question, may have is never used in the past tense, only in present or future (e.g. in the form may have to ) ones.
|
Is it possible to know the meaning of "She upended the chessboard." without a context Is it possible to know the meaning of "She upended the chessboard." without a context, because of upending means "up..." and "down..." that depends on the context. For example, here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/upend?q=upending we have the sentence: "She upended the chessboard halfway through the game because she was losing." I figure out, to start a new game, somebody must say: Upend the chessboard halfway and let's start a new game. My question is about the possibility if that possibility exists, that same syntax (upend) can have the opposite meaning, not different but opposite. I am expecting the answer "Yes" or "No" and some examples. In Google translate for Croatian language stay: Upend "Oboriti" = overthrow, topple, bring down, knock down, fell, upend "Uspraviti" = straighten, hold up, upend The Croatian word "Oboriti" is opposite to Croatian word "Uspraviti" but both words in the English we can translate with upend. My one example: The vase has been upended, please upend it to stay like before. But does these "The vase has been upended (overthrow, topple, bring down, knock down, fell, upend), please upend (straighten, hold up, upend) it to stay like before." explains why I ask the question? Why "upend" is in both of this group of verbs? Wait a minute, wait a minute. None of you have thought: "Why somebody has been translating 'upend' in some other language like that? Is there somewhere something in the real world of a native speaker reason for that? <Q> The meaning of "She upended the chessboard" is very clear to me. <S> She suddenly lifted one side of the chessboard, causing all the pieces to be knocked over or otherwise move away from their positions. <S> It is possible that all of the pieces fell off, and were scattered across the table and/or fell onto the floor. <S> It is also possible that she lifted the side of the board enough to cause the board to completely flip over. <S> The original poster noticed that "upended" can be translated into opposite terms in Croatian: <S> oboriti means "overturn", whereas uspraviti means "uphold". <S> Notice that the initial action in "upending" is "lifting one side" of the object, and the overall effect is to "overturn" the object. <S> Thus, oboriti is the better translation of "upend": <S> It describes the intent and effect of the verb. <S> Whereas uspraviti is too literal a translation; it only translates the "lifting" part of the action, not its intent or effect. <S> For example, somebody might have bumped into her chair, causing her knee to strike the table, causing the chessboard to be upended. <S> In the dictionary example, "halfway" modifies "through the game", not "upended". <S> If she was halfway through the chess game, and then "She upended the chessboard because she was losing", then it is safe to assume that "She is a sore loser." <S> Her actions are consistent with someone who is frustrated about losing, and does not have control of her temper. <S> If she had wanted to politely agree that her opponent had won, then she could have either said "I resign", or flipped over her king. <S> Then she could have said, "Let's start a new game", or asked something like, "Play again?" or <S> "Do you want a rematch?" <S> or "Best two out of three?" <A> You have made an assumption that the second sentence Upend the chessboard halfway and let's start a new game. <S> is a valid thing to say. <S> If someone upends a chess board, you almost certainly won't be starting another game. <A> Cambridge Dictionary" <S> "She upended the chessboard halfway through the game because she was losing." <S> OP: I figured out, to start a new game, somebody must say: Upend the chessboard halfway and let's start a new game. <S> Answer: To start a new game, it seems that what is meant is to " clear the chessboard of pieces" . <S> Yes, you could upend it and the pieces would all slide down as given in the Cambridge example which would indicate annoyance or anger. <S> If you upend the board and the pieces fall off, that is rather brusque. <S> To start a new game, you need to clear the pieces off the board or clear the board of pieces. <S> You might upend the board, but it's somewhat messy and you definitely would not do that if you are playing in a park with people you don't know. <S> It would probably be considered rude. <S> Generally, one would use a horizontal motion rather than a vertical motion to clear pieces off a board. <S> Upending is a vertical motion. <S> Clearing is a horizontal one. <S> To illustrate upend, here is an image: <A> There are several good answers here already. <S> To address the example at the end of your question - whether this makes sense in English: <S> The vase has been upended, please upend it to stay like before. <S> I don't think so. <S> The vase has been upended - this means it has been knocked sideways. <S> So it went from something that looks like | to something that looks like __ . <S> Please upend it to stay like before - <S> this part doesn't make sense to me. <S> I wouldn't use upend to mean going from __ to | - only the other way around (as in the first part of the sentence). <S> I think instead you should say "Please set it back upright" or "Please put it back upright".
| It is possible that "She accidentally upended the chessboard." Upend means that one end of some thing rises vertically into the air or is placed or pushed vertically up.
|
An adjective or a noun to describe a very small apartment / house etc I was wondering if there is a pejorative or sarcastic adjective to attribute to a so small house in which you barely can swing a cat [the popular English expression]. In my language we call such apartments / houses / offices and totally places (as they mostly are like that today, :)] a matchbox-sized appartment or house, but I would appreciate it if you help me find the closest terms in English for describing these types of places. Thank you. <Q> For an apartment, the term broom closet is often used. <S> The notion being that the living space is small enough to be only used as a storage closet. <S> This is more sarcastic and not necessarily horribly pejorative. <S> Using it in reference to an apartment's size is actually the example they use for "teensy" in this thesaurus entry. <S> but more of a commentary on the quality of the property, rather than the size), but both are generally very insulting. <A> "Matchbox sized" is used occasionally, and the meaning is clear. " <S> Shoebox sized" is an alternative. <S> You could also talk about "micro-apartment", or any of the ususal words meaning "small": tiny, little, pint-sized. <S> Estate agents use words like "compact" or "bijou" which also mean "small". <S> Slightly more formally A "studio apartment" is a one-room apartment which combines living, sleeping and cooking spaces into a single room. <S> Another term for the same thing is a "bed-sit", though this is slightly dated. <A> I've heard small houses politely called "quaint" or "cozy". <S> This is a tongue-in-cheek usage of these terms. <S> A realtor might use "cozy" as a positive thing, but someone looking at the dwelling might be using the word sarcastically to mean, "too small." <A> I can also add such words as cabin, shack, hut, lodge . <S> They are mostly suitable for houses, but I think some of them can be successfully used for flats too.
| For a house, hovel or shanty can be a derogatory term (normally associated with a small hut or cabin
|
Difference Between Was taken Place & Took Place When to use Was Taken and Took Place in Sentence? Are both the versions correct? a) The Accident was taken place in our neighborhood. b) The Accident took place in our neighborhood. for me, 1) Both the sentences gives same information about past accident. 2) Sentence a) is Passive voice and sentence b) is Active voice. 3) To take is an intransitive verb which need subject to do it. Accident can not be taken place by its own some one has to do accident hence for me sentence b) is incorrect. 4) But Sentence b) can also be ordinary version of sentence. Which gives Idea about past accident without any details like who did it, how it happened etc. Please help, Additional explanation for bounty Can we use Taken Place as an Past Participle in my above given example?. e.g. Accident (which) was taken place in our neighborhood. In which 3 people were killed. Through Passive voice we can define subject. In my example Accident is subject and I am defining it by giving additional information of like when it taken place, How many people were killed, accident occurred in past. ....etc. <Q> The verb to take place , occur and happen are intransitive verbs . <S> That means they cannot have a direct object. <S> Intransitive verbs cannot be made into adjectives using a past participle. <S> We would not say: the occurred event or the happened accident. <S> The event occurred at sunrise. <S> The accident happened yesterday. <S> My birthday party took place amidst much confusion. <S> intransitive verbs to take place is like take: take, took, taken <S> The accident took place [happened or occurred] in my neighborhood. <S> "The accident was taken place" is therefore ungrammatical. <S> Passive forms are for action verbs only. <S> The man stole the boy's money. <S> The boy's money was stolen by the man. <S> Actions verbs can be used to create an adjective: <S> The stolen [past participle used as an adjective] money was on the table. <A> It is correct to say "The accident took place in our neighborhood." <S> It does not seem correct to say "The accident was taken place in our neighborhood. <S> " You do not use "was" (past tense) + "taken" (past participle) in modern English. <S> You could say was taking place (past tense continuous) or has taken place (past perfect). <S> Both articles <S> you have linked in the comments, which use "was taken," are from India. <A> Simple past vs. present perfect: Specific (simple past): <S> The accident took place in our neighborhood. <S> It was a specific event. <S> Non-specific (present perfect): <S> The intersection needs a stop sign. <S> Too many accidents have taken place there. <S> Non-specific events over a period of time.
| Intransitive verbs by definition cannot be used in the passive form.
|
Is there an idiom that means that an item of clothing fits perfectly? I am pretty sure there has to be some sort of idiom that means "fits perfectly," since trying on clothes to see if they fit is something that everyone does. Is there any such expression? <Q> It's tailor made. <S> [Often said of things which are not literally tailor made, but fit very well.] <S> It's made to measure. <S> [Likewise, often used metaphorically of things which are not made to measure.] <S> The three idioms above seem to come close to what you want to say. <A> One such idiom is fits like a glove : to be the perfect size and shape for someone: <S> I love these pants because they fit like a glove <S> and they're so comfortable. <S> Cambridge Dictionary <S> It can be used for any type of clothing (although you would only say it for gloves or mittens ironically). <A> Perhaps this one is almost too obvious, but: <S> The [article of clothing] is a perfect fit . <S> would be the most natural way of describing this. <S> You can Google expressions such as "sweater was a perfect fit" or <S> "jeans were a perfect fit" and find this phrase used hundreds of times in online clothing reviews, such as: <S> I couldn't be more pleased. <S> Not only was the service absolutely outstanding, the sweater was a perfect fit . <S> These jeans were a perfect fit and extremely comfortable but the flare leg is not for me. <S> This shirt was a perfect fit ; it wasn't too big or too small. <S> The shirt is also very comfortable and I can wear it with almost anything.
| It fits like a glove.
|
Although vs. In spite of Although she was told she would get the job, she didn't get it. In spite of telling she would get the job, she didn't get it. In spite of being told she would get the job, she didn't get it. In spite of the fact that she was told she would get the job, she didn't get it. Which one is correct? <Q> Although she was told she would get the job, she didn't get it. <S> This sounds ok. <S> In spite of telling she would get the job, she didn't get it. <S> This is not right. <S> You can't use telling here without an object and optional subject (with no explicit subject <S> the implication is that she told someone). <S> You could say: "In spite of Mary telling her she would get the job, she didn't get it." or "In spite of [her] telling me she would get the job, she didn't." <S> In spite of being told she would get the job, she didn't get it. <S> This is also ok. <S> In spite of the fact that she was told she would get the job, she didn't get it. <S> This is also grammatical, but I think it's too verbose. <S> Another word you could use <S> that's synonymous with in spite of <S> is despite - see this article . <S> E.g. "Despite being told she would get the job, she did not." <S> or "Despite John telling her she would get the job, she did not." <A> They are almost entirely synonymous and interchangeable. <S> One dictionary definition of "although" is actually "in spite of". <S> However, my opinion is that "in spite of" tends to be reserved for when two things are in conflict or contradictory, while "although" can be used more liberally for interesting asides or exceptions to rules. <S> For example: Although we don't normally vacation abroad, this year we are going to Spain. <S> People tend to say "in spite of the fact that [x], [y] happened", but in this example, there isn't really any solid "fact" - saying that something isn't "normally" the case allows for exceptions, so this isn't so strong of a contradiction. <S> In your example about someone being told they would get a job, I would want to know who told them they would get the job. <S> If they were told by the person hiring that they would then their rejection is in direct conflict with that, and "in spite of" sounds right. <S> If on the other hand the person was told they would get it by well-meaning friends and relatives out of over-confidence, then this is not so much of a conflict as a case of expectation not being met. <S> I would personally use "although" in such a case. <A> Although she was told she would get the job, she didn't get it. <S> and: <S> In spite of being told she would get the job, she didn't get it. <S> The two others looks a little heavy.
| They are all correct, however the best between them (for me) are:
|
Is 'could V' always present or future? When there's no other verb which indicates the tense in a sentence like I could eat it. , not like I did all I could. , then does the could-phrase always have present or future tense? In other words, when the "could+V" is the only verb in a sentence, can this have any meaning related to some past event? (except the negative form or could+have+pp form or any other special(?) verbs such as "hear","smell") <Q> "Could" is the past tense of "can", but as a modal verb it can also show future possibility . <S> Your example of "I could eat it" is lacking some context. <S> At a guess I'd say it was talking about the possibility of eating something - someone looking at a cake might say " I could eat that " to indicate that they want to eat it. <S> In another context, a past event could be referenced, for example: <S> When I was younger I could eat cake and not put on weight. <S> Or you can use " could have " and place the verb "eat" in the past tense to reference <S> past possible event: <S> I could have eaten more of that cake. <A> I could answer this question. <S> If you want to use this in the past, use "could have" <S> I could have answered this question. <S> I'm not sure what part of speech "could" is in, "He did all he could ", but as it refers to past events, I see it as an ellipsis for something like: <S> He did all he could have done . <A> It's probably generally true that "could VERB" refers to the present or future, but not always. <S> You have to look at context. <S> For example, consider the sentence, "Napoleon could defeat any army that came against him. <S> " That's a perfectly valid sentence, but clearly refers to something that happened in the past. <S> Or more simply, "When I was young I could lift 200 pounds, but today I can barely life 50. <S> " <S> Again, clearly referring to the past. <S> I'm afraid I can't say what the general rule is for how you would tell. <S> When the sentence includes specifics about time, "I could do this tomorrow" versus " <S> Yesterday I could to this", than it's easy. <S> But besides that, I'm not sure.
| When used as a modal verb, then, yes, "could" by itself always refers to present or future possibility.
|
The meaning of "around" in these sentences What's working around communication? What's not? What's working for you around influence? What's not? Please tell me the meaning of these sentences. I have problem with the word ((around)) and so I can't understand the meaning of these sentences. These questions were found in a leadership coaching blog : Coaching Questions to Explore with Clients: What's working around communication? What's not? Thinking about your team, what are their preferences around communication? What are your preferences around communication? What are the strengths you bring to communication? What are your communication blindspots? What difficult conversations need to happen? Coaching Questions to Explore with Clients: What does influence mean for you? What does influence look like? Where is influence most important to you in your role/team/department? What's working for you around influence? What's not? <Q> The first sentence is particularly confusing as work around is also a verb expression that means to resolve a problem by avoiding it rather than directly solving it . <S> But I think in this case it doesn't mean that. <S> So it sounds like this is some kind of work survey in which you are being asked what is working <S> (what is going well <S> , what is effective) in the area of those subjects. <A> This reads like the jargon common in self-help books, business schools, political workers, where you will see around in the sense of anything to do with . <S> Within their niche audiences, these kinds of sentences can have specific and useful meanings. <S> Outside those audiences they can be very difficult, especially for learners. <S> I need help around self-esteem <S> (Self-help <S> : I want to improve how I think about myself) <S> We need to focus the problems around silo thinking <S> (Business: Relationships between company departments is bad) <S> We need policy work around health services (Politics: What should our health service policy be?) <A> I would read it as: <S> What success have you had with communication? <S> or What's working in the communication space ? <S> "Around" is meant to get just outside the noun <S> it's modifying. <S> So you're not talking directly about communication but rather everything directly related to it, like the tools and techniques you use to communicate. <S> For a clearer example think of a simpler noun. <S> What's happening around the town? <S> We're not interested in the literal town, but we are interested in everything directly related to the town.
| It isn't very clear, but around in this case is probably means in the field of , in the subject of or in the area of .
|
What does the expression "right on the tip of my tongue" mean? After googling, I'm not really sure what exactly it means. I have two conclusions: It means that I don't remember an easy word or a name right now although I already know it and I was able to remember it any time in the past. So I'm like It'll come to me. . It means that I was about to say something but someone else said it faster than me. I didn't forget this something at all. I already remember it but someone said it before me. Which one is correct? Is it about forgetting or speed ? <Q> "I have a word right on the tip of my tongue" means I can almost recall it but am not able to do so. <S> So, like in your first example. <S> ( Cambridge Dictionary ) <S> In your second example, when you intend to say something, but someone says it before you, you can say: You took the words right out of my mouth. <S> ( Thefreedictionary.com ) <A> To have something on the tip of (one's) tongue is quite aptly described at the free dictionary as <S> Almost able to be recalled. <S> and at <S> the cambridge dictionary as <S> you think you know it and that you will be able to remember it very soon <S> So, your assumption 1. would fit. <A> "On the tip of the tongue" means you are about to say something but the words have yet to be said. <S> It can be used in multiple ways, including in the sense of both of your examples. <S> From <S> the Collins dictionary , "on the tip of someone's tongue" can mean 1. <S> almost said by someone. <S> 2. <S> about to be said, especially because almost but not quite recalled. <S> Your first interpretation of the idiom involves the second listed meaning. <S> The sense of not actually remembering how to express what you want to say is typical and probably the most common usage but need not always be the case. <S> The second interpretation of the phrase in the post involves the first meaning, but the connection with speed may be inherent if you decide to stop saying something that was about to come out of your mouth. <S> Some examples: <S> "It was on the tip of my tongue to say the same thing but you beat me to it!" - which shares the meaning of "You took the words out of my mouth", "It was on the tip of my tongue to say something but decided keeping quiet was a wiser choice." <S> "Oh look, there's an ... um ... err ... <S> you know ... <S> what do you call it? <S> Its name is right on the tip of my tongue." <A> In addition to the above, the expression can be used in the past tense if you were about to say something, but decided not to. <S> For example, The words were on the tip of my tongue, but I decided at the last minute to keep silent. <A> It's kinda both. <S> The expression describes the sensation of almost remembering something. <S> If you take a computer as an analogy, it's like you've managed to find the file the word is in, and you've double-clicked to open the file, and now you're waiting for the computer to access that part of the hard drive and open the file. <S> You know how sometimes when you try to open a file and the computer kinda freezes for a little bit? "on the tip of my tongue" describes that sensation of the information almost being accessed. <S> With a computer, this could just be a temporary thing, such as your computer needing to spin up the hard drive, or there could be something wrong with the file, and it never opens. <S> Similarly, something "on the tip of my tongue" could mean I need a few extra seconds for my brain's "hard drive" to "spin up" (metaphorically speaking, of course), but it could also be followed with completely failing to remember what I was looking for. <S> The phrase refers to a moment in which you can't remember. <S> If that moment is followed by you remembering the next moment, then the overall effect is that it takes you longer to remember. <S> If it's not followed by you remembering, then the overall effect is of you not remembering.
| If something that you want to say is on the tip of your tongue, you think you know it and that you will be able to remember it very soon.
|
How to find proper phrasal verbs or idioms for the sentence you're translating? Let's assume you're translating a sentence. You can translate everything in English but sometimes there are idioms and phrasal verbs that you can use to make your sentnce more clear and compact. e.g., for this sentence: I want to seperate it into pieces. You can use "break up". i.e., I want to break it up. But the point is that finding such phrasal verbs is difficult. I mean you don't know if such phrasal verb exist or how to search to find such phrasal verb. You non-native, How do you know that if such phrasal verb exist? How do you find them? For example, I use https://www.thefreedictionary.com/break to find the meaning of phrasal verbs but it appears that we cannot use it in reverse direction as I said. Do you use any specific dictionary? <Q> This is obviously where experience and knowledge starts to really help! <S> Here is thesaurus.com <S> I have put in 'separate' already. <S> Notice the tabs where you can look through the various meanings of 'separate'. <S> Finally, be aware that phrasal verbs are only the best option when they are the best option, just using them because they are phrasal verbs is not always best. <S> It is as always with vocabulary case dependent! <A> You're so right that translation is far more than simply substituting words. <S> To translate well from one language to another you need to have a reasonable idiomatic understanding of both. <S> My favourite example of how you can't translate with a bilingual dictionary alone is that if you were asked to translate the German term " schraube and mutter " into English that way you would get "screw and mother", which means nothing at all in English. <S> A dictionary is not enough - to convey <S> the meaning of the original you need to <S> know <S> that is what Germans call a nut and bolt . <S> My suggestion would be to use a good online thesaurus. <S> They don't just offer synonymous words , but phrases too. <S> Thesaurus.com associates " Break up " with words like dismantle , disassemble , or disperse , so if you had looked up any of these words you would have been brought to this idiomatic phrase "break up". <S> Interestingly, not all senses of "break up" are synonymous with "separate". <S> This word can sometimes mean to break apart just two things, and not always break things down into many pieces. <S> This website helps by offering various tabs with different senses of the word or phrase you searched for. <A> Native speakers looking for this kind of thing use a thesaurus ( wikipedia ), most often one descended from Roget's 1805 work. <S> An online version of that gives separate <S> 10 Irrelation: <S> Adj. <S> disrelated, disconnected, dissociated, detached, removed, separated, separate, segregate, apart, independent, independent. <S> 15 Difference: Vb. <S> separate, sever, severalize, segregate, divide -- distinct, distinguished, separate, widely apart. <S> 44 Disjunction: Vb. <S> separate, divide, part, dispart, divorce, detach, remove -- part, separate, split up, split out, break up, break it up , leave, take leave, quit, go away, go separate ways, part company -- separate, distinct, discrete. <S> A non-native speaker might also want a dictionary of phrasal verbs -- many are available -- to understand the sense of the phrases. <S> Native speakers reading such dictionaries are always surprised at how many meanings there are, and that usually we know every single one.
| One practical way that even native speakers are advised to use to get that knowledge is a decent thesaurus, and then under synonyms or antonyms there should be some useful alternatives - including phrasal verbs.
|
Why is there a comma before but in the following case (dependent clause)? The following example ends with a dependent clause, so I assumed I shouldn't put a comma before but : She was beautiful enough to attract men but not to intimidate them. I checked similar sentences on this site. It seems like there should be a comma in situations like these. Why is this? Explanation by Grammarly. Update: Another example: He wore a long-sleeve shirt that was too big for him(,) but in a fashionable way. <Q> Great question. <S> The examples in the Grammarly explanation do make sense. <S> However, in the other examples given in your list, the included comma reads a lot better than without. <S> I like him, but not to win. <S> (timesunion.com ) <S> Imagine reading the above without the comma. <S> It sounds odd. <S> If read too quickly it might even sound like "I like him not to win," which has a totally different meaning. <S> The comma serves to insert a momentary pause in the sentence which reads a lot more naturally. <S> Another example: <S> Maybe the idea of a steaming pool of therapeutic water carved out of volcanic rock and heated with underground energy was old hat to him, but not to us. <S> (abcnews.go.com) <S> Again imagine reading all that without the comma. <S> It's absolutely confusing because there are so many ideas in that one sentence. <S> The "," adds a necessary pause, giving weight to "old hat to him" just prior, to be contrasted with the closing "but not to us". <S> All that nuance would be lost without the humble comma! <A> She was beautiful enough to attract men but not to intimidate them. <S> In the example from the site you linked , comma is there to separates another clause ("Joyce told him") from the rest of the sentence and not because of "but." <S> There was a little fire at the track, Joyce told him, but not to worry. <S> In your last example, from the grammatical reason (an independent clause followed by a dependent clause), you do not need a comma befire "but," but you may use it to separate contrasting parts of the sentence ( GrammarBook, rule 15 ). <S> He wore a long-sleeve shirt that was too big for him (,) but in a fashionable way. <A> Rather than focusing on rules, get to the essence of the sentence. <S> Try to speak that sentence in your native language. <S> The author here wants to say that the woman's beauty attracts men. <S> It doesn't scare them. <S> Also think of it logically - can a woman's beauty really be intimidating to men!? <S> Why will it scare them? <S> Does beauty attract or does it scare someone? <S> The meaning of this sentence is that the woman's beauty attracts men, it doesn't intimidate them. <S> The reason why a comma is present after men is because the entire sentence contains two sections <S> She was beautiful enough to attract men and but not to intimidate them . <S> Both of these have to spoken with a pause between them. <S> Similarly, in the 1st example you posted, we can see that again, there are two parts in the sentence <S> - the man wore a long sleeve shirt which wasn't fitting him and the shirt was worn fashionably . <S> Again, get to the essence of this sentence. <S> The man wore a misfitting shirt but he wore it in a fashionable way. <S> Again, you will speak the two parts with a pause between them. <S> The reason there's a 'but' between the two parts is because the second part is indicating something contradictory to the first part. <S> Take the 2nd example - in the first part, the author says the shirt wasn't fitting him well <S> (shirt wont look good) <S> but despite being a misfit, the shirt was worn fashionably (which made it look good on him). <S> So you see, the meaning of the 2nd part is a contradiction to the meaning of the first part. <S> As I said, sometimes strictly following the grammar rules to construct sentences can be misleading. <S> It can give you results which probably mean something else. <S> So it is better to get to the essence of the sentence, try to understand what it means and how would you speak the sentence in real life. <S> Converting English sentences to my native tongue always helps me understand the sentences better
| In your first example, you do not need a comma before "but," because the "but" separates an independent and dependent clause.
|
"bring he and..." VS "bring him and..." Consider these statements: Don't worry about Matt. I will bring he and John home after the party. Don't worry about Matt. I will bring him and John home after the party. Is one preferred yet both correct? Is only one correct and the other wrong? <Q> The correct usage is <S> Don't worry about Matt. <S> I will bring him and John home after the party. <S> To help figure this out, I dropped John from the statement to consider "him" and "he" alone. <S> For example, I will bring him home after the party. <S> To me, this sounded better. <S> Those posting comments to my question confirmed that this was right and the other wrong. <A> The subject of the verb "bring" is "I". <S> The object is "him and John". <S> Since the pronoun appears as an object, the objective form is appropriate, which is "him". <S> Your friend thinking that "he" is preferred may be an example of an overcorrection. <S> It may be that your friend has incorrectly used the objective pronoun in cases where the subjective pronoun is called for, been told that is wrong, and incorrectly thought this means that "he" is in general more correct than "him", rather it being more correct *in certain situations". <A> English-speaking children are often confused about pronouns and will say things like "Me and John went home." <S> (using an object pronoun in place of a subject pronoun when combined with another noun or pronoun, in particular.) <S> They will then learn that the correct thing to say is "John and I went home. <S> " Sometimes people (children or adults) will remember this rule and incorrectly extend it to all cases of (noun/pronoun 1) and (noun/pronoun 2) , even when this noun phrase is the object of a verb. <S> So in a nutshell, "he and John" is incorrect in your example because this noun phrase is the object of bring . <S> "him and John" or "John and him" is correct (generally nouns are listed before pronouns in these constructions, so "John and him" is preferable, but this is more a matter of style than grammar).
| "He and John" in this context is an example of hypercorrection .
|
Where is the subject? "Donald Trump’s desire to nominate Mr Cain had sparked a backlash, even among Republicans worried that the president was seeking to undermine the independence of the central bank by appointing his supporters." What is the subject of the clause "even (among Republicans) worried that the president..."? <Q> The main clause of the example sentence is: Donald Trump’s <S> desire to nominate Mr Cain had sparked a backlash <S> The verb is "spark" in the form 'had sparked". <S> The subject is "Donald Trump’s desire to nominate Mr Cain" and the object is "backlash". <S> The secondary clause "even among Republicans worried that the president was seeking..." explains who was included in that backlash. <S> Note thqt the main caluse works perfectly well as an independenat sentence. <S> The sentence could be recast into two sentences as: <S> Donald Trump’s desire to nominate Mr Cain had sparked a backlash. <S> This included Republicans worried that the president was seeking to undermine the independence of the central bank by appointing his own supporters. <S> In the recast sentences, the subject of the second is "this" which refers back to "backlash" in the previous sentence. <A> What you have quoted isn't a clause. <S> It parses as "even among [Republicans (who are) worried that ... ] <S> " <S> Edit : I have been asked to expand this. <S> From what you say, you seem to be mis-parsing, thinking that "worried" is a past-tense verb, and asking what it its subject. <S> It is not: it is a past participle, with adjectival force here. <S> (You can see it as a reduction of the relative clause "who are worried that ... ") <A> The sentence contains three clauses: Donald Trump’s <S> desire to nominate Mr Cain had sparked a backlash, even among Republicans. <S> (The main clause) <S> (Who were) worried. <S> (Dependent clause) that the president was seeking to undermine the independence of the central bank by appointing his supporters. <S> (Dependent clause)
| The subject of the first dependent clause is the relative pronoun who which is elided, and its antecident is "Republicans". The adjectival phrase "worried that the president was seeking to undermine the independence of the central bank by appointing his supporters" qualifies "Republicans".
|
What is a good verb that describes that pain is happening suddenly and is sharp? What is a good verb that describes that pain is happening suddenly and is sharp? I am not sure if there's a verb that checks these two condition, so if you can't I would like a verb that checks one or the other as a condition. <Q> a sudden, sharp pain <S> a stabbing pain [adjective] The pain struck or stabbed him like a knife or felt like a knife [verb] a crippling pain [adjective] <S> The pain was crippling. <S> The pain crippled him momentarily. <S> a piercing pain [adjective] <S> The pain pierced him like a knife <S> The pain coursed through him. <S> Pain like this is often associated with knives or other pointed instruments. <S> stabbing and piercing are common ways to describe it. <S> There are, undoubtedly, other ways to say it as well. <A> Not a verb, descriptions in English use adjectives. <S> Would you describe the pain as a stabbing pain, or an aching pain? <S> It is also natural to use "sudden, sharp pain" <A> To add on to the other good answers ("a sharp, stabbing pain, etc.) <S> : Pain that is sudden and of relatively short duration, or caused by a temporary injury, is called acute pain. <S> For example, stubbing your toe, or a muscle cramp, or even something more serious like a gunshot wound, all produce acute pain (of varying degrees of severity , of course). <S> Pain that lasts a relatively long time, or recurs on a regular basis, is called chronic pain. <S> For example, someone might suffer from chronic migraine headaches, or joint pain due to an old injury, or joint pain from arthritis, or many other causes of varying severity.
| The usual word used to describe pain that comes on quickly and is in one place is "stabbing".
|
Can I say: "When was your train leaving?" if the train leaves in the future? The context of this sentence is that I know that I had asked before what the departure time is of the train that my friend was going to take. Unfortunately I had forgotten it, so my brain decided that a past tense would make sense and ask: "When was your train leaving?" instead of "When is your train leaving?" Is using the past tense in this situation correct and/or common? <Q> You can, actually, use the past tense to ask a question about the future, but it's not really that simple. <S> "When was your train leaving?" What is implied here is that the person asking the question knew or was told the answer to the question but forgot. <S> It's often a shortened form of <S> " <S> When did you say your train was leaving?" <S> So the question really is about an event that happened in the past—involving the discovery or relation of the information about the train leaving—which has a bearing on the future. <S> It is not a direct request for information about the future event, except as filtered through past events. <A> This is actually a great question. <S> Robusto's answer is perfect, but there are other times when you'll hear speakers using that manner or "style" of speech where it doesn't fit the scenario described. <S> For example, say you walk up to a newsstand and ask for a newspaper. <S> The clerk doesn't respond and just goes back to playing a game on his phone. <S> You might stand there for a bit in disbelief, then say, "So, were you going to get me that newspaper?" <S> In this case, it carries the message that you think it should have been done already. <S> You are conveying irritation, but in a grownup, I'm-making-a-conscious-effort-to-be-civil kind of way, and, possibly, sprinkled with a little uncertainty as in, "Is there something here <S> I'm missing?". <A> Another variant of your question that I've heard (although replace train with plane). <S> Say someone woke up too late to travel to the airport to make their flight (which won't depart for some 30 minutes), and they told you this, <S> you may say: <S> When was your flight? <S> Which should probably be interpreted as a truncation of: <S> When was your flight scheduled ? <S> or When was your flight meant to be ? <A> When was your train leaving? <S> Might give the response: 10 o'clock, same as before :) <S> (The implication being, that you thought it was leaving at 9, but now it leaves at 10). <S> or: It hasn't left yet. <S> Unfortunately I had forgotten it ... <S> OK, so say that: I've forgotten what you told me. <S> When is your train leaving? <S> or: Can you remind me when your train leaves? <A> We usually ask "when was" if there has been a change to the schedule or the time has passed, even if the event has not occurred. <S> The meaning here is that in the past the time of a future event has changed. <S> "So when was your train supposed to be leaving." <S> But we can use also use it if we consider that the reply is not authoritative : <S> "So when did you think the train was leaving?" <S> Although is is discourteous to suggest you doubt their word in a dismissive manner. <S> These usages are common in Airports, Taxis, Train Stations and Bus locations.
| All native speakers recognize that use of the past tense for an event that hasn't occurred.
|
is it correct to say "When it started to rain, I was in the open air." Is it correct to say "When it started to rain, I was in the open air"? Or should I say "I was not inside a building"? In Chinese there is a phrase that can be literally translated as "in the streets", meaning "being out doing something outdoors". Just wondering if there is an equivalent in English. <Q> You could say: When it started to rain, I was outdoors. <S> or When it started to rain, I was (caught) outside. <S> Outdoors is an adverb and means out of doors (not in the building), in the open air. <A> <A> Is it correct to say "When it started to rain, I was in the open air"? <S> This is fine, though being "in the open" implies being "in the open air". <S> (This is Earth, not the vacuum of space, or under the water, so it would sound odd.) <S> Or should I say "I was not inside a building"? <S> Only if you specifically want to tell them that you weren't in a building . <S> This is because there are other places you could be when it started to rain besides in the open or in a building. <S> For example, you could be: on the porch, under an overhang, in a car port, any other place that shelters you from the rain which aren't in doors . <S> In all those cases, you are outside, but definitely <S> not "in the open". <A> The phrase "open air" is more used: to distinguish different "degrees" of being outside. <S> For example, say we were having a cigarette, on the verandah at the rear of a house. <S> We might say something like "let's go stand over there in the open air to enjoy our cigarette, rather than here under the porch". <S> The other way you use the phrase "open air" is in the sense: "exposed to the open air". <S> So an engineer (on an aircraft or such) might say "These bolts are exposed to the open air, whereas these bolts are covered by a fairing." <S> The phrase "open air" is pretty specific. <S> You wouldn't generally use it to mean "outside". <S> I hope that helps! <A> It is common to say "Don't get caught out in the open during a thunderstorm. <S> "or <S> "Don't get caught outside during a thunderstorm."
| In connection with bad weather, rain, snow, hail, etc, we can say we are, or were, "in the open" and this is understood to mean "not in a building".
|
What's the phrase meaning "compromising in a way both parties get what they deserve" during deal-making"? What do you call the act of compromising during deal-making to get the fairest deal possible? I think I heard an idiom and it contained the word "middle", but I don't remember what the expression was. I think it was a three word phrase, but I don't remember. <Q> You might be thinking of: <S> Find middle ground <S> Meet in the middle. <S> Find a happy medium. <A> There is no "fairest deal possible". <S> What is fair for ne party may not be fair another party. <S> Of course, at some point, parties might agree that everything is "fair" and accept the deal. <S> meet someone halfway = <S> to agree to do part of what someone wants if that person will do part of what you want: <S> The buyers wanted to bring the price down from $15,000 to $10,000, so I offered to meet them halfway at $12,500. <A> "Meet in the middle", possibly? <S> As in, When bargaining, they always start high and I always start low <S> and we end up meeting <S> somewhere in the middle <S> There's also the expression "give and take", which refers to the general process of bargaining where you give some concession in order to take some advantage from the other party. <A> "Meet in the middle" Both parties are on either side of the issue so they have to figuratively "meet" in the "middle" of the issue.
| Referring to an idiom using "middle", you probably think of meet someone halfway :
|
What do you call the hair or body hair you trim off your body? What do you call the hair or body hair you trim off your body? When you get your hair cut, remainders are left on the floor until it is swept off. What do you call them? For example: The boy swept off the ___ that was left below the man whose hair was getting cut. <Q> "clippings" or "trimmings" is good. <S> (plural, so change "was" to "were" in your example sentence, of course) <S> These are general terms, but their meaning is clear in the context of someone's hair being cut. <S> Their full description would include the word "hair" (i.e. "hair clippings") <S> so we know they aren't grass, or newspaper articles. <S> As pointed out below, they are still "hair", so instead of the clippings, you might sweep up the hair or the pile of hair , or just the mess . <A> It is still hair , only now it is on the floor. <S> The boy swept up the hair that was left below the man who was getting a haircut. <S> The plug-hole in the bath was blocked with hair. <A> My local barber refers to them as "cuttings". <A> "Shavings" may be apt for those with a bit more hair or depending on where the hair was from
| Viewing the answers here, I would say "clippings" is considered the best, but "trimmings" and "cuttings" would be clear, and even "shavings" if generated by an electric razor.
|
In an ideal world, everybody has/(would have) enough to eat I'm doing an exercise and I have the following sentence under "would" unit: In an ideal world, everybody (have) enough to eat. It's obvious, that I should put would have have here but the question is can I use just has : In an ideal world, everybody has enough to eat. Are both options grammatically correct? If so, does 'has' in the sentence sound unnaturally in any way? <Q> Can you use "has"? <S> Absolutely. <S> This changes it from a pure hypothetical to a definitive prediction of what you consider an essential characteristic of an "ideal world". <S> It sounds much the same as an observation of something that is not hypothetical. <S> Examples: <S> In Los Angeles, everyone has a car. <S> (observation) <S> In future Los Angeles, everyone has a flying car. <S> (prediction) <S> In France, many people eat croissants for breakfast (observation) <S> In an ideal France, everyone eats croissants for breakfast. <S> (prediction) <A> Both options are definitely grammatical. <S> The structure of the second sentence is the same as a more obviously correct sentence, such as: In France, everybody has red shoes. <S> So the question is not whether it's grammatically correct (it is) to say "In an ideal world, everybody has enough." <S> The question is whether it's good style. <S> Matters of style are largely subjective. <S> There's no one right answer. <S> To me, the second sentence is fine. <S> I would more likely say, "would have" since this is a hypothetical world, so <S> when I say the sentence, I mean to imply: "If the world were an ideal world, everyone would have enough." <S> You could also use "will have" if you're feeling optimistic. <S> This would imply that in the future, we'll reach that ideal state. <A> Using "has" is just a bit unnatural, the speaker asking the listener to oblige him a bit by imagining this supposed world and ascribing qualities to it. <S> It can be a bit more forceful, especially as a retort to someone arguing for a different opinion of the ideal world. <S> (Bob:"In an ideal world, prisons would rehabilitate criminals." <S> Alice:"An ideal world has no criminals!") <S> If you are going to go into a long list of statements about the ideal world, you might want to stick with the "has" scheme so that you don't have so many "would"s to type or say, but you might sound a little like an unrealistic person, and if you are unsure about having the support of your audience, "would" is more tactful.
| Both are fine as styles; it's almost down to preference.
|
Is there an idiom that means "look familiar"? Is there an idiom that means "look familiar"? I am pretty sure there's a handful of expression that means "look familiar" or something similar? Do you know any such expression? For example: Does this piece of painting ____ the police chief asked? <Q> You can use "ring a bell", as in "that does ring a bell", though that phrase usually refers to ideas or discussions, rather than visuals. <S> Does that help? <A> (Note that piece of painting isn't normally idiomatic in English.) <S> The police chief asked "Does this painting ring a bell ?" ring a bell (also ring any bells ) to sound familiar <S> Don't take that <S> sound too literally though. <S> The expression can just as well be used in contexts where it might be directly replaceable by ... seem, look, smell, taste, feel familiar . <S> In much the same vein <S> there's also touch / strike a chord , which could (just about) be used in OP's context. <S> But that one often has stronger allusions to strike / hit home <S> which usually conveys particularly , often painfully relevant. <S> As in His story about being mugged struck a chord with me (because I myself had been mugged, so listening to him brought back disturbing memories). <A> With a slight rewording the police chief could ask <S> Do you recognize this painting? <S> As given by the Oxford Dictionaries recognize <S> ( British recognise) <S> VERB 1 <S> Identify (someone or something) from having encountered them before; know again.
| A very common idiomatic usage in this context is:
|
"during which time" Vs "during which" Jackson said the blackout lasted several minutes, during which time he felt no pain, even though he had fallen and hurt himself very badly. Jackson said the blackout lasted several minutes, during which he felt no pain, even though he had fallen and hurt himself very badly The class lasted two hours, during which we read Hamlet. The class lasted two hours, during which time we read Hamlet. I was told that only sentence #1 was grammatically correct. How about sentence #2?I think in sentence #2 the antecedent of which is the blackout while in sentence 1, which time refers to several minutes. My question is: Is sentence #2 grammatically correct? If it's correct, what is the difference in meaning between those two? <Q> I think time is redundant. <S> Since during is a preposition representing time span, it is clear which is referring to several minutes . <S> I don't think the other two are necessarily wrong, but if it were me, I'd opt for the 2nd and 3rd sentences. <A> I would say that the antecedent is "several minutes" in both 1 and 2. <S> In fact there is no significant difference in grammar or meaning between 1 and 2. <S> In 3 and 4 the antecedent is "two hours". <S> Again there is no difference in meaning. <A> One and two are both correct. <S> The first sentence is saying that he felt no pain for several minutes during the blackout. <S> The second sentence is saying that he felt no pain while the blackout was happening. <S> The difference is subtle, and inconsequential in this case.
| You are correct in your analysis of the antecedent.
|
“Every time no one’s around” or "every time when no one’s around" I couldn’t help but stare at him every time when no one’s around Or I couldn’t help but stare at him every time no one’s around Which is correct? <Q> The construction every time when... is not idiomatic. <S> No examples of it can be found on Google Books Ngram Viewer. <S> Every time can either be followed by that or by the clause that follows without that . <S> For example: Every time that he comes here, he brings flowers or <S> Every time he comes here, he brings flowers. <S> The construction <S> no one's is likely to be understood as no one is although it might possibly be interpreted in some contexts as no one was or no one has . <S> So you need to phrase your sentences either in the present tense as: <S> I can't help but stare at him every time <S> (that) no one's [ is ] around. <S> or, in the past tense as: <S> I couldn't help but stare at him every time <S> (that) no one was around. <S> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=everry+time+when%2Cevery+time+tha <A> They are both correct. <S> The second form is a bit better, because it is shorter. <A> These both sound wrong; "no one's" is a contraction for "no one is", but we would want "no one was" there, instead. <S> That being said, the second one is better because the "when" is redundant - we already have said "time", so saying "when" is repeating ourselves a bit. <S> Also I would prefer "any" to "every", but the differences are subtle. <S> Also, "anytime we were alone " is worth considering.
| The meaning of both is exactly the same.
|
Can I pay my credit card? As far as I know , the direct object of pay (when meaning provide money for something ) is who or what you want to pay. However, I read the following sentence from a (supposedly) native speaker: Can I pay my credit card? From the context, it is clear that the writer did not want to pay for her/his credit bank, but with it. Another example shows the use of transitive/intransitive forms with this verb. I guess that using the transitive form in this context is acceptable.Yet, does it sounds informal, or can it be used in every situation? EDIT : The sentence has been (possibly hastily) written in an email. <Q> Weird. <S> I would think they meant credit card bill <S> but you say that’s not what they meant. <S> Maybe my was a typo of by - “Can I pay by credit card?” <S> This is the only way I could see them meaning they wanted to use their credit card to pay for something. <A> It doesn't sound correct. <S> Pay by credit card means pay the shop Pay with my credit card <S> means pay the shop <S> Pay my credit card bill <S> means pay the bank <S> Pay my credit card <S> might be understood as paying the bank, but is informal and not a standard usage <A> To add to Mixolydian's answer, they are probably using a swipe-style phone keyboard (you just run your fingers over the letters rather than typing each letter) <S> and if so it would be very easy to get my instead of by. <A> "Can I pay credit card?" meaning "Can I pay with my credit card?" does sound incorrect to my (native English speaker) ear, but it's exactly the same construction as "Can I pay cash?" <S> I know I've heard the cash phrase for years, and probably used it a few times myself. <S> I can't say why cash sounds correct and credit card doesn't, but it may just come down to familiarity with a colloquialism, and the difference in words throwing off the familiarity. <S> I'm stretching to come up with an example, but if a friend and I were at a bar and the friend appeared to be "unwell," if they said "Home" I would probably interpret it to be a request to take them home. <S> If they said "Work" I'd probably ask "What about work?"
| My guess is it was possibly misheard or a mistake on the part of the speaker/writer.
|
Who is frowning in the sentence "Daisy looked at Tom frowning"? I read this sentence from The Great Gatsby : “Plenty of gas,” said Tom boisterously. He looked at the gauge. “And if it runs out I can stop at a drug-store. You can buy anything at a drug-store nowadays.” A pause followed this apparently pointless remark. Daisy looked at Tom frowning , and an indefinable expression, at once definitely unfamiliar and vaguely recognizable, as if I had only heard it described in words, passed over Gatsby’s face. Which one of the following interpretations is correct? Daisy looked at Tom. At the same time, she was frowning. Daisy looked at Tom, and Tom was frowning. If 1. is correct, what do I say to mean 2? <Q> From the sentence alone, it could mean either #1 or #2; there is no way to tell without context. <S> #1 would be the more common meaning of this construction, but #2 is perfectly proper. <S> In this case, the previous paragraph makes it clear that Tom was happy (the term "boisterously" is used), and that Daisy and Gatsby were not. <S> Therefore, #1 was intended. <S> Strictly speaking, this should have a comma: <S> Daisy looked at Tom, frowning. <S> But that is a detail often omitted, and cannot be relied on to indicate the meaning. <S> If the comma is present, #2 is pretty much ruled out. <S> To make #2 clear, the sentence could be recast: <S> Daisy looked at Tom, noticing his frown. <S> Daisy looked at Tom as he frowned. <S> Or context could be added in a nearby sentence. <A> Note : I gave this answer before it was edited to provide additional context. <S> At the time, the only phrase provided was: <S> Daisy looked at Tom frowning. <S> It's ambiguous and could be interpreted either way. <S> To make it explicit, one way or the other, you could do the following (the list is not exhaustive): 1a. <S> Daisy, frowning, looked at Tom. <S> 1b. <S> Daisy looked at Tom and frowned. <S> 1c. <S> Daisy frowned as she looked at Tom. <S> 2a. <S> Daisy looked at Tom, who was frowning. <S> 2b. <S> Daisy looked at a frowning Tom. <A> However, in context, there is almost no description of Daisy, and a lot about the others, and I'd at first read it that Tom's and Gatsby's expressions being described. <S> On closer reading, it makes more sense that she is reacting quizzically to his "apparently pointless remark", as there is plot significance to drug stores which comes out later. <S> “Plenty of gas,” said Tom boisterously. <S> He looked at the gauge. <S> “And if it runs out I can stop at a drug-store. <S> You can buy anything at a drug-store nowadays.” <S> A pause followed this apparently pointless remark. <S> Daisy looked at Tom frowning , and an indefinable expression , at once definitely unfamiliar and vaguely recognizable, as if I had only heard it described in words, passed over Gatsby’s face. <S> To make yourself explicit, you can say: Daisy frowned and looked at Tom. <S> (She is frowning) <S> Daisy looked at Tom and frowned . <S> (She is frowning) <S> Daisy looked at Tom, who was frowning . <S> (He is frowning) <A> Taken on its own merits, the sentence is ambiguous, and that issue has been described by other respondents. <S> However, taken in context from The Great Gatsby, the only interpretation is that Daisy is frowning. <S> Tom's emotional condition was set by the first paragraph. <S> He's boisterous , "marked by or expressive of exuberance and high spirits." <S> Thus, we know that Tom is not frowning. <S> That only leaves Daisy, who is reacting to Tom. <S> Her frowning expression suggests disapproval and/or confusion. <S> No author is perfect. <S> No editor evaluating a book for publication is perfect. <S> It's common to find quirky sentences like this in a book. <S> In a "perfected" form, the sentence should have read: <S> Daisy frowned as she looked at Tom. <S> As an aside, this is a good example of why context should always be provided when asking "what does this sentence mean?" questions. <A> The other way to approach this, which I don't see covered in any of the existing answers, is by looking at the overall structure of these two paragraphs. <S> Essentially, it's <S> Tom makes a statement Daisy and Gatsby react (negatively) to it <S> As others have pointed out, Tom makes a boisterous observation -- so clearly isn't the one frowning -- and this is immediately framed in the second paragraph as being an "apparently pointless remark", and it goes on to explain the two reactions (of the others, not Tom) to said remark. <S> So Daisy frowns, and Gatsby reacts in his more inscrutable way ("indefinable expression, at once definitely unfamiliar and vaguely recognizable"). <S> It's true that the sentence taken in isolation, without a comma, could be interpreted either way, but in the larger context of these two paragraphs, it can only mean Daisy was the one frowning.
| The sentence is ambiguous and could mean either of your suggestions.
|
How to express this idea that something doesn't matter as much as someone thinks? Suppose there is a contract that states, I need to give 14 days' notice. But I want to give 13 days' notice, and I assume that the other person that contract affects is going to be fine with that. But then a third party says "hang on I though you needed to give more notice! We need to cancel our holiday!" In Norwegian I could say: Det er vel ikke så nøye. (literally, "It is not so rigid") meaning that I think that although it's technically a breach of contract, nobody is going to care enough to make a deal out of it, for the sake of one day. Or let's say I am making a curry. The recipe calls for two teaspoons of chilli powder, but my preference is for spicy food so I use three. Then someone sees what I am doing and just reminds me what the recipe says. So I tell the guy Er dèt så nøye da? (literally, "Is that so rigid then?"). The implication is, that I think the recipe isn't gospel. So I can do what I like. It doesn't need to be about contracts or laws, but could something like a recipe, that I don't heed because I like my food spicier or creamier or whatever. But it's usually a response to someone who's basically saying something like "Hang on, the contract says this so you must do that." "Hang on, you had to put exactly two teaspoons of chilli in that curry" "Hang on, it would be wise to disconnect the electricity before you poke a piece of metal into that wiring" "Hang on, the teacher said you needed to wait before opening the envelopes until he has finished handed them all out." "Hang on, I'm sure you're breaking some law or other by ramming your van into that cow." And you want to answer that you choose not submit because you trust others to be lenient, which means it's a point of flexibility. Is there an English language equivalent to "det er vel ikke så nøye" that works in these cases? <Q> I think this idiom might fit: <S> There's no hard-and-fast rule about X. Hard-and-fast means strongly binding; not to be set aside or violated. <S> However, in the context of contracts and in consideration of leniency, I can't think of one. <A> Obviously, if you have a rule that's literally carved into stone, it's difficult to amend. <S> Also, it's likely that this idiom is based on the Biblical story of Moses revealing the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets, so this idiom is the equivalent of saying, "It's not a commandment directly from God Himself." <A> To say it's not so rigid you can say: "You do not need to take this literally. " <S> Tied up. <S> You will hear native English speakers using the phrasal verb [tied up] all the time! <S> You can’t take this literally, <S> this has nothing to do with actually being tied up! <S> ( Canlearnenglish.com )
| One common idiom is to say, It's not written in stone.
|
"I learned" vs "I have learned" when it comes to past experiences that have indirect connection to the present? I'm writing a blog post about my experience in college and I'm not sure which of following titles should I use: 10 Life Lessons I Learned After Leaving College 10 Life Lessons I Have Learned After Leaving College <Q> If you're still learning, the answer is " I have learned " because you're still learning these lessons. <S> If you only learned these 10 lessons, and then nothing after that <S> then I'd write <S> "I learned". <A> I'd say that if these 10 lessons still impact your present life, use present perfect, because they are relevant now. <S> I prefer the present perfect, because they are "life lessons". <S> If you are thinking of the period in the past when you learnt these lessons, use past simple. <A> For the present perfect tense <S> that your second candidate title uses (“I have learned”), <S> Wikipedia notes The present perfect in English is used chiefly for completed past actions or events when it is understood that it is the present result of the events that is focused upon, rather than the moment of completion. <S> No particular past time frame is specified for the action/event. <S> When a past time frame (a point of time in the past, or period of time which ended in the past) is specified for the event, explicitly or implicitly, the simple past is used rather than the present perfect. <S> The best choice of title hinges on how closely in time the post will present your connection to the past time frame of leaving college. <S> Are you a recent college graduate who is still figuring out “the real world”? <S> If so, “10 Life Lessons <S> I Have Learned After Leaving College” <S> would be more appropriate. <S> Changing a single word to make the title “10 Life Lessons <S> Regardless of how far removed in time you are from college, if your intent is to project maturity and therefore separation from the mindset of an young undergraduate, “10 Life Lessons I Learned After Leaving College” would be better. <S> Related but not directly applicable is in contexts more formal than a blog post, you would definitely spell out the leading number of titles, sentences, section headers, and so on — as in “Ten Life Lessons …” Whether to spell out numbers internal to sentences depends on style and the level of formality.
| I Have Learned Since Leaving College” will emphasize proximity in time.
|
What do you call the protruding backside of a car? What do you call the protruding backside of a car? I am referring to the part behind the seats and the black cover of the car in this picture. Is there a particular name for it? <Q> There is no formal term for this. <S> The particular car in your example is a Porsche Boxster, which has the baggage compartment in the front, and the engine in the back. <S> Even Porsche owners don't know what words to use. <S> In practice, people will generally understand "trunk"/"boot" to mean what you intend, but it is not technically correct. <S> "Rear" is probably the most correct. <A> I believe you're talking about the trunk ( American English ). <S> The back part where you put stuff in such as luggage. <S> Just a quick tip for next time <S> , if you go on Google and select "images" and then write " Car parts names in English " you will see a bunch of car parts with names from ESL websites. <A> The front end of a carThe read end of a car <S> Here is the front end of new Ford Focus: <S> Rear end of a Mercedes: <S> For me, this is not about trunks and boots, for sedans. <S> These pictures function as free advertising for these vehicles as they contain the brand names.
| "Trunk" (or "boot") is probably what most people would say, but the term only actually refers to the actual baggage compartment and not the region of the car. I think front end and rear end are generic enough to include the entire portion of a car from the front windows forward and the back windows back (on a sedan for instance).
|
“In the beginning of 20th century” or “at the beginning of 20th century“ Acupuncture appeared in the West in the beginning of 20th century. Or Acupuncture appeared in the West at the beginning of 20th century. Which is correct? To me, at the beginning sounds like in 1901 , or in 1915 . In the beginning seems to have more range.Correct me if I’m wrong. <Q> The standard grammar here is pretty clear : <S> years and in <S> : He began his job in 2005. <S> They began the public works projects in the 1930s. <S> She was born in 2000. <S> at the beginning of a period of time (century, week, month, period, era, day etc.) <S> At the beginning of the 20 st century, there were few [x]. <S> At the beginning of the year, he was in Asia. <S> At the beginning of the week, we were not working on this. <S> That is the basic idiomatic usage for these contexts. <S> "in the beginning" is another idiom with another meaning. <S> We have had a very long friendship. <S> In the beginning [of the friendship], we always played tennis. <S> Then later, we started scuba diving on vacation in Florida. <S> The dog was rescued by my father on a rainy evening. <S> In the beginning [of the dog's being rescued], the whole family adored the mutt and we still do. <S> God Gave Names to All the Animals in the Beginning [of the world] is not one of Bob Dylan's best songs. <S> in the beginning usually refers to some relationship or thing that involves a process but not to a specific period of time like week, month, day, century, decade, etc. <S> We wouldn't say : In the beginning of the week , I was tired. <S> We might very well say: In the beginning of the book [implied, when you first start reading it], the characters were very funny. <A> You are correct. " <S> At" is more specific, likely close to 1901. <S> We generally speak of the year 2000 as the first year of the new millennium and the first year of the 21st Century. <S> That is also incorrect - but it's common usage. <S> I would not expect to read "in the beginning of the 20th C. <S> " It's more likely to be written as "near the beginning of the 20th C." or "early in the 20th C.". <S> Another usage could be "Acupuncture appeared in the West beginning with (or, "beginning in") the 20th Century." <S> In that case, we need to understand the context. <S> If we are discussing events of the 1880s-1890s, then I would interpret "beginning with" to mean 1900-1910 or so. <S> Note that I included 1900! <S> If we are discussing dynasties over the last 2500 years, and noting events that happened in the 16th Century, and acupuncture appearing in the 20th Century, I would take the range to be 1900-2000 (a 101-year range). <A> I would say "in the early 20th century". <S> Look at this .
| In the USA, 1900 is generally considered the start of the 20th Century, even though that is incorrect.
|
why "American-born", not "America-born"? I tried but failed to wrap my head around the grammar for the term "American-born" (and all other similar expressions - "Canadian-born", "French-born", ...etc).Is it a set phrase or is there some grammar rule why the term has to be American-born, not America-born ? <Q> There are 2 ways to express the country of birth. <S> born as a(n) <S> [American, Canadian...] <S> rewritten as: <S> [American, Canadian... <S> ]-born <S> born in [America, Canada...] <S> It is similar with the pattern: (adjective) - ("past participle" of a noun) <S> e.g.: <S> short-sleeved = <S> with a short sleeve fast-paced = <S> with a fast pace Compare with: (adjective) - (past participle) <S> American-born = <S> born in America <A> It doesn't necessarily mean they were physically "Born in the USA." <S> "America-born" does mean they were physically born in the USA. <S> For most countries, that does not necessarily mean they are a citizen of the country where they were born, but the USA is an exception to that general rule, because of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. <S> Note: there are a few exceptions to the US "citizenship by birthright" rule, such as children of foreign diplomats working at embassies in the USA who are not born inside the embassy itself (which does not count as "US territory") but in a hospital which is in US territory. <A> "American-born" is the common phrase. <S> Firstly, it's best to think of it as as a set phrase that refers to citizenship, rather than country of birth. <S> While you might be understood if you say "America-born," the phrase will sound odd to a native speaker, and most people will simply assume that you meant to say "American-born" and attribute it to a fluency error. <S> Secondly, a searchable term for the second part of compound words like American-born is a hyphenated suffix . <S> Hyphens have several uses, one of which is to connect modifying words, especially when needed to clarify or separate words that could be parsed incorrectly. <S> For example, consider the sentence fragments below: <S> American born abroad. <S> Someone who is currently an American citizen but who was born outside the USA. <S> They may or may not have been an American citizen at birth. <S> American-born abroad. <S> A person (or people, plural; the fragment is ambiguous without context) currently living or traveling outside the United States. <S> This person was an American citizen at birth. <S> In practical usage, the hyphen here syntactically allows the grammatical but non-colloquial phrase born as an American to be converted from a verb plus modifying clause into a single compound word. <S> In either case, American is actually eliding "American citizen." <S> Therefore, a native speaker would generally understand American-born to mean "born (as) an American citizen." <S> Because English is a satellite-framing language , phrases that denote motion or manner often require or imply a preposition or prepositional phrase. <S> If it helps, you can think of American-born as meaning "born into American citizenship." <S> "America-born" is not a common phrase. <S> While probably grammatical for certain usages, the phrase "America-born" is simply not one that you are likely to hear or read . <S> If you wanted to say that a non-US citizen was born in the USA, you would say something like A <nationality <S> > born in the US. <S> The nationality would generally be expressed as an adjective like Chinese, Canadian, or Dutch (implying the noun citizen ). <S> There are some exceptions. <S> For example, you're more likely to hear "An Irishman/Scotsman born in the US" than something more contorted like "An Irish UK citizen born in the USA. <S> " <S> Nevertheless, such phrases are still generally understood to reflect citizenship rather than cultural or racial identity. <S> When talking about identity, the phrase is generally <adjective>-American such as Irish-American, African-American, and so forth. <A> You'd best regard it as an idiom. <S> There is no logical reason why you shouldn't say "America born": it's exactly parallel to "factory made". <S> We just don't. <A> Perhaps there is a distinction between country of birth and citizenship at birth? <S> To be honest, I think it's ambiguous: I would avoid describing myself as British-born or German-born <S> (I was born in Germany with British citizenship) because I don't think it would communicate clearly. <S> But I would tend to assume in the absence of clarification that "British-born" refers to citizenship, not to geography: <S> I was born British in Germany. <A> In comparison to another phrase mentioned; another factor to consider: "factory" is not a proper noun, but a common one. <S> On the other side, "America" is a proper noun. <S> The country in question is always a proper name as well, and in English, proper names cannot be modified by an article or other determinants. <S> Nor do they modify other words. <S> This carries over, in that we also say "American made" or "French made", rather than "America made" or "France made" when referring to the manufacture of items. <S> We would say "France made a mistake" to refer to the government of France doing something, but not "France-made clothing". <S> The other difference is that in "France made a mistake <S> " it is a noun + action structure. <S> By understanding them as proper names it should become clear that the supposed alternative phrases must be ungrammatical. <S> The word "America" refers to the country itself, while "American" refers to being of or related to the country called "America". <S> Proper names are simply not adjectives or modifiers - they refer to a specific thing. <S> The prase "factory made" uses a common noun, which can be used in this way because it isn't a specific reference. <S> One exception here is that you might say "Dearborne made", but this exception exists because there is no general referential term meaning "from, of, or related to Dearborne"; <S> ie. <S> China -> <S> Chinese, France -> <S> French, Dearborne -> ____.
| "American-born" means that someone was an American citizen from birth.
|
"He just borrows them, not steal(s)" -- Coordination of a negated verb in ellipsis Little John keeps borrowing Bob's colored pencils but he's too playful to remember to give them back. Bob's mom is upset and talks to John's about it. John's mom would say something along the lines of either He just borrows them, not steal . or He just borrows them, not steal s . Which one is grammatically correct? Why? I know it's feasible (and probably safer) not to omit anything and go with two full sentences. On the other hand, sometimes we need to emphasize the contrast between the two verbs, or need to be simply more concise. Consider another example, in the legal sense of the verbs, without omission of the second object: Your argument excuses his actions, not justify / justifies them. If I'm honest, the latter option seems clunky, but then how would we denote subject-verb agreement, and why wouldn't a simple omission of subject (without affecting the grammar of the rest) work? <Q> It would be much more idiomatic to use <S> do to construct these contradictory clauses: He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them. <S> Your argument excuses his actions, it doesn't justify them. <S> In fact, if you're learning English you'll want to become conversant with how thoroughly do support is entwined in the language. <S> Many normal features of other languages will involve do in English. <A> I don't think you can do this, because "not steals them" would be an ellipsised version of "He not steals them", which is not grammatical in current English. <A> If you aree going to muse this form, you should say: <S> He just borrows them, not steals. <S> The verb form matches that in "He steals them" the implied sentence which is being contradicted. <S> I hear this kind of comparison reasonably frequently from native speakers. <S> It is probably technically ungrammatical, but it is in fact in common use, and would be understood. <S> is clearer and better, but one must learn to understand English as it is actually used.
| I agree with Robusto that He just borrows them, he doesn't steal them.
|
Is there a word for pant sleeves? Is there a word for pant sleeves? I know that 'sleeves' is used for sweaters, but what about pants? I don't think the phrase 'sleeve pants' is idiomatic. Is it? By pant sleeves, I obviously mean the part that covers the entire leg. <Q> They're called legs as well, more specifically trouser legs or pant legs : a cloth covering consisting of the part of a pair of trousers that covers a person's leg <S> (source: vocabulary.com ) <A> This part is the " trouser leg ". <S> I believe in American English " pant leg " or "pantleg" is also used. <A> Back in Tudor times sleeves were separate items, particularly for women's dresses. <S> They would be held on on with ribbons or buttons. <S> So a particular word came about. <S> At that time, pants didn't even exist. <S> The modern-day trousers as middle class dress didn't really come about until sometime around the 18th century. <S> Breeches would have been formal dress before then. <S> The separate leg covering word you are looking for is "hose", knitted stockings that would cover the leg while the breeches stopped at the thigh (Tudor era) or, later on, the knee.
| Which one you should use depends on the continent ; the clothing is usually called trousers in the UK and pants in the US, so given your question you should go with pant legs .
|
Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation? Is there an idiom that means that you are in a very strong negotiation position in a negotiation? If there's no such idiom can you think of an idiom that means that you are in a stronger position than someone or something else? I am thinking of using the word in an essay on the U.S.-China trade war. <Q> I suggest "having the upper hand". <S> Oxford defines this as: have (or gain) <S> the upper hand ( phrase ) Have or gain advantage or control over someone or something. <S> and provides this example sentence: <S> Just when Claudius thinks he controls Hamlet, it is really Hamlet who has the upper hand over Claudius . <A> "To hold all the aces" means having overwhelming advantage, the metaphor coming from bridge or pretty much any card game. <S> Re a previous contribution: "an ace up one's sleeve" means more of having a secret weapon rather then being in an advantageous situation. <A> You might also want to look at idioms for the weaker side's negotiating position. <S> These often involve two bad choices. <S> For example, "between a rock and a hard place" <A> Another possible choice is "in the driver's seat", meaning that the person so described is able to direct the outcome. <S> Collins says: in the driver's seat ( phrase ) <S> If you say that someone is in the driver's seat, you mean that they are in control in a situation. <S> Now he knows he's in the driver's seat and can wait for a better deal . <A> A colorful phrase is in the catbird seat , defined as "in a superior or advantageous position". <S> A vulgar alternative is mentioned in this question . <A> If you want to use a rather informal idiom that has had some recent usage, you could use <S> I have the high ground Referring to the military advantage you get from an elevated position, from having the high ground . <S> This has recently been used in a scene from Star wars Episode III , in which Obi Wan asks Anakin Skywalker to give up, as he has a superior fighting position. <S> Source: <S> Urban dictionary google ngram viewer suggests, that this has been around for a while, at least in writing (which is hardly surprising, as user rubenvb suggested - thanks for that) <A> If you are able to determine who is selling product to whom, and who is most capable of setting the price at which goods are traded, then you can refer to it as either a buyer's market or a seller's market . <S> This refers to who has the upper hand in negotiations. <S> In a seller's market, this means that you (the seller) are only one of few vendors of a given product, and the customers' demands are high enough that you know you'll always sell your good, and therefore are able to charge whatever you want. <S> Even if some customers are unwilling to pay your price, there will be enough customers/demand that you will sell your products. <S> If I charge $1000 per glass of water, and I put my stand in the Sahara desert, then I do so because I know that water is a seller's market in the otherwise dry desert. <S> Customers will have to buy from me and they have no position to refuse my price if they need the water. <S> In a buyer's market, there are a lot of vendors of the same product, and there is not much demand for the product. <S> If a customer does not buy your product, they will go to another vendor, leaving you with unsold products. <S> This means that the buyer can dictate what they will buy and what they won't buy, and sellers are racing each other in order to steal each other's business. <S> If a buyer is more inclined to buy from an airconditioned shop, that means that in a buyer's market, the sellers are strongly incentivized to aircondition their shops just to ensure that they can get the customers they need. <S> Think of it as two market vendors who keep having to lower their prices just to make sure that the customers come to them instead of their competitor. <A> Leverage While not necessarily an idiom, “having/holding leverage ” is a good description of negotiations where one side has more power or advantage than another. <A> If you are in a stronger position in a negotiation, consider the idiom: have an ace up your sleeve <S> For example: I'm well prepared for the negotiations. <S> I've got an ace up my sleeve. <S> Source: <S> Learn English Today negotiation idioms <A> heheh, Australian chiming in. <S> We* have an expression: To have him by the short and curlies . <S> Collins states: to have someone completely in one's power. <S> I'll leave it to you to work out <S> what 'short & curlies' are, but as a hint, it refers to hair. <S> * <S> Though it's origin is probably from the UK <A> They have the advantage in the negotiations <S> This is distinct from "have an advantage." <S> Having an advantage means you have some sort of asset or quality which will help you. <S> Having the advantage means you are already in control of the situation.
| Quite simply, to "have the advantage", as in To "have {someone} over a barrel" is such an idiom.
|
"Official wife" or "Formal wife"? I want to use a term to mean that the speaker has been recorded as the wife of X in a civil registry officially and legally. I don't know what is the usual word to use in this case, I have searched "formal wife", but all I got is "former wife" which means "Ex-wife". As for "official wife", I found it used mostly in titles Google Search / Google Books —there wasn't enough information about its definition and meaning. Here's where I want to use it in a dialogue between A and B: A: This is not something to call [...] when I'm his { official/formal } wife. B: But maybe he doesn't consider you as { official/formal } yet. P.S. "A" got married to X in a civil registry, but they came to an agreement (while registered as lawfully wedded couples ) of having a trial period to see if they are suitable to each other (I know it doesn't seem logical or sensible). As that speech occurred before the ending of the trial period, which means before deciding to continue being a married couple or having a divorce, "A" finds that she is the legal wife of X, when X probably (according to "B's" assumption) doesn't have the same point of view because of the trial period. So, what is the usual term to use in this case? Is it "formal wife", "official wife" or something else? <Q> If you wanted to be explicit you could say "legal wife", but it's really not necessary. <S> The only time I'd expect to hear it is discussions of polygamous or polyamorous families where only one woman can be considered the legal wife by law. <S> In Anglo culture there is the idea of a trial period, but it takes place before the wedding. <S> We call this the "engagement" period, and the couple are call each other their fiancé (male)/fiancée (female). <S> There is no concept of a trial period after a legal wedding, so there is no terminology to use for such an arrangement. <A> Partly jokingly, we could say 'lawful wedded wife', which was a phrase used in the marriage service of the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer and possibly other churches. <S> (Some people very jokingly say 'awful wedded wife'!) <A> It looks like you are inventing a type of marriage. <S> There isn't - and cannot be - a 'usual term' to describe something that you have invented. <S> In Australia, de facto is a term used for what seems the opposite of your situation, namely where people are carrying on as if married (including mortgages, kids etc), but haven't been to a registry/ceremony to officially tie the knot. <S> In this case she would be the de facto wife and he, the de facto husband. <S> You also mention in comments that this is for a story. <S> Maybe the worldbuilders could come up with some suggestions for you. <S> In that vein, I would consider making up a term to go with your invented scenario. <S> Something like 'testwedded' or 'maybetrothed'. <A> If what's important here is not the exact way it's written, but to have dialog that sounds more natural in this convoluted scenario, this is how I would write it: <S> A <S> : This is not something to call [...] <S> when I'm officially his wife. <S> B <S> : <S> But maybe he doesn't really consider you his wife yet. <S> Why use adverbs instead of adjectives? <S> Because we skip the whole "is that really a term/thing?" <S> problem and instead emphasize the perception of the characters. <S> If you want to add more emphasis on the absurdity/weirdness of the scenario, you can even put the bolded words above in quotes. <A> A is either someone's wife or she is not. <S> The term husband or wife, used alone, implies officiality. <S> If a couple are merely living together without having gone through a form of legal marriage, each may be called the "common law" husband or wife of the other. <S> I suppose you could call her his "legal wife", but it would sound odd to Western ears. <S> As Ben Voigt notes: being officially married is a matter of legal fact, and does not depend on a man's opinion (what he "considers"). <A> Not quite English, but in the Philippines that would be “The Legal Wife”. <S> Also the name of a TV series. <A> Stick with "Husband" and "Wife" for the full, legally married terms. <S> However, the "pre-marriage contract" you are attempting to (re)invent for your story is a betrothal . <S> The people thus joined are each others' "betrothed". <S> A betrothal was a semi-binding contract, typically with "exit" clauses for both parties. <S> Sometimes - typically among nobility - a betrothal contract formed part of a joining of families or businesses (e.g. King A turns to King B: <S> "I say, old chap. <S> In a spot of bother here, minor disagreement with King C. Could use some help putting the blighter back in his place. <S> If you were willing to lend an army or two... <S> Well, your son's eye has been roving, and my daughter is of marriageable age now. <S> What do you say, dear chum?" ) <S> As for your "trial marriage" aspect? <S> In some historical cultures (including colonial North America ), the betrothal was essentially a trial marriage, with marriage only being required in cases of conception of a child. <S> Wikipedia <A> The two are already married on paper. <S> Btw. <S> the reverse case happens all the time. <S> People get married without going to the registry office - they have a big party, perform the required rites at their local place of worship <S> and then they are considered husband and wife for all purposes that matter to their community. <S> It is just in places with a sufficiently strong bureaucratic tradition that a piece of paper with an official stamp is more important than anything else. <A> In legal contexts, one can say: legal wife versus common-law wife. <S> But I am his legal wife. <S> [a character might say] <S> That means I married him under the law. <S> In a dialogue, here, we'd say legally married or legal wife. <S> Civil registry in AmE is vital records office. <S> Civil registry is used in English sometimes but it is inevitably a translation from French or Spanish, etc. <S> A <S> : That's not something to call [...] <S> when I'm his wife, legally. <S> or: when I'm legally his wife. <S> B <S> : <S> But maybe he doesn't see you as his legal wife yet. <S> or: as legally married yet. <A> If you are married, but not together anymore (either temporarily or permanently), then you are separated . <S> See for example Different Types of Separation: Trial, Permanent, and Legal Separation and also legal separation .
| In contemporary English the word "wife" by itself carries the meaning of an official legal wife, and no other modifier or adjective is needed.
|
We have vs We do have What is the difference between We have and We do have ? Has it same meaning or different meanings? <Q> In positive statements the use of the auxiliary do is always optional, and it conveys emphasis (usually contrastive). <S> /you asked/ <S> I suggested/ <S> somebody said". <S> Examples of emphatic do : <S> Have you any coffee? <S> No, but we do have hot chocolate. <S> Have you any coffee? <S> I don't think so, but I'll check. <S> Yes, we do have some! <S> We haven't got a golf course here, <S> but we do have a pool with a waterslide. <A> We do have has more weight to it. <S> Do before a verb is often used for adding emphasis. <A> The meaning is the same but the two constructions are typically used in different contexts. <S> We have..... <S> is a simple statement of whatever items someone may have to offer. <S> If a customer were to ask a greengrocer what fresh products were available, the latter might reply: <S> * <S> *We have lettuce that just in, freshly picked cabbage, newly delivered cauliflower.... <S> and so on. <S> However, if a customer were to walk into a shop looking for a specific product, say a replacement alternator for a car, the salesperson might reply: <S> Well, we do have one in stock <S> but it's not brand new. <S> It comes from a newish car that was written off in an accident. <S> The construction we do have.... is typically followed by some comment or condition or limitation that might affect the sale. <S> Equally, a headmaster might tell a parent looking for a place for a child: <S> We do have one more place <S> but it's supported by a bursary, which means that your child will have to meet certain conditions.
| The basic objective meaning of the statement is unchanged, but emphatic do adds a connotation of "contrary to what you thought
|
What does the phrase "right into the corner" mean here? Here is a sentence from a football game app: If you bend the ball right into the corner you’ll get triple the points. I am not sure about the meaning of the phrase right into the corner . Does it mean that the ball would bend when it goes near corner? What does the word "corner" signify here? <Q> To bend the ball means to kick it in such a way that instead of travelling in a straight line, it swerves in a curved path (or arc). <S> A skilled footballer can do this by kicking the ball on one side to make it spin as it flies through the air. <S> The aim of bending the ball is to make it more difficult for the goal keeper to assess where it may arrive in the goal mouth. <S> The ball will initially appear to be heading for a point well to the left or right of its actual target point. <S> Right into the corner means right into the corner of the net. <S> The corner of the net is the point most distant from a goal keeper who typically takes up a stance right in the middle of the goal mouth. <S> Thus a ball that is bent right into the corner of the net is the most difficult for the goal keeper to stop. <A> I assume you know what a corner is - the point where two edges meet. <S> A rectangular sports court has 4 corners. <S> In football (soccer) for example, the ball is sometimes returned to play from one of these corners. <S> However, in the same sport where the aim is to get the ball into a goal, the netted area of the goal is also rectangular and you may hear people speak about the corners of the goal, eg "the ball went right into the corner". <S> This would mean that the subject put his whole body under the table as opposed to just reaching under it with his arm. <S> He shot him right between the eyes. <S> This would mean that the shot was so accurate it was as good as equidistant between both eyes. <S> So without additional context, your question about "right into the corner" could mean either the ball goes very accurately into the corner, or as far into the corner as possible . <S> This secondary meaning is more likely if talking about the corner of the goal, as a goal in soccer is scored merely by the ball crossing the goal line, but powerful kicks are celebrated in the game and it would be noteworthy if the ball went "right into the corner of the goal" as opposed to just rolling gently over the line. <S> "Bending the ball" does not mean that the ball physically bends. <S> In soccer it refers to the trajectory of the ball, ie it is kicked in such a way that it travels in an arc. <A> Right "Right" here is not being used as an indication of direction (e.g. left/right), but rather as a synonym for "exactly" <S> Right <S> ADVERB 1) <S> To the furthest or most complete extent or degree (used for emphasis) ‘the car spun right off the track’ <S> Notice <S> the similarities between "right off the track" and "right into the corner". <S> It's stressing that it's really in the described location. <S> Corner <S> Your context doesn't particularly specify football/soccer, but it is one of the most common use cases (especially when referring to bending a ball, which means kicking it in a way that it follows curved trajectory). <S> But it could refer to any sort of corner, e.g. the leftmost and rightmost bucket of a plinko board or any other contextually appropriate corner you can think of. <S> Right into the corner <S> If you bend the ball right into the corner you’ll get triple the points. <S> Means <S> If you get it exactly in the corner (of the goal) , you'll get triple the points.
| The corner of a goal is the cornerpiece of the goalpost. "Right into" idiomatically means either as far as possible , or as accurately as possible , for example: He went right under the table.
|
Is "vegetable base" a common term in English? How do they refer to big roofed places, in which vegetables, having been brought from fields, are kept before being taken to various outlets to be sold? I thought "vegetable base" was a good term, but it looks like Google doesn't return many results. Besides, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on "vegetable base" <Q> Vegetable base doesn't work in this context. <S> You would use vegetable base to mean that some product comprised mainly vegetables as in: Our soup has a vegetable base. <S> Your options are several. <S> Supermarkets store fruits and vegetables in refrigerated warehouses. <S> Individual sections of these warehouses are referred to as storerooms (or sometimes as cool-rooms if kept at low temperature). <S> Such storage centres may be referred to as depots or distribution centres although these words are used for any base away from the hypermarkets/supermarkets they serve. <S> Farmers keep products in barns (which are big) or sheds (which are small) prior to dispatch. <S> Products stored in rooms underground are kept in cellars. <S> People keep fruit and vegetables in their pantries unless they need to be kept cool in refrigerators or frozen in freezers. <S> But the short answer to your question is either warehouses (which are large and may be refrigerated) or storerooms (which are relatively small). <A> The "Vegetable Base" would be the vegetable component, and would usually (although not always) be a concentrate of some sort. <S> You're referring to a "cold storage facility", in this case, specifically for vegetables, although the same terminology is used for storing processed and semi-processed meat animals (eg sides of beef, etc.). <S> Hope this helps! <A> The terms packing house or packhouse describe a structure similar to what you are looking for. <S> A packing house is a facility where fruit is received and processed prior to distribution to market. <S> (Source: Wikipedia ) <S> Some sources refer specifically to fruit packing or alternatively for meat processing (where is is also called a slaughterhouse ), while others (e.g. see Wiktionary entry ) include other kinds of produce as well. <S> This seems to indicate ithat the term is established in the food industry. <A> Wikipedia uses the generic term "produce distribution centre" . <S> "Produce" is a common and highly standardized term for unprocessed fruits and vegetables on their way to retail. <S> Here in Ontario we have installations called "food terminals", where produce is sold at wholesale to buyers working for restaurants and markets. <S> But "produce distribution center" is probably the better generic option. <S> With "warehouse" <S> the emphasis is on storage, possibly long-term (which would not be the case for produce) and also does not convey the multi-buyer wholesale distribution aspect. <A> While not vegetables, grain is stored in a granary .
| The term "Vegetable Base" would be construed to describe a food where a vegetable is the primary constituent - such as a "Vegetable Based Soup Stock". Wikipedia has a list packing houses in the United States , and most of them have "packing house" as part of the name.
|
Is there an idiom that means "accepting a bad business deal out of desperation"? Is there an idiom that means "accepting a bad business deal out of desperation"? If you can't think of something that means exactly that, can you think of an idiom that means "accepting less than you anticipated to get out of a business deal", or even more generally "trying to get any deal done"? <Q> cut [one's] losses Not exactly "trying to get any deal done" but one option similar in meaning <S> may be ' cut your losses ' which would be more in the context of exiting a situation as it stands rather than incur further losses, when you see that someone else has the upper hand (or just that you can't really improve your position). <S> to avoid losing any more money than you have already lost: <S> Let's cut our losses and sell the business before prices drop even further. <S> to be [held] "over a barrel" <S> If someone has you over a barrel , they have put you in a difficult situation where you have little choice but to do what they want you to do. <S> You could say in this case e.g. "I accepted this deal although I knew it was bad, as I realised that they had me over a barrel". <A> Consider the idiom: <S> back to the wall <S> Meaning /definition: to be in a difficult situation, to have the odds against one’s self, to have no way of being able to get away, to have no space to escape, to be caught by someone without having an easy escape route, to be trapped in a situation. <S> Example sentence: <S> I had my back to/against the wall <S> when I was forced to close the deal. <S> Source: <S> The Idioms <A> While not specific to business, the phrase "caught between a rock and a hard place" could be used to illustrate making a decision between two undesirable options. <S> caught between a rock and a hard place Facing two equally unpleasant, dangerous, or risky alternatives, where the avoidance of one ensures encountering the harm of the other. <S> Similar to <S> "the lesser of two evils" . <S> the lesser of two evils <S> The somewhat less unpleasant of two poor choices <A> "hobson's choice" is one such idiom, meaning to accept a likely unpleasant option or none at all. <S> In full it would be "to make Hobson's choice or "accept Hobson's choice" or similar. <S> Originating (possibly apocryphally) with a stable owner that let the customer take the horse <S> currently nearest the door or none at all.
| You could "cut my losses and take this deal" rather than continue to negotiate and end up in a potential worse position.
|
Is there a verb that means "put it out there for everyone to see"? Is there a verb that means "put it out there for everyone to see"? What brought this about is the fact I wondered how to describe the scene where the police of Gotham city flashes the bat-signal on the roof of their HQ for batman to come. I could only come up with this: The cops projected the bat-signal onto the clouds. However, it sounds quite horrible, and I have no idea what other verb than project could be used, and would be used by an author. <Q> "Project" is perfect for this use! <A> In the sentence: The cops projected the bat-signal onto the clouds. <S> Regarding your other question: "put it out there for everyone to see" you can use "publicly displayed" . <S> However, it cannot be really used in the context of projecting an image on the clouds. <S> It can be used, for example: for displaying something (painting, sculpture...) in a museum; displaying something in a public market (a statue - which is usually permanent, or a car, as a temporary advertisement of a local dealer); for displaying a (big, huge) banner on buildings, bridges or other locations; and examples can continue... <A> While projected would be understood to imply that it was in the air for everyone to see, a more specifically appropriate word, your sentence aside, is broadcast : <S> [Merriam-Webster] 2 : to make widely known A man who—make no mistake—cares deeply, but doesn't feel the need to broadcast it. <S> — <S> Allison Glock <S> 3 : to send out or transmit (something, such as a program) by means of radio or television or by streaming over the Internet // <S> an event being broadcast live on television <S> The problem with your sentence is that while projected is perfectly fine for the sentence itself, it's not an ideal explicit example of the "put it out there for everyone to see" idea. <S> If I were to take your sentence and apply broadcast instead, it would become: <S> The cops broadcasted the bat signal. <S> Note that onto the clouds doesn't work well after this particular verb. <S> However, you could add something like this: <S> Also note, however, that broadcast still isn't really a good fit in conjunction with the bat signal. <S> If I were really trying to turn this into a good example, I would make it something like this instead: <S> The cops broadcasted an appeal to Batman for his help. <S> Such a broadcast would take the form of a projected bat signal.
| The cops broadcasted the bat signal for everyone's awareness. the verb "projected" is the most suitable, because the cops used a projector , similar to the projectors in cinemas or in businesses.
|
What is the grammatical function of the bold phrase in the sentence? Some of the world's oldest preserved art is the cave art of Europe, most of it in Spain and France . The above sentence is from IELTS test reading passage, and it is oral English. I want to make sure that the grammatical function of 'most of it in Spain and France' in the sentence. In my opinion, it is a parenthesis, which is to add some new information to the main sentence. This is because there is a comma in front of it. But I am not sure if it's possible that it is the complement of the subject or not. So I need your kind help. <Q> Some of the world's oldest preserved art is the cave art of Europe, most of it in Spain and France . <S> No, not a complement. <S> The supplement here has the form of a reduced (verbless) clause, comparable in function to a relative clause, compare "most of which is in Spain and Europe". <A> Some of the world's oldest preserved art is the cave art of Europe, most of it in Spain and France . <S> To answer your first question, the bold phrase is not defined as a parentheses (It would need to be within the parentheses such as this statement). <S> In this case the comma is used to denote nonessential information. <S> This sentence is grammatically correct without the comma. <S> " <S> Some of the world's oldest preserved art is the cave art of Europe". <A> Sample sentence: <S> Some of the world's oldest preserved art is the cave art of Europe, most of it in Spain and France. <S> is the same as: <S> Some of the world's oldest preserved art, most of it in Spain and France, is the cave art of Europe. <S> For me, the phrase: most of it in Spain and France is an appositive phrase . <S> The reason is that it adds extra information about the first part. <S> However, it is not easily identifiable coming at the end of the sentence and <S> appositive phrases are supposed to be next to what they describe. <S> Appositives are usually next to the noun they explain. <S> But, the comma allowed me to change its position in the sentence. <S> appositive phrase <S> Also, some and most are in contrast to each other. <S> Another reason that supports moving it for purposes of explanation and structural analysis. <S> "An appositive is a noun or noun phrase (appositive phrase) that gives another name to the noun right next to it.
| The comma marks it as a supplement , here an appendage , a loosely attached element presenting supplementary, non-integrated information typically set off in speech by a slight pause. The nonessential clause "most of it in Spain and France" is a subject complement to "art" through the linking verb "is". It adds descriptive words about a specific thing (the noun), which helps make a sentence more detailed; or, it adds essential information to make the sentence’s meaning clear."
|
Can you "change/exchange" it to an orange juice? I know we don't ask the waiter to get us a different order once it has been put on our table, but anyways if you changed your mind and the waiter brought your order and you want to say "can I get an orange juice instead?", will "change/exchange" be used? Can you change this to an Orange juice? Can you exchange this to an orange juice? So should "change" or "exchange" be used? <Q> To change means to transform. <S> To exchange means to replace. <S> Therefore, if you ask: Please change the orange juice into a steak. <S> you actually ask for the miracle / magic of the orange juice being transformed into a steak. <S> If you ask: Please ex change the orange juice for a steak. <S> It actually means that you want him to take the orange juice back and bring you a steak instead. <A> It seems like you're mixing up two different idiomatic way of asking for a food order to be changed. <S> "Change" means to alter something, while "exchange" means to swap, so they each have different uses. <S> Remember: <S> We change something to something else. <S> We exchange something for something else. <S> Obviously, you cannot literally change one item of food or drink into something else - a burger cannot become a steak - but if you wanted to change an order that you had placed, but not yet received, it would be idiomatic to ask: <S> Can I change my order to an orange juice? <S> Your order was for something else, now that order will be changed. <S> They won't keep the old order - an order is just your request written on a notepad - so it isn't an "exchange". <S> We would use the word "exchange" when asking for one thing to be swapped for another, so one situation would be if your food had arrived and you were not happy with it. <S> If you wanted to ask them to take one item away and replace it with another, you might say: I'm not happy with this burger - can it be exchanged for a hot dog? <S> For example, let's say you wanted the burger, and the menu says it comes with fries, but you want a different side. <S> You might say: I'd like the burger, but can I exchange the fries for a side salad? <A> "Change" would be the correct word here. <S> If we look at the definition: to make the form, nature, content , future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone <S> If we think of the orange juice as an item of you're order (kind of like a conceptual container around the physical item itself), what you're actually asking is for its content to be changed ("made different"). <S> Also, consider the definition of "exchange": <S> the act of giving something to someone and them giving you something else <S> As you haven't yet paid for the item, it isn't technically yours to give. <S> If you were asking for them to exchange it, it would sound as if you'd already paid for it, at which point the respective monetary values of the two items would need to be considered before it were deemed a fair exchange. <S> In my view, “change” would be much more common, and “exchange” may sound a bit too formal, as well as perhaps slightly confusing, given the way it compares to a context in which you have already purchased goods, e.g., clothes, where the word “exchange” would almost always be used.
| An alternative situation where we might use the word "exchange" during the order stage is if we were asking for a substitution . However, in a restaurant context, there is a general assumption that you will be able to pay for what you order, and therefore an underlying assumption that you are the owner of whatever you have ordered, so “exchange” would sound acceptable, though it has a bit of a different feel to “change”, for those reasons.
|
Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while watching a movie Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while watching a movie. Is this sentence really grammatically correct? I think it doesn't, because "watching" looks like referring to the behavior of the popcorn if there isn't no subject such as "people" . I think that sentence should be "Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while people are watching a movie" so that it makes sense. So, my questions are, Is it grammatically correct to omit "people are" ? Could you make some sentences similar to this sentence? <Q> I agree with this answer and this comment <S> answer <S> that say the original sentence is grammatical. <S> Your proposed correction, Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while people are watching a movie is no good. <S> The inclusion of "people are" makes it sound like the people who are watching the movie are different from the people who should consume popcorn. <S> It's like saying: Popcorn is the only acceptable snack for these people to consume while those other people are watching a movie. <S> In the original sentence, a subject like "one" is understood. <S> You could also be more explicit: <S> Popcorn is the only acceptable snack for one to consume while one watches a movie. <S> This version might sound pompous in spoken English as it is more formal than normal speech tends to be. <S> In writing it would be more acceptable. <S> It's also less pompous without the "for one" : <S> Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while one watches a movie. <S> We can also use "you" instead of "one". <S> “You” and “one” are both pronouns that can stand for “a person”: <S> Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to consume while you watch a movie. <A> The sentence is grammatically correct as is. <S> If you wanted to make it explicit, you could say Popcorn is the only acceptable snack for people watching a movie. <S> or Popcorn is the only acceptable snack for people to consume while watching a movie. <S> or For people watching a movie, popcorn is the only acceptable snack. <S> I agree that the original sentence is a bit ambiguous, but ambiguity is not ungrammatical in English, just confusing. <S> The "to consume" is unnecessary in that sentence. <S> What else would one do with a snack? <S> It is necessary in my second version; otherwise, the "for people" sounds stilted. <A> There are no immediate issues with the sentence that I can see. <S> Adding in "while people are" is redundant, as it's implied that people are watching the movie while eating popcorn. <S> Your dog or pet fish are not watching a movie and eating a popcorn, so you don't need to specify people. <A> The sentence is fine. <S> One can perform one action (consuming food) while performing another (watching a movie). <S> so 1. <S> Yes, 2. <S> A newspaper is useful to read while riding in a bus; an umbrella is useful to carry while walking in the rain; no gentleman wears a hat while making love to a lady. <A> There is a construction in English that has the form <action> while <condition>. <S> The "condition" in this construction could be a simple adjective, a word form that serves as an adjective, or an entire descriptive phrase; generally, it would be something that would also fit in the blank in the sentence, "I was _______." <S> The condition applies to the person performing the action. <S> So we have such things as driving while intoxicated ,which means that the person doing the driving was intoxicated. <S> If you are sober and you are driving a car with a passenger who is intoxicated, you are not driving while intoxicated. <S> You are, however, driving while someone is intoxicated. <S> You could also drive while texting , although this is also dangerous and may be illegal. <S> Here it is implied that the person driving is also texting at the same time. <S> Driving while people are texting is a very different thing that people generally do not mind so much, as long as <S> you aren't the one doing the texting. <S> In fact, you could drive while answering questions on StackExchange .That's a very dangerous combination <S> , I'm sure, although driving while people are answering questions on StackExchange is generally not considered so dangerous. <A> <A> Popcorn is the only acceptable snack to (consume while watching a movie). <S> Now, this may not be the exact meaning you had in mind, although I think it is close; but the string of words you typed, has a perfectly correct interpretation.
| It is 100% grammatical if you parse it as follows An alternative might be When watching a movie, the only acceptable snack is popcorn.
|
Is "cool" appropriate or offensive to use in IMs? Today I learned a new word "Nive". When I google search, I found on urbandictionary it says nive "means cool. without actually having to say cool. cuz cool is an ugly word." My question is that - is cool an ugly word? When should I use nive instead? <Q> I disagree with the Urban Dictionary editor who said that it’s ugly. <S> In fact, as far as informal words go, “cool” is quite a venerable example, since it has been in use since as early as the 1960s I suspect. <S> The only reason I’d use “nive” — which I hadn’t heard of until now — would be if I was in the (probably very small) group of (probably teenage) speakers who use it. <S> And by way of an additional, slightly off-topic piece of advice: Since this group is English Language Learners <S> , I’d recommend that you don’t rely too much on Urban Dictionary. <S> It, and sites like it, deal with the very “bleeding edge” of English, as it morphs and changes, almost in real time. <S> There’s nothing wrong with that, and is part of what makes English such a powerful and rich language, but it’s not the best place for most learners. <S> As an example, take the word you ask about, “nive”. <S> It’s not clear it’s even an English word yet and no one would fault you for treating it suspiciously and even refusing to use it. <S> That said, I do value Urban Dictionary because it lets me scare my kids when they find out <S> I know slang words that they thought were only understood by them. <S> For example, the expression on my 12 year old’s face when I told her that her eyebrows were “on fleek” was priceless! <A> Urban dictionary has a definition for everything, the majority of words on UD have probably only been used by less than 10 people. <S> I have never seen the word "nive" before <S> and I doubt anyone you speak to will have either. <S> The primary useful use for Urban Dictionary is to work out a new word that you see people actively using means and even then there is usually a bunch of nonsense under the highest rated post. <S> To answer your question in the title, there is nothing wrong with using the word "Cool" in IMs. <S> There is some risk of seeming dismissive or rude if someone sends you a long message expecting some kind of feedback and you reply with a single word response or even worse, a single letter response . <A> Many have already told you why Urban Dictionary is not to be taken too seriously but... let's see what's happening here exactly. <S> means cool. <S> without actually having to say cool. <S> cuz cool is an ugly word. <S> First of all, notice that this definition is written in a very colloquial style. <S> The first sentence doesn't even have a subject. <S> No capitalization. <S> Full stops instead of commas. <S> " <S> cuz" instead of because ('cause). <S> This is the norm at Urban Dictionary, where people write like they speak. <S> So, since you're an English Language Learner, it is important that you are aware that this is not "proper" English (i.e. standard English). <S> Of course you don't need to write in standard English in everyday life, but knowing what standard English looks like will allow you to know what's the proper form and to consciously decide when not to use it. <S> The second point I want to make is that the last sentence is sarcastic. <S> In other words, the definition tells us that "nive" means cool. <S> Yeah, like if we were in need of another word to say the same thing. <S> I'll rephrase the definition. <S> "Nive" means "cool". <S> But it is a different word, so those people that use "nive" can avoid saying "cool". <S> Which would only make sense it they thought that "cool" was an ugly word (implied: which it isn't). <A> No, cool is not an ugly word. <S> And the Urban Dictionary is not to be taken seriously! <S> It's almost a parody. <S> Also, just say whatever you want, you don't have to adjust your speech for anyone just to appear "cool"..... :)
| There is nothing wrong with “cool” as an informal sign of approval.
|
Usage/understanding of "holding it all"? In the Off Camera Show ( timestamp ) , Brit Marling says today many people take many photos a day as a way to say I'm here, I'm alive and I'm holding it all . Is this a way to express someone has everything under control, mentally? Or do native speakers understand it so? <Q> But, as Marling is using it for photography, it might mean that, through the photos, people tend to capture the moment, and try to grasp (hold) it forever, as now it will be with them forever. <S> Now they will always be able to hold onto the memory that they were present at the place, very much alive. <A> In general the metaphors they use are not extremely well thought out, so it is pretty hard to decipher an exact meaning from them. <S> That is mostly due to their conversation being live and unscripted <S> but... <S> As a native speaker, here is my interpretation: <S> For more context, the section of the video the speakers are discussing how they think so much of a person's action are done in response to a fear of dying. <S> They are then listing how that fear is shown in technology. <S> Person A: <S> "So much of it is driven towards the idea [...] <S> of a kind of holy grail of immortality. <S> You know we could upload our consciousness to some kind of cube. <S> You know we could freeze the body and then plug it back in. <S> Is there a way for a human being to exist on a mainframe and -" Person B: "Or even the documenting our life or the proliferation of how many photographs everyone takes a day and what is that? <S> A desire to say I'm here <S> and I'm alive and -" Person A: <S> "And I'm holding it all. <S> It isn't it just like slipping through my fingers. <S> It's not a passing thing, its -" Person B: <S> "But it's not meaning [anything]" <S> In the context instead of "everything under control" (which isn't a bad guess), "holding it all" would mean " living your life ." <S> Or at least some attempt at proving to yourself and to others that you are living your life, even if it is unsuccessful. <S> This meaning is contrasted with what the speakers see as the reality of "it ... slipping through my fingers. <S> " <S> This expands the meaning of the first phrase by presenting the two as opposing options: you are either holding your life, or letting it slip through you fingers. <S> Overall, I think the point the woman is trying to make is that people want to surround themselves with or be close to the proof that they are beings far away from death. <S> The constant pictures people post is the same as them "holding" the evidence that they are indeed people that go on adventures, make plans with friends, etc. <S> and because those plans keep happening (with the proof of more and more photos), they will continue to happen without any obstacles in the future. <A> I both agree and disagree with the previous answers. <S> I believe she is referring to the fact that she thinks people are taking too many photos and thus living in the past. <S> She says she is holding it all meaning that as life comes at her, she is taking everything in and enjoying life. <S> By taking pictures, you are attempting to live in the past and that is something she doesn't want to do. <S> Imagine a rope falling through you hands. <S> The rope represents life and holding on is grabbing at the past while the part that is still falling creates a pile on top of your hands. <S> Holding it all represents holding on to the rope as it falls and grabbing each new piece so the rope never slacks. <S> Like the rope never slacks, she never misses anything because she is not holding onto the past. <S> In this context, it does not really refer to mental health so much as it does to the fact that she is living life in the moment. <S> You never hear people say "I'm so alive" while they are taking pictures; rather, you hear it when they are staring in awe at something amazing and living life as it comes.
| Usually, " Holding on " means being mentally in-control , or for d ealing with difficult situation .
|
How do I express thinking one thing but saying another? Everyone can think inside their head (Without producing any sound from their mouth). What is this called in English? He says: "This is good." but he internally says: "This is bad". He says: "This is good." but he internally thinks: "This is bad". He says: "This is good." but he internally feels that this is bad. He says: "This is good." but he silently thinks: "This is bad". He says: "This is good." but he says: "This is bad" inside himself. Something else that you would like to suggest. I prefer the colloquial AmE. Slang is okay. <Q> The most common term for "to think without speaking aloud" is simply "to think." <S> However, if you want to emphasize that the person is having a private thought or a thought that contradicts his words or actions, you can use "to think to oneself," like so: <S> "This is good," he says, while thinking to himself that it is bad. <S> "This is the worst pie I've ever eaten," he thought to himself, trying his best to look as if he were enjoying it. <A> Internal monologue <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_monologue <A> Sometimes we say a person 'keeps their thoughts to themself'. <S> This means that they have a thought about something <S> but they don't want others to know what their thought is. <S> Although he disagreed, he kept his thoughts to himself. <S> It usually means that the person deliberately chose not to share their thoughts, not that they just didn't bother to say anything. <A> We call it a lie or a fib when someone says something that they don't think is true. <S> Usually lying is bad, but not necessarily if it is a minor lie in a social context that doesn't harm anyone (for example, telling someone that their potluck dish is good even if you didn't like it), in which case we would call it a "white lie" or a fib. <S> It's also a common superstition to cross your fingers out of sight (behind your back or under the table) to invalidate something you say (it also can mean you are wishing for luck, so be careful!). <S> Here are a bunch of colloquial ways to tell your aunt that her pie was good when it wasn't: <S> "This is good," he lied. <S> "This is good," he fibbed. <S> "This is good," he said, while thinking the opposite. <S> "This is good," he said, mentally adding the word "not". <S> "This is good," he said, hoping she wouldn't hear the lie. <S> "This is good," he said, crossing his fingers under the table. <S> "This is good," he said, mentally crossing his fingers. <A> I found two derogatory words that might be suitable for this context. <S> One is a formal word, duplicity , which means contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action and the other one is a colloquial word. <S> two-face , I thought Kaila was my friend, but it turns out she talks shit about me behind my back, what a two-face .
| An internal monologue, also called self-talk or inner speech, is a person's inner voice which provides a running verbal monologue of thoughts while they are conscious.
|
How do we call women not related to us, of different ages? The usage of mother, aunt and grandma Do I call my friend's mother aunt Mai or mother Mai? She is a compassionate woman of no relation. And if the woman is very old and of no relation may I call her grandma Marla or what? <Q> Different cultures will have different ideas about this. <S> When I was growing up, only an actual relative ever got called "Auntie", but in the situation you describe, my wife would certainly have called the woman "Auntie". <A> Ask your friend how it is best to call those women. <S> Sometimes people have special preferences about how they want to be called, other times they are happy when they are called in an original unexpected way. <A> You would not call a friend's mother "Mother Mai". <S> You would just use her name. <S> Suppose your friend's name is Mary Collins, and her mother is Sue Collins. <S> As a young person, speaking to an adult you might begin by calling the mother "Mrs Collins". <S> It would then be likely for the mother to say something like "Please call me 'Sue'. <S> " And then you would call her "Sue". <S> (But never "Mrs Sue") <S> Mary Collins: <S> (to Imogen) Come and meet my mum! <S> (to her mum) <S> Mum, this is Imogen. <S> Imogen: <S> Hello Mrs Collins. <S> It's nice to meet you. <S> Sue Collins <S> : It's nice to meet you too Imogen, and please, just call me "Sue". <S> When speaking in the third person (ie talking about Sue Collins instead of to her) <S> you might say "Mary's mother". <S> A native speaker might use "Mary's Mum" in the second person too, as a kind of joke, and a way of defusing the slight tension that a teenager would feel talking to an unrelated adult. <S> If you are an adult, then you would probably just use "Sue". <S> The context would be different as two adults don't normally recognise any particular difference in status even if one is older. <S> In some cases, a very close family friend might be called "aunty". <S> If this is the family tradition you can use it. <S> If you are not sure what to call your friend's mother, then "mother Mai", or "auntie" is too familiar. <S> If you are not sure, just stick to names. <A> This varies a good deal by regional and familial custom. <S> In some families in the US, it is common for close family friends to be referred to, particularly by young children (say under 10) as "Aunt Joan" or "Uncle John" even though there is no genetic relationship at all. <S> I was, for a time, "Uncle David" to the children of friends who were also neighbors. <S> As such children grow up, sometimes these familial titles are retained, and in other cases they are dropped. <S> It was at one time common, at least in certain parts of the US, for a recently married couple to address their inlaws with titles of "Mother" or "Father" + surname. <S> So if John Jones married Jane Smith, he would address her parents as "Mother Smith" and "Father Smith", and she would address his parents as "Mother Jones" and "Father Jones". <S> As the couple aged, fist names might or might not be substituted, at the invitation of the inlaws. <S> I haven't heard this in actual use since the 1970s, except in fiction set in the 70s or earlier, but Judith Martin, writing as "Miss Manners" listed it as an available form in the late 1990s. <S> Occasionally a person will be known to the children of an entire neighborhood as "Mother Judy" or "Grandma Beth" or some similar form. <S> At that point this has become a nickname, and can be used when acceptable to the subject, like any other nickname. <S> Of course "Father" is commonly used as a title for Catholic and Anglican priests, and "Mother" for an abbess or senior nun. <S> But that is not really the same thing. <S> Oh I should mention, when a young adult or near-adult is in authority over children, such as a camp counselor, the form "Mr John" is often used, or at least it was when I was young enough to attend such institutions. <S> In novels set in 19th century England (and earlier) I also see the form "Mr. John" used by servants to refer to a younger son of the family.
| But in general you should never use "mother", "Aunty" or "grandma" for anyone except your mother, aunty or grandmother. Ask the women themselves how they prefer to be called. You have several options on how to proceed: Decide for yourself, according to the social rules in your area / country.
|
'Earth' or 'earth' in Christian/theological texts I am writing a book about the Gospel of Thomas and am using the word 'earth' 116 times (Jesus walked on E/earth...; If the understanding that the E/earth is not at the center of the universe was revolutionary...; The E/earth and everything on it consists of atoms...) I don't know if E/earth, since it refers to planet E/earth, should be capitalized or lowercase. Google says, if you use an article ('the earth'), it should be lowercase while ('on Earth') should be uppercase. Is that a fixed rule? Since always the planet E/earth is spoken of, would the reader be confused that sometimes 'Earth' is capitalized and sometimes not? I am quoting a lot of Bible verses and Bible texts usually use lowercase for 'earth', so than one would get 'on earth' - lowercase when a Bible verse is quoted, but 'on Earth' - capitalized within the text, which I find inconsistent. If anybody could recommend how I might handle this issue, I would greatly appreciate it. I have googled extensively but still can't find the answer. <Q> The fact that you sometimes see "earth" and sometimes "Earth" should tell you that there probably is no rule , at least with regard to the Bible. <S> Depending on the source, all of the texts you read were originally translated from Ancient Greek or Aramaic, and probably mirror the translator's interpretation of which best fits the word in the original language. <S> Therefore the only way to answer your question is to talk about what might make more sense to the modern reader ... <S> but again, this is really a matter of opinion. <S> When ancient texts say something like "he walked the earth" (lowercase), they don't mean: <S> He walked the entire surface area of a roughly spherical planet, third from the Sun <S> As you know, people of that day didn't think of the actual Earth as a planetary body. <S> Instead they simply thought of it as a very large place that was everything which existed outside of the literal heavens (sun, moon, planets, and stars) and the figurative other places of the afterlife. <S> Instead they mean something more like: <S> He walked the land meaning <S> He walked an unspecified distance , going from place to place or even figuratively <S> He walked everywhere (it was possible for man in that day to walk) <S> Uppercase "Earth" generally refers to the portion of the universe created by God where humans live , which is to say: <S> This mortal realm or <S> This plane of existence <S> You can tell the lines between these two concepts are blurry, which is why I say it's a matter of personal opinion. <S> One person might draw a clear distinction between the "earth" as in "the physical limits of the places humans can travel", and the "Earth" as in "the place in which we exist before death" ... <S> but in an era of science fiction and space travel, is there really a difference? <S> That being said, you would certainly write something like God is King of the Earth and not "earth", because in Christian belief the supreme deity is the ruler of everything , both literal and figurative. <S> With mere humans, even prophets, it would be your choice which to use, depending on what exactly you wish to imply. <A> The AP suggests "generally lowercase" and in your case I would probably use lowercase everywhere, since you are not speaking in a celestial or astronomical context( RuthlessEditor ). <S> When used to refer to the planet (as a celestial body) and not preceded by an article, "Earth" should always be capitalized (as a proper noun). <S> When used to refer to dirt, land, or soil, "earth" should never be capitalized. <S> Most often, though, "the earth" is not capitalized, and "Earth" as a proper noun does not take an article ( MLA ). <S> Grammarist says "the earth" should not be capitalized, but previously said that it should be when referring to the planet. <S> Interestingly, the same search result shows both (reflecting a change in opinion on the matter): <S> Also of note, idiomatic expressions follow their own rules and are generally uncapitalized, such as "where on earth," "down to earth," or "move heaven and earth." <S> ( dictionary.com ). <S> Saying "walked on earth" is idiomatic and also more frequently uncapitalized, as seen in this NGram . <S> Finally, the Bible has its own set of style rules, which is not always the same from on translation to another (for example, when speaking about God, whether or not to capitalize His pronouns). <S> When you are directly quoting a specific text or translation, it's generally understood that you are copying it exactly as you found it. <A> I think you might want to consult existing versions of the Bible in English, rather than English-learning etc. <S> site: <S> versions of the Bible in English for example: in the Standard English version, you get: 1 <S> In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. <S> I did not go through every version, but I am pretty sure it would be earth. <S> The Gospel of Thomas only was found in 1945. <S> It is not part of the traditional Christian Bibles <S> but it is very interesting. <S> Here are two scholars who translated it <S> and they use lower-case: <S> The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. <S> Who will be our leader?" <S> Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being. <S> " <S> There are five other versions of The Gospel of Thomas, and all use lower-case. <S> I doubt highly that the word earth was understood as a planet at the time these documents were written. <S> That explains why the translations use lower case. <S> In the expression heaven and earth, earth was the flat place inhabited by humans. <S> Nag Hammadi Scriptures
| When referring to the planet, but preceded by an article, capitalization of "the earth" or "the Earth" is inconsistent and largely a matter of style.
|
Can you please explain this joke: "I'm going bananas is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house"? Can you please explain this joke: "I'm going bananas is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house"? And another one: "I hate it when my friends ask me to do them a solid especially when I've been eating grapes all day" Can you please give enough meanings and background without explaining how they are funny so that I can figure them out myself? <Q> The first one is a play on the phrase ' <S> I'm going bananas' to mean going a bit crazy. <S> (Sounds a bit like a Tim Vine one-liner this). <S> It is meant to make you think they are going crazy when you read the first three words, but then when you read the rest, you realise you misunderstood (due to the lack of punctuation) and that the person is actually saying to their bananas, that they are going. <S> I'm going bananas <S> "I'm going, bananas" is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house <S> This is a joke best delivered verbally. <S> In the second one, a solid refers to both a 'favour' and 'poo'. <S> When you eat a lot of grapes, you tend to have softer poos, hence why it is difficult to do a 'solid' and would be annoying (and more difficult) if a friend asked you to do them a solid. <S> Here the person telling this is purposefully misconstruing what their friend is asking them to do. <A> "I'm going bananas" is what I tell my bananas before I leave the house. <S> is a "garden-path sentence" . <S> The Wikipedia article defines this as: a grammatically correct sentence that starts in such a way that a reader's most likely interpretation will be incorrect; the reader is lured into a parse that turns out to be a dead end or yields a clearly unintended meaning. <S> "Garden path" refers to the saying "to be led down [or up] the garden path", meaning to be deceived, tricked, or seduced. <S> In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage , Fowler describes such sentences as unwittingly laying a "false scent". <S> Perhaps the most famous example of a garden-path sentence is: <S> Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. <S> which plays on two different meanings of "like" (in a way similar to; enjoy) and two meanings of "fly" (to travel through the air or move swiftly; an insect) Another much cited example is: <S> The complex houses married and single soldiers and their families. <S> Here "houses" is initially interpreted as a noun, but in fact the sentence only makes sense if it is being used as a verb, meaning "to provide housing for", and "complex" is initially interpreted as an adjective ("complicated" or "made of many parts") <S> but is in fact a noun (a group of buildings on the same site) <A> "I'm going (= becoming) bananas!" <S> (= crazy). <S> "I'm going (= go out somewhere) <S> , bananas" (the fruit) is what I tell my bananas (the fruit) before I leave the house <S> I am speaking to the fruit as if they were sentient and could understand me, which in turn makes me look and sound quite bananas (crazy, loony etc.). <S> to go bananas <S> (slang) <S> 1. <S> To become irrational or crazy. <S> I'll end up going bananas if I have to work in this cubicle for one more day! <S> 1. to go mildly crazy. <S> Sorry, I just went bananas for a minute. <S> I thought he was going to go bananas. <S> 2. <S> To express great excitement about something in an exuberant manner. <S> The kids are going to go bananas when we tell them about the trip. <S> source <A> I tell the bananas: <S> I'm going, bananas. <S> I'm going, Lucy. <S> [leaving] idiom: to go bananas,to go nuts, to go crazy
| If done with the right timing, (pausing after the first bananas) it's makes the audience think they are saying that they are going crazy, then when you finish the sentence it's clear that you're not - you fooled them into thinking you were saying one thing, but said another.
|
Asking for something with different prices I want to buy a Coke bottle. Now there are different prices of Coke for different amounts. So what will be a natural way to ask for a Coke of a particular price? Can I get a Coke priced $1.50. [I don't know the actual price, so I'm sorry if this price is off, maybe way too off :D) Is the use of "priced" natural? What will be a more natural way to express this? <Q> You want to buy a Coke. <S> [in a can or bottle (large or small)] You want to buy a bottle of Coke. <S> You want to buy a can of Coke. <S> But you cannot buy a Coke bottle . <S> A Coke bottle is what remains after you drink it. <S> In fact, the five-cent value of Coke bottles and cans can be redeemed at stores. <S> "I'd like to buy [ or get] two large 1.79 [one seventy nine] bottles of Coke, please". <S> "I'd like to buy [or get] two 6.99 [six ninety nine] six-packs of Coke, please. <S> " <S> I'd like two 1.79 bottles [of Coke]. <S> get is used colloquially for buy. <S> When saying the price in AmE here, the word dollar is not used. <S> The price is merely spoken as I pointed out above. <S> Also, if only buying one, we would say: I'd like the 1.79 bottle of Coke, not the 1.99 one. <S> When one knows it is Coke or Pepsi or whatever, one would not specify "of Coke or of Pepsi". <S> It's understood. <A> If one is going to use "priced" I would suggest "priced at", but far more natural would be <S> I want one of the dollar-fifty cokes, please. <S> One could also specify by size: <S> I'd like three of the 22-ounce cokes, please. <S> The price or size can be used as an adjective to modify "coke' or the name of any product. <A> No, this isn't particularly natural. <S> If I was in a shop, I can imagine saying: "Can I have a Coke please, the one-fifty one." <S> As a specific example its unlikely, but would work well with other items where the differences are less obvious. <S> With a Coke I would be much more likely to mention size or flavour. <A> To add to what others have said, there's likely some characteristic separating the Cokes at different prices. <S> So you could just use that characteristic when ordering. <S> Example: <S> A shop sells a can of Coke for $0.75, a bottle of Coke at $1.50 and a 2 Liter of Coke for $3.00. <S> It's certainly natural to say, "I'd like a bottle of Coke please.". <S> The shop owner should perfectly understand what you're asking for. <S> If he reaches for the 2 Liter, you can say "I mean the dollar fifty one, please". <S> Another common example is at a restaurant, you may see on the wine list something like: Vern's Vineyard California Pinot Noir 8/15/50 <S> Along the top of the list, you should see something like "Glass/Carafe/Bottle". <S> So, the list means a glass of Pinot is $8, a carafe $15, etc. <S> So you could order "A glass of Pinot Noir" and they'll know it's the $8. <S> But, if you want to be clear, you could say "The $8 glass of Pinot, please". <A> If I read your question right, you're asking how to haggle, basically? <S> In that case, the most natural way to say what you want is "Can I get this coke for a dollar fifty?". <S> Though it would generally be better to first ask what the asking price is (for example, "How much is this bottle of coke?"); at least where I live (in the US), haggling is very rare outside of farmers' markets and flea markets.
| And if you want to be super explicit, you'd just say "I'd like a bottle of Coke, the dollar fifty one, please".
|
Passive voice of sing someone to sleep What is the passive voice of " I like to sing my baby sister to sleep . A. She likes to be sung to sleep. B. She likes to be sung to be slept. According to me it is A but i am not sure as English is not my native language and i also know that sometimes it sounds weird if an active voice is made into a passive one. But this afternoon a friend of mine asked me about it and I couldn't answer. So that is why I want to know which one is correct. <Q> As Showsni has pointed out, neither of the two sentences you've asked about is actually a passive-voice equivalent of "I like to sing my baby sister to sleep. <S> " That would be "Singing my baby sister to sleep is liked by me." <S> (In the idiomatic phrase "sing to sleep," "sleep" is actually not a verb, but a noun.) <A> Neither of those options would be correct; you're the one that likes it, not her. <S> You'd have to say something like "Singing my baby sister to sleep is something I like." <A> " I like to sing my baby sister to sleep. <S> OK [ACTIVE VOICE] <S> PASSIVES: <S> " My baby sister likes being sung to sleep by me. " <S> OR "My baby sister likes to be sung to sleep by me." <S> That is how you do it. <S> Like can take to sleep or like + gerund. <A> The passive equivalent of '(I) (like) (to sing my baby sister to sleep)' is '(To sing my baby sister to sleep) (is liked) (by me)'. ' <S> (My baby sister) (likes) <S> (being/to be sung to sleep) (by me)' is active voice, as you can see from the main verb 'likes' (passive voice needs verb [be] and a passive participle main verb). ' <S> Singing my baby sister to sleep is something I like' is also active voice. <S> The problem is that there are two verbs here - 'like' and 'to sing', both of which could be turned into passive, 'like' easily and 'to sing' with great difficulty. <S> The passive voice equivalent of '(to sing) (my baby sister to sleep)' is '(my baby sister) (to be sung to sleep)', so whole sentence would be ' <S> I like my baby sister to be sung to sleep by me'. <S> Both of these passive voice sentences are at best extremely awkward and at worst completely ungrammatical (I can't decide), so <S> the best reasonable equivalent is 'My baby sister likes to be/being sung to sleep by me'. <S> (There are other choices.)
| That said, "She likes to be sung to sleep" would be the correct way to use the passive voice to say that when you sing her to sleep, she enjoys it.
|
What's the opposite of "out loud"? What's the opposite of "out loud"? I mean, "out loud" as in "singing out loud", what's the opposite of that? Like instead of singing for real, you do it in your head? What's the best way to say it? I am trying to find a better way to say "Sing inside your head". <Q> If your lips move while you're reading a book, this is sometimes described as reading silently . <S> The same expression could be used for singing: Singing out loud . <S> → Singing silently . <S> This wouldn't necessarily mean your lips are moving (although I've seen this happen, along with arm gestures to keep time to the imagined music), but that you are mentally listening to the words and notes even though you aren't physically vocalizing them. <A> You can use any of the following as they are antonyms of out loud: inaudibly, silently, soundlessly, voicelessly. <S> "She was singing inaudibly. <S> " <S> "The mimes were singing soundlessly." <S> "Tom had a sore throat and was forced to stand in the choir singingvoicelessly." <S> And these are near antonyms of out loud: faintly, feebly, low, noiselessly, quietly, softly. <S> They aren't truly opposite of out loud. <S> Hope this helps <A> You could say "sing to yourself".
| "I am singing silently."
|
Word for a small burst of laughter that can't be held back What do you call the small burst of laugh that people let out when they want to refrain from laughing, but can't? You know the "pfft" sound? I am not sure if it only happens when you refrain from laughing, but yeah some people I guess laugh like that. <Q> You might call it a stifled laugh , as in, “Mary tried to contain herself, but couldn’t help letting out a stifled laugh.” <S> You could also use the word snicker (either as a verb or noun) or possibly titter - though the latter might sound a little dated and silly. <A> This "pfft" could be called a "snicker". <S> At deviantart.com , you can see the entirety of a cartoon titled "What are you Laughing at? <S> " <S> It may be hard to read because the lettering is so small, but the characters are trying not to laugh, and are emitting the words "snicker" & "snort" (highlighted in yellow) instead. <A> How about the word snort . <S> It could be used in a sentence like: <S> When Nick told his wife about the narrow escape from a traffic ticket Betty tried to withhold a chuckle that came out as a snort. <A> How about Titter? <S> I came across it a while ago doing a crossword on a plane. <S> titter <S> /ˈtɪtə/ <S> verb <S> verb: titter ; <S> 3rd person present: titters ; past tense: tittered ; past participle: <S> tittered ; gerund or present participle: tittering give a short, half-suppressed laugh; giggle. <S> "her stutter caused the children to titter" synonyms : <S> giggle, snigger, snicker, tee-hee, give a half-suppressed laugh, chuckle; noun noun: titter ; plural noun: titters a short, half-suppressed laugh. <S> "there were titters from the gallery" synonyms : giggle, snigger, snicker, tee-hee, half-suppressed laugh, chuckle; <A> According to wordhippo , a suppressed laugh is: A half-suppressed, typically scornful laugh <S> The site also offers these synonyms: snigger, snicker, giggle, chortle, sneer, cackle, chuckle, guffaw, simper <A> I tend to think of guffaw, although Merriam-Webster says this is "loud laughter," how about a stifled guffaw? <A> I think at this point pfft is an onomatopoeia. <S> It's a part of my vocabulary at least, but it's more like a stand in for the word pashaw . <S> Which is an exclamation about the hilarity of an incredulous situation. <S> It's a way to 'call bullshit' without swearing, or to preserve the lightheartedness of a conversation. <S> He let out a pfft <S> but I wasn't sure if he was actually annoyed, or just trying to not hurt my feelings by laughing it off.
| Also, sometimes the stifled laugh comes out not as a "pfft" but more of a "snort" if you try to keep the laugh inside by shutting your mouth.
|
You've spoiled/damaged the card Two people were playing cards. So a person folded a card by mistake. So what sounds natural: You have spoilt the card. You have damaged the card. Do both "spoilt" and "damaged" sound natural? <Q> As a native American-English speaker, I can tell you 'spoilt' does not sound natural. ' <S> Spoilt' would be better applied to food that has gone bad. <S> 'Damaged' would be the better option of the two. <S> You might also refer to how the card was damaged, such as "You bent the card" or "You crumpled the card." <A> Although it's somewhat hyperbolic, the expression 'you've ruined it' comes to me in this situation. <S> Whilst the card will hardly be in ruin, someone annoyed about its being damaged may still simply complain that it was 'ruined', i.e. rendered in an unacceptable condition. <S> ‘Spoilt’ does sound perfectly natural to me as a British speaker; damaged is obviously correct but, because it's so literal, sounds strange, given nothing is being conveyed that the addressee can't already work out. <A> Specifically for cards, you have "marked" it. <S> That's what makes it completely unplayable. <S> Marking a card means you can track it through the deck. <A> In American English, only 'spoiled' is usually considered correct. <S> Other verbs like this include 'burn': burnt/ <S> burned (British) <S> burned (American), and learn: learnt/learned (British), learned (American). <S> I would prefer to use spoilt/spoiled since the card is no longer suitable for use in a card game, even though it is not completely destroyed. <A> Native Brit; to me the meaning of spoilt / spoiled in this context would mean the card were no longer usable in the game, for example if someone wrote the denomination on the back of the card for all to see. <S> I would expect that particular usage to be uncommon in comparison with something like ruined . <S> To damage or bend a card doesn't necessarily render it unusable. <A> The reason why the current accepted answer states that it doesn't sound natural to say a "spoilt card", is because the comment not quite correct. <S> You have damaged the single card - but spoilt the whole deck and the game. <S> The difference between them is that when goods are damaged, it's very rare in English culture to look at the components individually; but the functionality of the product as a whole. <S> The product is not a single card, but the whole deck...
| In British English 'spoilt' and 'spoiled' are equally correct past participles of the verb 'spoil'.
|
Can we use "people" and "persons" interchangeably? Can we use "people" and "persons" interchangeably? I am not sure, but I feel like people should never be used to describe people you know or when you attach a number to it. For example: There are 3 people who are bachelors in my family. <Q> The word "persons" is used largely in formal writing, particularly in a legal context. <S> It would pretty much never be used in informal speech or writing, at least not in US English. <S> "People" would always be used in such situations. <S> when speaking of large group, such as a nation, an ethnicity, or humanity in general, "people" would normally be used. <S> The idea that " 'people' should never be used to describe people you know or when you attach a number to it. " is simply not correct, at least not in US English. <S> There are 3 people who are bachelors in my family. <S> Is a perfectly natural and grammatical sentence. <S> If "persons" were used instead, it would sound a bit affected in informal speech or writing, in my view. <S> Fifty people were killed in the explosion. <S> would be a natural sentence in a newspaper report. <S> " <S> 50 persons" would not. <S> Except in a strictly legal or other technical context, "people" can be used almost anywhere that "persons" is used. <S> Exception: In Christian theology, one writes "Persons of the Trinity" not "People of the Trinity". <S> People as a Plural of Person <S> Merriam-Webster gives as meaning 2 under Noun : <S> plural : human beings, persons — often used in compounds instead of persons <S> Dictionary.com gives as senses 1 and 2: <S> persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think? <S> persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: <S> Twenty people volunteered to help. <S> The Cambridge Dictionary gives as the first meaning: men, women, and children generally; pl of person: There were a lot of people there. <S> Some people were hurt. <S> The Oxford Dictionaries says: <S> The words people and persons can both be used as the plural of person, but they have slightly different connotations. <S> People is by far the commoner of the two words and is used in most ordinary contexts: a group of people ; there were only about ten people ; several thousand people have been rehoused . <S> Persons, on the other hand, tends now to be restricted to official or formal contexts, as in this vehicle is authorized to carry twenty persons ; <S> no persons admitted without a pass <A> No they aren't interchangeable. <S> People is the plural of person, except when used as a legal term. <S> In that case, persons are used to show the plural of people . <A> Two side notes: <S> Persons sounds like a smaller number of people than people , and more formal. <S> When you're talking about "people in general" you wouldn't use persons. <S> Also, to people can also be a verb: if something is peopled by a group of people, those people live in or are abundant in that place.
| The word "persons" is most often used when writing of a limited, but perhaps indefinite, number of people.
|
Is there any word or phrase for negative bearing? Features of a product matter when you are deciding to buy it. If you know that it has a feature, say x, that you like, then that can motivate you to buy it. But a negative feature, say y, can dismotive you. Thus, x has a positive bearing on your decision, whereas y has a negative bearing on it. One might even say that y has a negative bearing on x. Is there any phrase or word for negative bearing of such kind. I can think of "negative pertinence", "negative relevance", "negative relation"? Is any of these any good? Do you have anything in mind? Example: X has a _______ on my decision making whether to buy the product. <Q> I would use “ drawback ”, meaning “an objectionable feature”. <S> For example, I really like that car, but the low gas mileage is a huge drawback that I can’t overlook. <S> “Drawback” is less suitable for something that is a personal preference, like the color of the car, which might be something someone else would like. <S> In that case, I would use “turn-off” as pboss310 explains in their answer . <A> Informally, Americans will say "turn-off". <S> For example, "the phone doesn't have an replaceable battery, which is a turn-off for me". <S> You wouldn't use it in more polite/formal speech though. <S> If the issue causes you to fully reject something, you can use "showstopper". <A> A strike against is another option (e.g., "the colour is a strike against it"), or downside , or even just a negative . <S> M-W defines strike against as follows: <S> strike against <S> ( noun ) something that makes someone or something less likely to be accepted, approved, successful, etc. <S> : <S> Her poor attendance was a strike against her. <S> while downside is defined as: downside ( noun ) a negative aspect <A> The phrase "deal breaker" is similar to "showstopper". <S> (But different in this way: a "showstopper" is an insurmountable problem because normally "the show must go on", whereas a "deal breaker" is not necessarily an insurmountable problem, it just means no deal is, was, or will be agreed upon) <S> You could also use positive and negative "impact" on your decision making process, like pluses and minuses on your personal "tally board". <S> While features A, B, and C positively impacted my buying decision, and features <S> X and Y negatively impacted it; feature Z was a deal-breaker. <S> So I walked away. <A> I had a marked disinclination to dating her after I found out about her incarceration for assault. <S> I was disinclined to purchase the car when I discovered it had been in a wreck. <S> I was chary of pursuing that line of action; It could could be dangerous. <S> Averse , or indisposed or reluctant could also be used. <S> All of these words have various shades of meaning. <S> In a slightly less emphatic statement, you could say you were nervous or apprehensive about doing something. <S> The absence of a safety switch on the machine provided a drag on my desire to own it. <S> I was repelled by the odor of the sweatshirt. <A> A word not previously mentioned is adverse . <S> Although similar to averse , averse typically relates to a person <S> whereas adverse relates to some thing . <S> Revising your sample sentence slightly <S> : X has an adverse effect on my decision to buy the product. <S> I am averse to X and therefore may not buy the product. <S> Both sentences tell us the likelihood of purchasing the product is diminished. <S> The first emphasizes the detrimental aspect of the product, the second emphasizes the buyer's perspective. <S> "Averse" describes a person's negative feeling or bias against something: Bob is averse to flying so he always travels by bus or train. <S> Many people are averse to purchasing upgrades if there is no backwards compatibility. <S> For Bob and his co-workers, skydiving was an adverse team building exercise. <S> Many people consider a lack of backwards compatibility to be an adverse selling point for tech gadgets. <S> There are also some words that may be better in certain situations, depending on the nature of "X". <S> Here are a few more alternatives that I did not see in other answers and when they might best apply: <S> X discourages you from purchasing the product (where X might be a person, such as your spouse or a negative reviewer, or cheap materials or poor manufacturing). <S> X disincentivizes you from purchasing the product (where X might be something that reduces a benefit of purchase, like a new tariff disincentivizing purchase of an imported good or the expiration of a rebate disincentivizing purchase of an electric car; or X could be some undesirable aspect that isn't specifically product-related, such as knowing you are supporting EvilCorp may be a disincentive to purchasing their product). <S> X deterred you from purchasing the product (where X is a possible negative consequence, such as "a lack of job security deterred me from buying a new car" or "fear of arrest deterred me from buying the illegal substance." <A> Bearing , pertinence , and relevance all refer to the magnitude of the relationship between things. <S> Something that makes you not want to buy a product can have just as much bearing on your decision as something that makes you want to buy it. " <S> Negative bearing" isn't really a thing. <S> If you want something that sounds a little more scientific (or if you just want to sound like a statistician), you could say The presence of X has an inverse correlation to my decision to buy the product.
| You can, however, say that X has an unfavorable influence on my decision whether to buy the product. "Adverse" describes a thing's negative attribute or contrary nature:
|
What's the correct term describing the action of sending a brand-new ship out into its first seafaring trip? What's the correct term in English describing the action of sending a brand-new ship out for its first voyage? For example, if the ship's name is "Elisa", then it would be something like: Finally, "Elisa" was ____________ yesterday. Her first point of destination is Calcutta. Which of the following phrases is correct? lowered on water let to sail launched for sailing [something else?] <Q> There are three distinct concepts: <S> A ship is launched. <S> At this point the ship is named and the hull enters the water, however the ship is not yet complete, a great deal of work remains. <S> A ship is commissioned. <S> This usually applies to Naval vessels. <S> Prior to this, the hull is fitted out and sea trials are carried out. <S> When the ship is commissioned, it is designated ready for service and the crew formally join the ship. <S> Yesterday, the Elisa set sail on her maiden voyage , her first port of call will be Calcutta. <S> See this explanation of commissioning <A> Launched is the only one of the given choices that sounds at all fluent. <S> But it doesn't imply this is the boat's first voyage. <S> You launch your boat every time you move it from land to water. <S> For some boats, like small ones used for fishing on a lake or river, that could be every time you use the boat. <S> The most common idiom used to talk about a boat's first voyage <S> is to call it the boat's maiden voyage . <A> A term commonly used in navies is a 'shakedown cruise', during which the systems of the ship are tested to work out any problems that may exist within the ship. <S> The term 'sea trials' may also be used in the same way, but that term is primarily applied to the first ship of a class of ship.
| The ship sets off on its first voyage, the maiden voyage
|
Meaning of 'anti-character period' Especially, what does 'period' mean? Here is the context: Bran is not just the anti-Aragorn, he’s an anti-character period . Here is the link: ‘Game of Thrones’ Ends Not With a Bang but a Whimper <Q> Anti- - opposed to or against a particular thing or person Source Period - said at the end of a statement to show that you believe you have said all there is to say on a subject and you are not going to discuss it <S> any more Source <S> He is not just the anti-Aragon, he is opposed to all characters, end of story! <A> As Bee said, the word period <S> verbally emphasizes the punctuation mark, expressing finality or completion. <S> I'd put a comma before it. <S> “anti-Aragorn” expresses the contrast between Bran's lack of ambition and Aragorn's long campaign to restore and reclaim the dormant kingship of Gondor and Arnor. <S> (I do not know the story.) <A> Two things are happening here: 'anti-' and 'period' This statement insults Bran with two kinds of added emphasis. <S> ... <S> American English spoken used to emphasize that you have made a decision and that you do not want to discuss the subject any more, syn. <S> full stop! <S> eg: <S> I’m not going, period! <S> From Wikipedia, <S> Intensifier : <S> ...is a linguistic term (but not a proper lexical category) for a modifier that makes no contribution to the propositional meaning of a clause but serves to enhance and give additional emotional context to the word it modifies. <S> The "intensifier period" has also been discussed on the ELU at length: <S> Origin of “Period” and “Full Stop” as Interjections Answer: " <S> That is an intensifier "
| “anti-character” seems to mean that Bran is not as solidly defined as many other characters; he has not been given any clear personality. Specifically, about the word "period", it needs the comma before it and arguably an exclamation mark after it... From Longman : "period" means that the idea has been concluded and there isn't more to add (so the writer is claiming) "not just the anti- , an anti- ..." is a common way of contrasting ideas in English where the second part of the contrast is more extreme, being the claim to stronger truth by the speaker or writer.
|
Who was introduced to whom? If you say, "George, this is Joan" have you just introduced George to Joan or have you just introduced Joan to George? I've seen this sort of thing many times and it has never been clear who is the introduced and who is the introduced to. EDIT: All of the answers so far are too complicated. I just need a simple answer. Have you just introduced George to Joan or have you just introduced Joan to George? <Q> If you say, "George, this is Joan", have you just introduced George to Joan or have you just introduced Joan to George? <S> You have introduced Joan to George. <S> See definition 2 in Oxford dictionary . <S> Introduce in this context means "make known". <S> The direct object is the person you make known (Joan). <S> The indirect object - which is optional - is the person or people whom you are addressing. <S> Other examples of introducing Joan: <S> Class, this is Joan, a new student. <S> ( introducing Joan to the class ) <S> Attention everyone! <S> I'd like to introduce Joan, your new teacher. <S> ( Note: no "to" in the sentence ). <A> You introduce someone else to the person you are talking to . <S> Other actions besides introduction follow this pattern. <S> If I say "Dad, this is my new book", I am showing (or giving) my new book (second item named) to my father (the person initially addressed). <S> If you then wished to introduce George to Joan, you would then say "Joan, this is George". <S> In formal etiquette (certainly in Britain, I don't know about elsewhere) there are rules about who goes first: men are introduced to women; junior people are introduced to seniors (whether by age or rank etc); a new arrival is introduced to a group. <S> In an informal setting, people might say "Joan, meet George, George, meet Joan" or even just "Joan, George, George, Joan.", and they might ignore the junior/senior men/women priority rules. <S> Introductions <A> Breaking it down, when we say: George, this is Joan <S> We are addressing George, but we are introducing George and Joan to each other. <S> From Oxford: introduce ( verb ) make (someone) known by name to another in person, especially formally: <S> I hope to introduce Jenny to them very soon . <S> Unless one of the two parties is behind a pane of one-way glass, or George and Joan are in a room where music is blaring so loud that only one person can barely make out what their friend is saying, as soon as one says, <S> "George, this is Joan," then George becomes aware of Joan's name, and Joan also becomes aware of George's name. <S> Sometimes, for the sake of politeness, one might "complete" the introduction by saying the names in the opposite direction: <S> George, this is Joan; Joan, this is George. <S> Or, more tersely: George, this is Joan. <S> Joan, George. <S> but some might find that second part redundant because no information is given. <S> Still, the longer version might seem more polite; otherwise, Joan might feel left out of the introduction. <S> Asking which person is introduced to whom is sort of like asking, during conception, does the sperm fertilize the egg, or does the egg get fertilized by the sperm? <S> The introduction happens, and George and Joan both learn each other's names. <S> If, on the other hand, you only said to George, "This is Joan," then George has been introduced to Joan, but Joan hasn't been introduced to George yet.
| You addressed George, so you are introducing Joan to him.
|
Is there a word for a man who behaves like a woman? Does there exist a word which describes someone who is male but behaves like a female? In Chinese, we say that "他很 (He is so) 娘". Such guys may have the following features (include but not limited to): lifting their little finger being emotional wearing lovely pink clothes Any words in English describing the above men with those features which seem strange to me? <Q> The English adjective to describe a man or boy whom the speaker/writer regards as exhibiting stereotypically or inappropriately feminine characteristics is "effeminate." <S> Please note that this word should be used with caution, if at all, as these days it is often seen as offensive. <S> Also, please note that what specific characteristics are seen as "effeminate" can vary widely across different times and cultures, and even from one individual to another. <S> Wearing pink, being emotional, and gesturing with one's fingers are by no means universally coded as "feminine," and therefore will not always be seen as "effeminate" when done by a man. <A> Effeminate , an adjective that means "having feminine qualities untypical of a man; not manly in appearance or manner." <S> Nanigashi makes an excellent point about the cultural and temporal boundaries that limit the applicability of categorizing particular behaviors as feminine or masculine. <A> There is also androgynous : partly male and partly female in appearance; of indeterminate sex, which is not quite the same thing of course. <A> A less derogatory, more politically correct term, that no one has mentioned yet is: metrosexual . <S> Although a metropolitan sexual describes a man who is just more particular about grooming and cleanliness. <S> (Google the old SNL skit "Sprockets" with Mike Myers for more information). <A> I am thinking of <S> sissy (adj.), a pansy (n.), <S> unmanly (adj, to describe one's behaviour). <S> Keep in mind <S> they all are derogatory. <S> In a modern and broad-minded society, having nails painted, or wearing a pink outlandish suit, or getting overly emotional doesn't necessarily describe a woman. <A> Another option is camp (adjective), meaning to behave in a way stereotypical of a gay man (in Western culture). <S> This includes exaggerated feminine traits, but also some traits (mannerisms, walk, accent) unique to the gay male subculture. <S> Note that gay itself could be an option, if you genuinely think they are homosexual. <S> However this has also been used as a general insult/criticism without necessarily being related to sexuality. <S> " <S> That's so gay" implies that you think something, or something someone is doing, is bad/stupid/lame/dumb. <S> Katy Perry wrote a song about an ex-boyfriend called "Ur so gay (and you don't even like boys)" which made the intent of the insult clear. <S> This use is generally offensive to gay people, of course, because it originates in accusations of homosexuality being used as insults, and then became a more generic insult in the 1990s when homosexuality became less taboo. <A> It also reminds me about an expression used by the former Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger: girlie man . <A> There is also gender bender , a quite catchy term which seems to fit your examples shown. <S> It implies a more conscious effort of the person thus described, perhaps even a level of activism or show, as opposed to the purely descriptive effeminate which can be entirely unconscious. <S> Since identity and in particular gender issues are "mined territory" <S> Graham has a point: As this reddit discussion shows the term can be perceived as inappropriate, for example exactly because it implies a level of activism. <S> Understandably gender-fluid people (I hope I'm not insulting anybody) are loath of being categorized, so it's prudent to tread carefully in this context; using the rather benign gender <S> bender is no exception. <A> Depending on the specific behaviours and the cultural context, a man could be described as being feminine as opposed to effeminate . <S> Both are valid, but effeminate is more derogatory, suggesting that the speaker thinks his mannerisms are in some way inappropriate, offensive, affected, or possibly even insulting to women by performing an exaggerated caricature (this is when effeminate crosses over into camp).
| A man who performs some "stereotypically female" behaviours in a more naturalistic, less exaggerated way, could be correctly described as feminine without being effeminate.
|
Coming and going (for hiccups) I know "I can't stop hiccuping" is natural. But if we have to say that "I stop hiccuping after a while only to start hiccuping again" , is it okay to use: My hiccups are coming and going . Is the use of "coming and going" natural? And if yes, then can "coming" be used to define the present state: Hiccups are coming . If not, then why is this difference? <Q> It is perfectly idiomatic in British English to use it in the context you are asking about. <S> On this webpage of the NHS (British National Health Service) <S> you will find the following quotation: <S> Appendicitis typically starts with a pain in the middle of your tummy (abdomen) that may come and go . <S> This demonstrates that it is quite common to speak of symptoms "coming and going". <S> "Hiccups" is not only the plural of "hiccup" but also the common name for an attack or spell of hiccuping. <S> As hiccuping is the symptom of hiccups it seems perfectly natural to say that your "hiccups are coming and going". <S> As it is an expression, it does not necessarily make sense if you break it down. " <S> Hiccups are coming" itself does not sense, but we do say that symptoms have " come on ", so you might say something like: <S> My hiccups came on suddenly <S> I don't know how anyone could tell that hiccups were "going", but it would be understood if you said: <S> My hiccups have gone . <S> Don't confuse the expression with the similar "coming <S> s and going <S> s " which is used to describe collected activities. <A> Some people might understand what you meant but the expression coming and going is not idiomatic in this context. <S> You are suffering from intermittent <S> bouts or recurrent/repeated bouts of hiccups or hiccuping. <S> Other words such as spells or bursts might be used in the place of bouts . <A> “Come and go” (or “on and off”) can be used to describe intermittency of a normally continuous condition. <S> A single hiccup is not a continuous condition like a fever, but hiccuping or hiccups are, so the expression works.
| "Coming and going" is an expression that is sometimes used to describe occurrences that are intermittent .
|
Is this use of the expression "long past" correct? None of those boys could be considered a good soccer player actually, but it was amazing to see how one of them could kick the ball long past the corner. Does this phrase make any sense? I'm trying to say that the boy in question, despite not being a great soccer player (just like the other ones), was able kick the ball very hard and send it very far away. Also: even though this are not explicitly mentioned, is the text able to make it clear that the boys were playing soccer on the street (and not in a gym, a soccer field or any other kind of "appropriate" place)? <Q> I don't think this is a use of the expression "long past". <S> I think it is just the two words "long" and "past" being used consecutively. <S> In soccer, you will often hear people talking about playing (or kicking) <S> the ball "long" (or "short") to distinguish controlled passes to get around enemy players from more speculative balls aiming at shifting play to a more threatening area of the pitch. <S> This is something of a soccer idiom. <S> For example: They will find themselves coming short or dropping back depending on whether their role is to play the ball long or short, and defenders will also need to check their style of play to suit. <S> ( source ) <S> In this sentence it sounds like what is meant is that he is able to kick the ball "long", so long in fact that it goes past the corner. <S> (Since this means it goes out of play, you wouldn't really want to kick it any further.) <S> Some people might use a comma here for clarity: <S> None of those boys could be considered a good soccer player actually, but it was amazing to see how one of them could kick the ball long, past the corner. <A> "Well past" can be used to discuss either time or distance. <S> As Weather Vane suggests, "far past" is usually used to discuss distance, not time. <S> The "corners" of soccer fields are important in the game. <S> For example, "corner kicks" often result in goals. <S> Thus, it is not clear that the example sentence refers to a "street corner" instead of a corner of a soccer field. <A> You used the word "far", that's also good in ... <S> it was amazing to see how one of them could kick the ball far past the corner. <S> If you want to convey that the game is in the street, you can qualify "corner". <S> ... <S> it was amazing to see how one of them could kick the ball far past the street corner. <A> Is the corner itself far away from where he was standing, or did the ball keep going far beyond the corner (but the corner may be fairly close)? <S> I'm assuming the first one. <S> One way to stress this is: ... <S> it was amazing to see how one of them could kick the ball all the way past the corner. <S> "All the way" might be considered just slightly informal. <S> You could also use this simpler option (the comma does change the meaning): ... <S> it was amazing to see how one of them could kick the ball far, past the corner.
| "Long past" and "distant past" are usually used to discuss time, not distance.
|
Is there a word that means something along the line of "add information in order to clarify what really happened"? Is there a word that means something along the line of "add information in order to clarify what really happened"? Sometimes, someone tells the truth, but they omit to mention relevant details in order to build a narrative for their political gains? What's the action of doing the opposite and making sure important information aren't omitted in a discussion? Is there a verb or a phrase that means exactly that? I looked up "precise" and couldn't find any relevant word, and precise is a bit too vague. <Q> This two-word phrase gets its own definition in several dictionaries, such as Oxford, M-W, Wordnik, and Cambridge: in detail ( phrase ) <S> As regards every feature or aspect; fully. <S> We will have to examine the proposals in detail. <S> in detail with all the particulars explained the job in detail in detail ( adverb, idiomatic ) thoroughly (including all important particulars); including every detail in detail including or considering all the information about something or every part of something <S> You could use this phrase in a sentence like: <S> You need to tell us what happened in detail. <S> which would mean: <S> You need to provide all the information necessary to clarify what really happened. <S> which is something along the lines of what you want. <A> The best single verb I can think of is elucidate : [Merriam-Webster] transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis // <S> elucidate a text intransitive verb : to give a clarifying explanation <S> The most common instruction to somebody in this context is: Please elucidate . <A> I like expand on to give more details about something you have said or written: <S> "We're going to cut taxes and lower the deficit" <S> "Sorry, can you expand on that? <S> How?"
| The first phrase that entered my mind is in detail .
|
Meaning of 'lose their grip on the groins of their followers' What exactly does this phrase mean? Specifically, is groins used here as an idiom? Or just coined by the speaker here? Here is the context: What I hope for the future is that all that major religions of the world (the chief promulgators of homophobia, after all) will finally lose their grip on the groins of their followers and begin preaching decency and human kindness. Fat chance, I know, but a boy can dream. The article in which I saw this phrase was Armistead Maupin: ‘When Stonewall Happened, I Was Smoking My First Dick, So I Was a Little Distracted’ I know the meaning of grip . It’s the groins that I don’t understand. Why should the speaker choose groins instead of maybe arms or heads or minds ? I mean, is gripping someone’s groins an idiom used by many people, or is it just a choice made by the speaker? Is it a metaphor of one’s sexuality, taking into consideration homophobia in the context of the entire article? <Q> I think "groins" is used rather than "arms" or "heads" or "minds" because this represents people's sexuality (EDIT: Lambie's answer makes this more clear - the groin is the part of the body where one's abdomen meets one's legs - where the sexual organs are located). <S> You are right to think that this word is chosen because of the discussion of homophobia. <S> The author is saying that he wishes the major religions of the world would stop trying to repress the sexuality of homosexual people and instead allow homosexual people to live their lives. <S> Trying to control people in this way goes against the values of decency and human kindness, which the author hopes the religions will realize (even though he doesn't have much confidence that this will ever happen). <A> To explain why 'groin' was used in this context you need to understand a well used phrase:- ' To have someone by the balls (testicles)' Cambridge Dictionary. ‘to have someone in a situation where you have complete power over them’ Macmillan Dictionary 'to have complete control over someone, so that they have to do what you want' <S> The phrase ' get (someone) by the balls ' The Free Dictionary vulgar 'To gain complete control or dominance over someone; to have someone at one's mercy.' <S> If you now replace 'groins' with 'balls' to read “ lose their grip on the balls of their followers ” you will reach similar conclusions to @Mixolydian's answer:- <S> The author is saying that most religions have (depending on their actual religion) a fairly rigid control over what their followers believe in and in particular to this statement their stance on homosexuality. <S> So using the phrase “ lose their grip on the groins of their followers <S> ” the author means religions should ‘loosen their grip on the said testicles’ and allow their followers more freedom of thought, ‘embracing’ all people, not just the people that subscribe to their own religious beliefs, sexuality, lifestyle, etc. <A> "The groins" is a euphemism for the area that includes genitalia in a male or female. <S> The place near sex organs in the human body. <S> It is a nice way of saying: penises and vaginas, to put it bluntly. <S> It's that simple, really. <S> The author is saying that the homophobia crowd should stop worrying about their own followers' sexual organs, which after all is what they do seem to be fixated on indirectly. <A> <A> Perhaps the meaning is relatated to this quote from Theodor Roosevelt ( https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/54/messages/368.html ) <S> When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow <S> I understand this to mean that you have some kind of control over someone and, through that control, you force them to change their way of thinking.
| It's to do with how religions like to control the sexuality of their followers; that is, their gods are conveniently very concerned about what people do with their groins.
|
"I am safe" vs. "He is safe" (A) I am safe. (B) He is safe. How do I distinguish the meanings above in sentences with the verb "to report"? For example: "I reported him to be safe." Who is safe? <Q> In the case of "I reported him to be safe", he is safe. " <S> You could say the same thing like this: "I reported him safe." <S> That might look a little more ambiguous at first, but note that 'safe' is just an adjective--it is performing the exact same grammatical function as 'to be safe' in the original sentence. <S> Another way of saying the sentence is "I reported that he is safe." <S> In this case you're using two independent clauses joined by the conjunction 'that'. <S> If you wanted to say 'I am safe', you could say "I reported myself safe." <S> which is a construction that is more commonly used in day-to-day speech, or <S> "I reported that I am safe." <S> which sounds clunky in day-to-day speech, but probably makes more sense when you're trying to understand the meaning for the first time. <A> I reported him to be safe. <S> means that the speaker has reported some other person (presumably identified in previous content) to be safe. <S> It corresponds with example B in the question. <S> A similar statement corresponding with example <S> A would be: <S> I reported myself to be safe <S> I reported myself as safe <S> This could be shorten to " <S> I reported myself safe." <S> as the previous sentence could be shortened to " <S> I reported him safe." <A> I assume you may be confusing this with the indirect object in sentences such as <S> I ordered him to get me a drink. <S> or I taught him to read Chinese <S> The verb "to report" does not take an indirect object like this. <S> Instead "him" is the direct object, meaning the thing being reported. <S> You have to use the preposition "to" to indicate the other party: <S> I reported the error to him <S> Obviously it's easy to get mixed up when you combine this structure with an phrase like "to be safe" which also uses the preposition "to". <S> In your example, however, recognize that this is an infinitive phrase that modifies "him", and not the direct object of the verb "report". <S> You could rephrase this as: <S> I reported (to someone) that he was safe . <S> Either way, he is the one who is safe. <S> If instead you want to say that you are safe, you have to make that the direct object, and use the preposition to indicate you are talking to him: <S> I reported to him that I was safe. <S> or, less clearly: <S> I reported I was safe to him.
| To be safe" is an adjectival phrase which modifies 'him'.
|
A word that means "blending into a community too much" I found two phrasal verbs that are close to the meaning I want to convey: 1- Fit in : to feel that you belong to a particular group and are accepted by that group. 2- Blend into : to look or seem the same as surrounding people or things and therefore not be easily noticeable. What I want to convey is blending into a community to the extent of losing one's characteristics and personality. It is as being too flexible that you can easily fit in in any community whether it was suitable for your nature or not. I want to fill the verb in the blank of the following sentence: Fitting in is one thing, but ______ communities is a totally different thing. The phrasal verb "blend into" means "يختلط" in Arabic which also means "mix". The verb I'm looking for means "يذوب" which also means "dissolving/melting" but they don't seem (according to my research) to be used in English in that way. <Q> I don't have a simple verb to replace your blank, but consider going native : <S> Fitting in is one thing, but going native is a totally different thing. <S> From the Cambridge Dictionary : go native disapproving or humorous <A> "Assimilation" can work here: assimilation (n): The absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture. <S> Assimilation is a neutral term for a process that can be expressed either as a positive or a negative. <S> To those in the wider culture, it may seem a good result to see some minority culture integrated into the majority -- but to those in the minority culture who would like to maintain their heritage, assimilation can be a worrisome. <S> As an example: For a long time the United States was thought of as a "melting pot" in which people of all nations, cultures, and creeds would mix together (like different metals when heated) to become one homogeneous whole. <S> In this model, assimilation is viewed as a positive result. <S> More recently this was replaced with the model of "cultural pluralism" (also known as the "fruit salad" model) in which different cultures retain their uniqueness but still mix harmoniously with all the other unique cultural groups. <S> In this model, assimilation is, perhaps, inevitable, but still viewed as a somewhat negative result. <S> (Edit) <S> Because the noun assimilation exists, the gerund assimilating has a slightly different nuance that refers more to the process than the result. <S> In your example sentence, I prefer to use "assimilation": <S> Fitting in is one thing, but assimilation is another. <S> However, when comparing two things, it's nice if you can phrase them similarly: <S> Accommodation is one thing, but assimilation is another. <S> or Integration is one thing, but assimilation is another. <A> Following up on a word mentioned by Andrew, you could consider homogenizing . <S> To homogenize <S> something is to make it homogeneous : completely the same throughout, with no parts that are different from one another. <S> It can be done to milk, for instance; all the little bits of fat get mixed in, producing a uniform liquid from which the fat doesn't separate. <A> I would suggest the phrase “losing your identity”. <S> While it appears to be going out of style, the US at least has considered assimilation and blending in a good thing. <S> It’s the great melting pot. <S> So, those terms are going to be considered positive by some people. <S> Losing your identity, forgetting where you came from or forgetting your roots, are all seen as uniformly negative. <S> Of these, I think the first is the most appropriate for your desired meaning. <A> To conform <S> Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? <S> Several have died of conformity in our lifetime. <S> -- Jacob Bronowski . <S> I think the reward for conformity is everyone likes you but yourself. <S> -- Rita Mae Brown <A> I think you actually want to shift the focus here. <S> Forgetting where you came from <S> The issue you want to emphasize is not the joining of the community, but the loss of the values and identity that someone learned in their original culture. <S> In English, we're more explicit about this, since Western culture doesn't generally view adapting to the culture around you when you join it as a negative. <S> Words like "assimilate" and "homogenize" won't quite convey the concept you want because they don't emphasize the loss to which you're trying to bring attention. <S> Because they don't emphasize this point, they're going to sound awkward in your example context. <S> To "forget where you came from" is to abandon the values, beliefs, and distinctiveness of the culture you were raised in. <S> It is a shift from participating in the culture you now live in to letting it determine your identity. <S> It's a casual phrase (rather than formal), but it's also very negative. <S> This seems to be what you're looking for. <S> It can also imply that the listener may no longer care very much about the people they left behind, so be aware of that possible interpretation. <S> Fitting in is one thing, but forgetting where you came from is a totally different thing. <S> Note that it's technically ungrammatical; it ends in a preposition. <S> However, in casual discussion, this will not be a problem, if the listener even notices it.
| Homogenize sort of has the connotation that the resulting product is bland and boring, so I think it fits your negative usage a little better. If a person who is in a foreign country goes native, they begin to live and/or dress like the people who live there.
|
Use of "shall" with third person pronoun in British English Is this still common in British English to use the modal 'shall' with a third person pronoun? If so, what is the difference between the following? He shall repent. He should repent. <Q> I shall <S> / he will is, I think, still common amongst older people who were taught a more formal style of English. <S> I use it myself (and it is my natural register) <S> but when teaching English to speakers of other languages we (the tutors and helpers in classes) only teach and use will . <S> Fewer people would naturally use the corresponding <S> I will <S> / he shall form to show determination. <S> Oxford Dictionaries say: <S> In practice, though, the two words are used more or less interchangeably, and this is now an acceptable part of standard British and American English; however, the word shall is now seldom used in any normal context in American English. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/shall-or-will <S> Most British English speakers would be unable to explain the difference between I shall drown; no-one will save me! <S> I will drown; no-one shall save me! <A> Using shall instead of will in the first sentence expresses certainty ( he will certainly repent ). <S> The British traditionally use shall to express determination or intention on the part of the speaker or someone other than the subject of the verb. <S> https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/shall-versus-will <S> He should repent <S> is a supposition that he repents, ought to repent or will repent (depending on context). <A> The word "shall" is used much less often than "will" in modern English, with some notable exceptions. <S> Religious speeches, text, and pronouncements tend to use "shall" or "shalt", especially in parodies. <S> "He shall repent" is an example of this. <S> Commands from God (such as the Ten Commandments) will almost always use "shall" instead of "will". <S> Another notable exception is the line "You shall not pass!", which is a reference to Lord of the Rings.
| You should use "will" in almost all contexts.
|
How do we say "within a kilometer radius spherically"? How do we say "within a kilometer radius spherically"? When we say radius, we think of a circle, so how do you specify that you're thinking of a sphere when you say "within a kilometer radius"? <Q> In some contexts the three-dimensionality will be obvious, as when one is speaking ot the relative position of satellites, say, or stars There are ten satellites within a fifty kilometer radius <S> There are fewer than twelve stars within ten light-years of the sun. <S> But there is no special word or phrase that I know of for use in this situation, perhaps because it doesn't come up very often in ordinary speech. <A> Pretty much just like that. <S> "Radius" is used for spheres as well as circles. <S> ... <S> anything inside a sphere of one-kilometer radius around the object. <S> Alternately, just say ... <S> anything within one kilometer of the object <S> assuming it's obvious <S> you're talking about spatial rather than surface distances. <A> You can say: One kilometer in any direction. <A> I usually say 'within a spherical radius of x from this point'. <S> In 3d computing and visual effects, this comes up more often than you would think. <A> "Radius" is redundant. <S> The term "within" already conveys the concept. <S> If you want to emphasize that it's three dimensional, you can say that: "Within one kilometer, in any of the three dimensions".
| One could say "spherically", or "within a one-kilometer sphere".
|
What does "at its + adjective" mean? there are phrases on paper saying things like at its most radical at its + superlative and there is no way of understanding the meaning of this phrase because I can't find it on dictionary. The closest search to this phrase is "at the most" which is not what the phrase means The following is the full sentence where the phrase I found is used: At its most radical, moralism produces descriptions of ideal political societies known as Utopias. <Q> "At its most XXX" is about something that varies on XXX and, in particular, about what that thing is like at its highest point on XXX. <S> "New York, at its hottest, is still not nearly as hot as Cairo". <S> "A New York City winter, even at its most severe, seems mild to people from Petrograd". <A> When I am at my most rude, I am being as rude as I can. <S> When I am at my least courageous, I am acting with as little courage as I am able to. <A> "Its" is a possessive pronoun , like "his". <S> So when you say... <S> ...at its most radical. ... <S> the adjective following the superlative is a quality that belongs to whatever "it" refers to. <S> It is much the same as saying: This latest book is his best work . <S> This means that a number of works can be attributed to "him", but a particular book in question is his best . <S> Likewise, by saying something is "at its most radical <S> " you are implying that the subject is often radical, but you are highlighting a point at which this quality has peaked.
| When something is at its most radical, is is being as radical as it can be.
|
If I had a daughter who (is/were/was) cute, I would be very happy If I had a daughter who (is/were/was) cute, I would be very happy. (Written to mean that I have never had a cute daughter, so I would be very happy if I could have one) I think "were" or "was" is grammatically correct because the sentence is of a hypothetical situation. So, "is" seems to be grammatically wrong to use there, and I know a more natural wording would be just "If I had a cute daughter", but I wrote it like that on purpose to ask this question. <Q> UPDATE <S> I'm no longer sure about my answer. <S> I have been thinking about this over and over in the past few days but cannot reach a definite conclusion for myself. <S> Hence, ' was ' instead of ' were ' might be the correcter option for the singular. <S> This was also pointed out by @alephzero, here below in the comments. <S> ORIGINAL POST <S> Hence, in your specific example: Singular: <S> If I had a daughter who were cute, I would be very happy. <S> Plural: <S> If I had two daughters who were cute, I would be very happy. <S> Some native speakers, potentially Americans more than British, might say that 'was' would also be correct. <S> However, the intention of your statement is presumably 100% hypothetical, insinuating that you are never going to have a cute daughter. <S> The subjunctive should be used. <S> The most famous exemplary sentence of the subjunctive is probably 'If I were you I would...' <S> I believe that in modern colloquial English, even native speakers sometimes tend to replace 'were' with 'is' or 'was'. <A> I wonder whether this question is involved enough to belong over on English. <S> SE for a purely academic treatment. <S> In a language-learner’s context, though, I’d suggest that the more idiomatic answer is to rephrase the problem away: <S> If I had a cute daughter, I would be very happy. <S> This contains the subjunctive <S> so there’s no confusion. <A> If I had a daughter who were cute, I would be very happy <S> This is correct but very formal. <S> Following prescriptive grammar, because there is a counterfactual in the if statement, the subjunctive is needed and the subjunctive of "to be" is "were". <S> Using the present tense does not really sound natural in most situations like this <S> In most circumstances, if you want to sound like a native-speaker, go with the past tense when giving the first clause of an if-then sentence <A> To my ear, the only one of your three options that sounds natural and idiomatic is "was": <S> If I had a daughter who was cute, I would be very happy. <S> I do <S> not agree with the suggestions to use "were" here. <S> To me, using the subjunctive "were" in a relative clause like this just sounds awkward and wrong. <S> I don't really know if it's a technically and/or historically valid usage that has simply become so uncommon in modern colloquial English that it no longer feels natural, or whether it's an artificial hypercorrection introduced by people who have been taught, against their everyday experience and linguistic intuition, to always use the subjunctive in counterfactual conditionals in order to sound educated. <S> That might be a good question for English Language & Usage . <S> In any case, using "is" is obviously wrong here. <S> The tenses don't match. <A> The subjunctive is already contained in "had": <S> If I had a daughter who is/was/were cute, I would be very happy. <S> You shouldn't use a second subjunctive in the same clause, so use "was": <S> If I had a daughter who was cute, I would be very happy. <A> "If I had..." is the subjunctive. <S> "who is cute" is a descriptive object. <S> Since <S> "If I had.." is present subjunctive, use "is" . <S> To work in the past, write <S> "If I had had a daughter who was cute..." . <S> But given the choice, I'd rewrite per thehole 's answer to make the sentence read more smoothly.
| This is the subjunctive: 'were' is correct and used in either the singular and the plural forms. In practice, very few speakers (on either side of the pond) regularly use the subjunctive in normal informal speech, usually using the past tense instead, i.e. If I had a daughter who was cute, I would be very happy
|
What do you call the action of "describing events as they happen" like sports anchors do? What do you call the action of "describing events as they happen" like sports anchors do? I heard the word "commentary", but I doubt "commentary" actually refers to the action of describing an event as it's happening. Also, I am wondering what the verb might be. Here's a video example, but I doubt it's needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiYXiRZncYk <Q> It is a verb in British English: <S> commentate: <S> VERB <S> [NO OBJECT] <S> British Report on an event as it occurs, especially for a news or sports broadcast; provide a commentary. <S> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commentate <A> Running commentary is also fairly common. <A> The classic phrase for such a description is play-by-play . <S> Literally this means a detailed description of a sports event, describing each event in the game as it happens. <S> But it has been extended to descriptions of other sorts of events, including political ones, on a similar as-it-happens basis. <S> Such "play-by-play" descriptions arose when games were broadcast by radio, with no accompanying images, because video had not yet been developed. <S> The intent was to give the listeners the same information as they would have if they were physically present. <S> Indeed it gave more, because the broadcaster often had expert knowledge of what to watch for, what was significant, that many people did not have, or not to the same degree. <S> It is also known as "play-by-play commentary." <S> Strictly speaking the commentary is the account of the event, not the process of delivering that account, but it is often extended to cover the process as well. <S> The action of doing the description is sometimes called "giving a play-by-play" or "delivering a play-by-play". <S> In either case, "commentary" can be added. <A> Commentary is the noun, but as you are asking for the action, the corresponding verb is commentate/commentating . <S> Those who commentate are called commentators <A> There's narrating verb (used with object), nar·rat·ed, nar·rat·ing. <S> to give an account or tell the story of (events, experiences, etc.). <S> to add a spoken commentary to (a film, television program, etc.) <S> or cast <S> In sports broadcasting, a sports commentator (also known as sports announcer, sportscaster or play-by-play announcer) gives a running commentary of a game or event in real time, usually during a live broadcast, traditionally delivered in the historical present tense. <S> This is used a lot regarding games, such as on Twitch, although there it can be used very broadly: often someone casting a game will be discussing things only tangentially, if at all, related to the game. <S> Also, while the traditional past tense of "cast" is just "cast", many people now use "casted". <A> Reporting live <S> is another which I think has a broader potential context of use. <S> Also, reporting tends to be more about the events with as little 'extra information' as possible, while commentary tends to include some opinion or any other relevant extra information. <A> In British English, "live commentary" is probably the most common phrase for this. <S> For example, the national UK radio station that specialises in sports reporting uses it in its schedules . <A> A less common phrase would be " color commentary ", referring particularly to background information provided between plays. <A> "Calling the game" can also be used. <S> The same term gets used in place of "calling off the game" (e.g. due to rain), but there's plenty of references as to it being used to denote commentating. <A> One answer that I haven't seen here yet is "Casting". <S> A especially eSports, a lot of the announcers call themselves casters, and I've heard the term use in ways like "sports casting".
| If it specific to sports, as the other answers have said, commentating or running commentary is the common word. running commentary ( noun ) a continuous spoken description of an event while it is happening
|
When to use the uncountable form of a noun? I understand that certain nouns are both uncountable and countable at the same time. Some of these nouns have different meanings in different form so choosing which form to use is relatively easy. However, what if the countable and uncountable forms are actually quite similar in their respective meaning(s)? Or the difference may be so subtle that I can't meaningfully distinguish the two? How could I pick the correct one? E.g. (the examples below may not be perfect and better examples are always welcome!:D) (1) The programmer is working hard to enhance the functionality/ functionalities of the software. (Cambridge dictionary: functionality (C or U) means the tasks that a software is able to do) (2) The quality of this report, including its appendix and abstract, is/are disappointing. (Cambridge dictionary: quality (C or U) means how good or bad something is) (3) I dont know what my personality is/are. Sometimes I am warm and nice, sometimes I am arrogant and harsh. (Cambridge dictionary: personality (C or U) means the type of person you are) To clarify my question, I understand that a noun can have a number of meanings so this problem can be easily avoided by resorting to its other meanings (functionalities can be taken to mean a range of functions, but even functionality could mean the same thing, so let's focus on this meaning). However, picking a different meaning would effectively circumvent, instead of directly resolving, my dilemma. <Q> Part of your confusion seems to be that you mistake uncountable with plural . <S> Both "quality" and "personality" are singular, whether they are countable or uncountable. <S> That aside, the difference between using the countable and uncountable variations of a noun relates to the fundamental way we decide whether something is countable or uncountable -- which is to say, can you count it? <S> The general concept of "quality" can not be counted, because it exists only in the abstract. <S> This fabric is not of good quality . <S> But we can count specific examples that demonstrate some measure of quality: <S> We admire her good qualities , but we enjoy her bad qualities even more. <S> Use the uncountable version when talking about the abstract or general concept of that noun. <S> To take your first example, is the programmer enhancing the overall functionality of the software? <S> Or is she working on specific sections, each of which has a useful function ? <S> Either is fine; you just need to decide what you want to say. <A> 1) <S> The programmer is working hard to enhance the functionality/ functionalities of the software <S> Functionality is one thing, even if it includes multiple functions. <S> You can say functionalities if you want to emphasize various aspects of functionality. <S> 2) <S> The quality of this report, including its appendix and abstract, is/are disappointing. <S> " Is " here goes with quality, which is in singular. <S> To use "are" there would need to be qualities, <S> but it is unusual to describe a report this way. <S> Appendix and abstract are parts of a nondefining (nonrestrictive) clause, which is separated by commas from the main clause. <S> The main clause is: "The quality of this report is disappointing." <S> 3) <S> I don't know what my personality is/are. <S> Personality is one thing. <S> If you want to say you don't know what your personality includes, you say "personality is. <S> " If you want to say you feel you have multiple personalities, you say "personalities are." <A> As you say, the meanings are fairly similar, so you need to choose the correct one you wish to convey. <S> For the first example, enhancing the functionality of a piece of software would mean enhancing how well it is able to be used overall; enhancing the functionalities would mean enhancing the individual things it is able to do. <S> For example, you might have a piece of software whose functionalities include converting files to different formats, compressing data and opening files. <S> For the second example the quality of a report would be how good it is overall. <S> The qualities of a report would be the specific attributes possessed by the report. <S> For example, its qualities might include a well researched bibliography and a nice font. <S> For the third example your personality is your particular character; your personalities are, either metaphorically or due to dissociative identity disorder, separate beings that reside in your one body.
| To put this another way: Use the countable version of the noun when citing real-world and/or measurable examples of the noun.
|
My best moment is every moment I've had with him/spent with him A person was asked: "What was your best moment with your dad?" So the reply can be: "My best moment was every moment with him." But can it be :... 1.)My best moment was every moment that I had with my dad. 2.)My best moment was every moment that I spent with my dad. What sounds natural #1 or #2? Do any of these sentences sound natural? <Q> Just to be clear, it seems like your intention is to make this sentence deliberately paradoxical <S> - obviously one best moment cannot be every moment. <S> But this is fine and makes sense in context - it is like a frame challenge. <S> The implication is that it is impossible to choose a single best moment so you are answering your own question in a different way. <S> That out of the way, the most natural sounding (to me at least) of your two suggestions is #2: <S> My best moment was every moment that I spent with my dad. <S> This is a personal preference, as there is nothing incorrect with your first sentence grammatically. <S> My two reasons for preferring this are: <S> "Time spent with" someone carries stronger the idea that you mutually enjoyed the time together. "Had" rhymes with "dad" which makes it a little jarring and possibly a little harder to say. <A> Both are correct. <S> "Spent" is probably more common, but "had" may be better, as a reply to a question that uses the same verb, e.g.: <S> A <S> : What was the best moment you had with your father? <S> B <S> Beyond what is correct and natural , there is good English writing/speaking style . <S> As in any language, some people can do it well, and some can't. <S> There are good writers and bad writers, good speakers and bad speakers. <S> Some people can say something clever very quickly, "off the cuff", and some can only be clever when they have time to sit and write it down. <S> It's good style to mirror the general form of the question asked, but with a wry, humorous, or insightful twist. <S> Your first example is somewhat like this, where the questioner expects you to respond with one or perhaps a couple of anecdotes, but the response is unexpected but sweet. <S> Of course, the trick about being clever is that you have to be original . <S> This kind of twist ("every moment is the best") has been done so many times <S> it's pretty much cliche. <S> It's also not a real answer to the question. <S> If you really want to sound clever, you might have to dig a little deeper: <S> A <S> : What's the best moment you had with your father? <S> B: <S> The best moments are the ones I'd nearly forgotten about, until something passing -- a smell, a flash of color, a word -- sparks the memory, and I'm back reliving that moment with him, as if it was that very day. <A> These are both idiomatic: To spend a moment with someone To have a moment with someone <S> So, either way is fine and both are natural.
| : My best moment was every moment that I had with my dad.
|
or Beat up as a transitive verb means: "to give a severe beating to, etc." Example : I got beaten up by thugs on my way home. Also, Cambridge says: Beat up: to hurt someone badly by hitting or kicking them repeatedly: Example : He claims he was beaten up by the police. Now, let's say someone is bothering a bully who doesn't tend to fight them. He just wants to warn and threaten the guy to go away, otherwise he would beat them severely. Which one of the following sentences would indicate the message that the bully needs to convey to the annoying guy: 1- Get out of here, or you'll get beaten up . 2- Get out of here, or you'll get beaten badly . I think both sentences indicate the same meaning and both are completely natural. But I had to inquire about it. <Q> You beat someone up. <S> You beat someone up badly. <S> You would not say to someone : Get out of here, or you will get beaten (up) badly [by me]. <S> You would say : Get out of here, or I will beat you up ! <S> That is what you tell someone else: <S> He got badly beaten (up) by those guys. <A> To my ears (British English), beat alone in this sense is not very common, and suggests either historical ("The gang ambushed the riders and beat them") or quasi-official ("He was beaten by his captors") action, or formal language. <S> So to me, your first example is completely natural, your second is a bit stilted. <S> (And without the "get out of here" would much more readily mean "you will lose in <S> whatever game it is you are playing"). <A> Phrasal verbs with "up" usually indicates "completeness". <S> So "beaten up" means "completely beaten". <S> So the meaning of "beaten up" is pretty similar to "beaten badly". <S> You can also move the adverb around: "He was badly beaten". <S> Anyhow using the adverb "badly" is rather more like written language. <S> It is just about possible that there is an ambiguity in using "badly". <S> It could mean "without skill". <S> That would not be the usual interpretation, but could be the basis of a joke: " <S> He was beaten badly, so I found someone who knew how to beat someone well." <S> (not very funny)
| In all ordinary use, I would expect beat up (both active and passive).
|
"work that identify" or "work that identifies" Implicitly by work I mean plural (several studies). So how should I treat the verb that comes after it? Similar to previous work that identifies Or, Similar to previous work that identify <Q> In this case, you're using work as an uncountable noun (mass noun). <S> Uncountable nouns are always treated as grammatically singular: <S> Similar to previous work <S> that identifies ... <S> If you use a countable noun in the plural, then the verb changes: Similar to previous studies that identify ... <S> It is possible to use work as a countable noun, in the sense of "works of art," for example, in which case you can pluralize both the noun and the verb: Similar to previous works <S> that identify ... <S> This is somewhat unusual and would only be used if you were using the countable work[s] in the surrounding text. <A> Semantically, OP's "work" may involve several studies, but it's still a singular noun. <S> My favourite work by Bach is his Toccata & Fugue in D Minor (a single piece of music) <S> My favourite works by Beethoven are his symphonies (multiple pieces). <S> Hence the choices for OP are... <S> [My analysis is] similar to previous work that identifies <S> [Africa as the cradle of humanity] <S> [My analysis is] similar to previous works that identify [Africa as the cradle of humanity] <A> Unlike other English grammar, the rule for singular-plural verb-subject agreement is pretty straightforward: <S> Unless the subject is clearly plural, use the singular conjugation. <S> While some words, like "work", have both abstract and concrete meanings, the abstract is considered singular. <S> Even a general "body of work", which can include many articles, is still singular when considered as a group. <S> His work , written over the course of a long and distinguished career, is considered required reading for students of the field. <S> If you want to refer to multiple articles, considered individually , use the plural: <S> His works , written over the course of a long and distinguished career, are considered required reading for students of the field. <S> This is the same for the very many similar nouns which have both an abstract/ figurative/ uncountable meaning, and a concrete/ literal/ countable meaning: philosophy, memory, paper, hair, space, experience, light , and many, many more.
| In general, when referring to preceding studies or research, the uncountable work is used.
|
What exactly is a suit of armor? The two pertinent words are easy enough to understand: suit: thing that covers people or maybe animals, like clothes armour: surface which by design is hard to penetrate and so protects what's inside. But the thing that has me feeling uncertain is that google images or whatever of "suit of armor" shows some ridiculous ancient clattery thing which I cannot picture in use on a modern-day battlefield. Can you describe what these men are wearing as a suit of armor? <Q> All it means is that the armour isn't just one bit, it's the full package. <S> A suit of armour is head to toe. <S> Usually, it's refers to medieval type. <S> Here is an example. <S> I'm not sure why you were having an issue with googling it! <S> Here is a wiki link you may also find useful. <A> I think the reason you cannot picture a "suit of armor" being used on a modern battlefield is that suits of armor are not used on modern battlefields. <S> Certainly there can be armored items <S> - a tank is an armored vehicle, for instance and there can be armored vests and so on - but suits of armor haven't been used in real battles in centuries. <A> There are many kinds of armor . <S> As a general term, it refers to anything worn to protect the body against violent injury. <S> Up until the middle ages, armor came in pieces that protected the most vulnerable parts of the body -- the chest, head and waist, and sometimes the arms and lower legs. <S> As an example, this ancient Greek hoplite armor: <S> This can be referred to as a "suit" of armor, as the various pieces are fairly standard. <S> However, most of the time the phrase refers to something that looks like this: After the invention of gunpowder, this kind of "full plate armor" became ineffective and fell out of use. <S> For a while, certain soldiers (such as the French Musketeer or the Spanish Tercio) still wore a metal helmet and a cuirass, with perhaps some arm protection, because they could expect to engage in hand-to-hand combat. <S> Again, this outfit could be called a "suit" of armor ... <S> but because it's little more than clothing, and professional armies like these wore outfits that all looked the same, today we would call a uniform . <S> Long story short: <S> The men in your picture are wearing uniforms . <S> Aside from the metal helmet, they are not wearing armor as such. <S> The distinctive shape of this helmet identifies them as American General Infantry (GI) soldiers, most likely from World War II. <S> The modern soldier naturally also wears a helmet, but in addition they wear a kind of armor, consisting of ceramic plates inserted into a Kevlar vest. <S> There are many variations on the design: <S> This would not be called a "suit" of armor, but rather part of the soldiers uniform , or part of the uniform's accessories . <S> In general, each military service has a specific name/abbreviation for the whole ensemble (the uniform and all its accessories). <S> Side note: <S> In a military context, "armor" usually refers to "armored vehicles" like tanks. <S> Specialized military and police units can wear "full body armor" that (more or less) protects their entire body, but this is considered too heavy/bulky for normal combat operations.
| Armor that is worn is referred to as "body armor".
|
"is it a he or a she?" question correctness When I am in the middle of a meeting and the discussed name is not clear if it is male or female I usually hear the question "is it a he or a she?", is that a correct way to ask for the sex of a person? <Q> It's not very elegant, but it is understandable in spoken English. <S> "Man or woman" is probably a simpler way of asking. <S> Next we have Jamie Morita Jamie ... <S> Is that a man or woman? <S> You need to think about why you are asking this question. <S> For example, if you were discussing job applicants for short-listing then the question would be inappropriate. <A> Using 'it' to refer to a person sounds rude or insulting to many people. <S> A better way of phrasing the question would be: "Are they male or female? <S> " This is acceptable since the plural is now commonly used to refer to a single person of unknown gender as in "A flight attendant will deliver your meal to your seat". <S> In fact "they" is also sometimes used as the personal pronoun for a person of non-binary identity. <S> Another alternative is to use the forename and say "Is Jamie Male or female? <S> " It's better than using the surname since you would need to know the gender in order to say "Mr or "Ms". <A> In this case, using the pronoun is inoffensive and still clear. <S> Is it he or she <S> we're talking about?
| In the given context, your question is correct, but only omit the article 'a' and you may ask the gender of the discussed persons in the following way :
|
"A username and password {is / are} required" I thought that the use of is/are was determined by whether or not the noun was singular or plural. But also, I'm awful at these things. username is singular.password is singular. But we are saying a 'username and password' - in my mind, this is two things. Plural, right? I thought the correct word choice would be 'are'. However, when I search for both phrases Google returns 82k results when the phrase uses 'are', but 189k when the phrase uses 'is'. That seems to strongly suggest I'm wrong and that it should be 'is'. Can someone help me understand? <Q> For example: Pen and paper are required. <S> Pen or pencil is acceptable. <S> So, it should be: User name and password are required. <S> That said, even native English speakers make misteaks. <S> oops <A> It depends entirely on if you are treating them as a single collective or as individual items. <S> Either is possible. <S> Some people say: A username and password is required . <S> This treats the phrase as a single security measure that's made up of two parts. <S> If you like, you can assume some missing words from the sentence: A collective set of security measures consisting of a username and password <S> is required. <S> However, you can also say: <S> Both <S> a <S> username and a password are required. <S> This treats them as individual things. <S> In terms of actual syntax , because of only a single article being used, both of the following are acceptable: <S> A username and password is required. <S> A username and password are required. <S> If you added another indefinite article in front of the second item, then, syntactically, only the plural would work: <S> ✘ <S> A username and a password is required. <S> ✔ <S> A username and a password are required. <S> Actual syntax aside, there is no strictly right or wrong way of saying it in this case. <S> It's a matter of intention and use. <A> I would always write "are required" in this context. <S> And this Google Ngram search <S> shows that the are form is far more common in the googel ngram corpus. <S> In general "X and Y {is/are} Z should use "are" and treat "X and Y" as plural, unless "X and Y" for a celarcut single thing. <S> Frankie and Jonnie was the title of a popular song. <S> Simon and Garfunkel were a popular singing duo. <S> "The Black and Tans" was a nickname for para-military police deployed in Northern Ireland. <S> A "black and white" is a term for a marked police car. <S> "Dewey, Chetham, and Howe" is a satiric name for a fictional law firm. <S> A "fire and rescue truck" responds to emergencies. <S> Cabot and Lodge were well-known families in Boston. <S> ("Hail now to the City of Boston, the home of the bean and the cod, where the Lodges speak only to Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God.") <S> Flame and smoke are often seen at fires. <S> Flame and Smoke is the name of a new heavy-metal band.
| In general, using and makes it plural (though the conjunction or is used with the singular, since only one of the choices is allowed).
|
Meaning of "healer" in this context? what Merchant does in The Death of Nature is to show us that far from liberating women, in reducing nature to a mechanism without soul or intrinsic meaning, the Scientific Revolution and its accompanying technologies also reduced women's status in Western society, even to the extent of aiding the persecution and massacre of women who were healers . ( Source ) "Healer" means one who heals diseases . This is the general meaning of the word. It sometimes, in a more specific sense, mean one who heals through faith . What is its meaning in the above sentence. Does it refer to all women, or only some of them? What does it mean when says persecution and massacre of women who were healers ? <Q> This is not really about English, but rather more about how the role of women has been historically perceived in certain European societies. <S> There is a kind of romantic notion of certain women who acted as as healers by collecting natural remedies and dispensing advice, in order to minister to the sick and injured who would otherwise have had no access to medical services. <S> The author is saying that one of the consequences of the Scientific Revolution is that these women were often persecuted, and in some cases killed (possibly for the crime of "witchcraft"). <S> The end result is that women were driven from their traditional role as the primary "healer" in a community (presumably to be replaced by male physicians). <S> In modern usage the term "healer" can apply to anyone who cures illness or injury; however, it is often used to distinguish those who practice non-traditional methods of healing (such as "energy workers" or purveyors of "natural/herbal remedies") from more traditional professions (such as doctors or nurses). <S> Non-traditional healers would also include "faith healers" who claim to cure by invoking divine intervention, and who exist in almost every religion. <S> Side note: I call this a "romantic notion" because people who speak positively of traditional healers often cherry-pick their medically valid advice (such as using willow bark as an analgesic), and ignore the kind of "folk wisdom" that was bizarre, ineffective, and occasionally harmful (of which many have been documented ). <S> This isn't to imply that educated physicians were much better. <S> Up to the end of the 19th century, for example, bloodletting was considered a medically valid way to "treat" almost any disease (despite the fact that it not-infrequently killed the patient ). <S> Again, this is more about history than language, but it may help to give some context to the authors use of "healer" in this context. <A> I believe it means that so-called "wise-women" or "herb-women" who offered herbal mixtures for various diseases were thought less of than formally qualified doctors (more often male), and in some places were legally prohibited, with a requirement for a medical license to offer treatment to others. <S> mid-wives who were not formally qualified had similar legal issues. <S> So by "women who were healers" I think the author means women who engaged in traditional healing practices, such and compounding and brewing herbal potions and extracts. <A> What the author actually said was, "the persecution and massacre of women who were healers". <S> If he had meant to characterize all women as "healers", he likely would have used the present tense, "women, who are healers. <S> " <S> I think he is referring to a specific subset of women who were engaged literally in healing diseases. <S> When he mentions the "persecution and massacre" of such women, he may be referring to the treatment of women accused of witchcraft.
| To some extent, this modern use of "healer" refers to the historical definition of "folk medicine", to imply that sometimes those older, traditional methods are more effective than modern medical therapies.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.