source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
A and THE, which is correct? The sentence below A protocol is the language that a computer uses to communicate with other computers on the network . Is the usage of a/the correct? Can I change it to A protocol is a language that computers use to communicate with other computers on a network . And are there any good sites/books to know how I can use a/the/-s correctly? <Q> Both of your examples look like normal usage to me. <S> Sorry for the short answer, but nothing else to add. <S> I'm a native speaker, so have no suggestions for how to learn this, though looks like you already have! <A> Both examples you have given above are correct. <S> It only depends upon the topic in which this sentence is used. <S> In my case I prefer to use 'the', because 'protocol' is a language that computer can use on more than one and on multi networks. <A> Usually, the word "a" invites the listener to imagine a new object and add that object to their mental picture. <S> The word "the," on the other hand, invites the listener to search their mental picture for an object which is already there. <S> So first, let's think about the first sentence: <S> A protocol is the language that a computer uses to communicate with other computers on the network. <S> This sentence is telling you the following: <S> Imagine that there is a computer . <S> Think about the network <S> that the computer is on. <S> (The sentence is assuming that the computer is on only one network.) <S> Think about the language that the computer uses to communicate with other computers on the network. <S> (The sentence is assuming that the computer only uses one language.) <S> The word "protocol" means the kind of language that you are now thinking about. <S> Now let's think about the second sentence: <S> A protocol is a language that computers use to communicate with other computers on a network. <S> This sentence is telling you the following: <S> Imagine that there are some computers . <S> Imagine that there is a network that the computers are on. <S> Imagine that there is a language that the computers use to communicate with each other. <S> The word "protocol" means the kind of language that you are now thinking about. <S> Both sentences are correct, and they mean practically the same thing. <S> (Actually, I think your sentence is a little bit better, because one computer uses many different protocols. <S> The original sentence makes it sound like one computer uses only one protocol.)
| Both sentences are correct.
|
How to pronounce T in 'not enough'? My native language is Croatian and I have been listening to A. J. Hoge who is a teacher from San Francisco. What I hear when he says "not enough" is "norinaf" . How would one pronounce it? There are a lot of examples, one of which is "lot of" (and I hear "loRav" ). I'm speaking about American English, more precisely San Franciso, East Coast, where A.J. is living. Another teacher named Rachel mentioned it in a youtube-video . <Q> This depends on local dialect and accents, but in Received Pronunciation <S> it would be pronounced just as it looks, as two separate words, not slurred together. <S> I apologize that I neither know the IPA nor how to type it on a standard UK keyboard, but in RP it sounds like "not enuf" <A> The sound you are hearing is probably a " glottal stop ". <S> Some languages treat the glottal stop as just another consonant like p , t , or k , but many (most?) <S> native English speakers use it without even knowing of its existence. <S> Your question mentions that your native language is Croatian. <S> I don't know much about that language, but Wikipedia's article on Serbo-Croatian phonology might help you to identify the sound: <S> Glottal stop [ʔ] may be inserted between vowels across word boundary, as in <S> i onda [iː ʔônda]. <S> English speakers often pronounce /t/ <S> as a glottal stop [ʔ] when it appears in certain positions. <S> This is called "t-glottalisation", and it is more common in some dialects than others. <S> In English phonology, t-glottalization or t-glottaling is a sound change in certain English dialects and accents that causes <S> the phoneme /t/ to be pronounced as the glottal stop [ʔ] in certain positions. <S> It is never universal, especially in careful speech[.] <A> Some accents would use a glottal stop for t in this context, but if you are listening to an American speaker, and you are hearing something that sounds to your like an "R" sound, it is more likely that the sound is a voiced alveolar flap (or tap), transcribed in IPA as [ɾ]. <S> In most varieties of American English, the voiced flap/tap sound can be used for t within a word <S> when the t comes after a vowel or after r , and before an unstressed vowel (as in butter, letter, reporter ). <S> It is used for t at the end of a word when it comes after a vowel or after r , and before a vowel at the start of the next word <S> (stressed or unstressed).
| The t in "not enough" could easily be pronounced as a glottal stop.
|
What do you call the thing that holds Iron Man's suits? What do you call the thing that "holds" the iron man armors? I say "hold", because it doesn't seem to be a container, but more like a sort of stand. Not sure if there's a name for it, because it's not a stand. <Q> Officially, the room where Tony Stark keeps all his Iron man suits is called the "Hall of Armor" . <S> Historically a room where weapons and armor are stored could be called an "armory" . <S> It's difficult to say what Tony Stark calls the individual structures holding his suits, because their function is not clear. <S> They are not required for support, since the suits can stand on their own, and isn't used for recharging because the suits are self-powered. <S> That being said: One possibility is to call them a "dock" , or a "docking station" , much the same as some devices that you can use to recharge a cell phone. <S> Individual spaces in a display cabinet may be called "slots", "spaces", "openings", "niches", or various other similar terms. <S> (Edit) <S> On that note: For whatever reason, a building where aircraft are kept is called a "hangar" , which also makes sense for Iron Man's suits. <A> There are many words to describe the stand you are referring to, one being, of course, is a stand . <S> The two words I find most appropriate to describe that specific structure in the picture is a rack or a booth . <A> If it his wardrobe that can refer to the place where the suits are stored and to the collection of suits! <S> wardrobe <S> NOUN 1 A large, tall cupboard or recess in which clothes may be hung or stored. <S> Many kids are scared of monsters under the bed, ogres and bogeymen lurking in wardrobes and the cupboard under the stairs. <S> 1.1 <S> A person's entire collection of clothes. <S> The entire three-quarters of my wardrobe was black. <A> Because these spaces are open (without doors), they can be considered "niches" within a "closet". <S> Many houses built in the past 40 years in the United States have huge "walk-in closets" that can be used as "dressing areas". <S> Many Massachusetts Institute of Technology dormitory bedrooms do not have built-in closets. <S> Instead, they have pieces of furniture, which are roughly three feet wide by <S> two feet deep by seven feet tall. <S> These pieces of furniture have very sturdy curtains that can be used to hide their contents. <S> MIT students call them " elephants ", because they are larger than " trunks ". <S> Another MIT source defines an "elephant" as a kind of "tall wooden armoire ".
| "Armoire" is especially apt for a piece of furniture that holds a suit of armor. On the other hand, because they serve no real function, it's not entirely wrong to call it a "display cabinet" , much like a fan would use to show off a collection of Iron Man action figures: I agree that these can be individually called "stands" , or collectively a "rack" of similar objects all hung together.
|
A word for decorative cords on uniforms I remember reading a word containing T-S-L that describes ornamental cords or brushes that decorate uniforms, perhaps curtains and the like. I thought it was *tassle but came up empty. Which word am I thinking of? PS: It is tassel . I am just an idiot. Wiktionary has a picture <Q> piping (Cambridge Dictionary) - a folded strip of cloth, often enclosing a cord, used to decorate the edges of clothes or furniture <S> In the context of "decorative clothing", the idea is that the strip of cloth is folded into what looks like a thin pipe or tube . <S> Note that in a culinary context, you might decorate a cake with sugar and/or cream-based "piping" using a "piping bag" (a fabric bag containing material forced out through a pipe, a bit like a grease gun ). <S> being decorated (clothes, chair covers, curtains, etc.). <A> The generic terms is military braiding/braid. <S> Here is a British site full of these items. <S> But I think the terms are the same in AmE. <S> Their tagline says this: Military Uniform Braid, Lace, Cord , and Other Regalia Trimmings " <S> What the Professionals Use" <S> They seem to use braid and lace interchangeably. <S> military heritage <A> An aiguillette (from Wikipedia) is the name of decorative cords with metal tips. <S> Similar cords are the fourragère and the Schützenschnur.
| Tassels are tufts of loosely hanging (decorative) threads or cords, whereas piping is securely attached / stitched throughout its length on to the main bulk of the thing
|
Why has Marx's "Das Kapital" been translated to "Capital" in English and not "The Capital" Why has Marx's "Das Kapital" been translated to "Capital" and not to "The Capital"? Actually, the article "Das" in German points out that it is not any capital, but the capital as the process of the current production mode - which is, in fact, capitalism. For example in French the translation is "Le Capital". Is there a specific reason for that? Or is "Capital" the more appropriate translation of "Das Kapital" in English? Actually, I know we must use "Capital" and not "The Capital" to identify "the financial capital", but I wanted to understand the underlying rule in terms of usage or linguistic. It seems to me (but maybe I am wrong) that in English "the" does not only define the word it precedes, but it also changes the meaning: "capital" is completely different from "the capital (city)". Conversely, we say "The society of the spectacle" (the famous book of Guy Debord) and not "The society of spectacle" for example. <Q> The article is actually used in other languages as well, for instance: in French Le Capital , in Italian, Il Capitale , in Spanish El Capital , and in Portuguese O Capital . <S> In English “ Capital ” in the economic sense is used without article: <S> In economics, capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work. <S> For Marx capital only exists within the process of the economic circuit (represented by M-C-M') —it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself, and for Marx it formed the basis of the economic system of capitalism. <S> In more contemporary schools of economics, this form of capital is generally referred to as "financial capital" and is distinguished from "capital goods". <S> (Wikipedia) <A> This is a good question, as an avid Marx Engels reader! <S> (But not a Marxist in any sense though). <S> As user 070221 points out, to Marx and Engels, their philosophy streams in Das Capitak aka Capital in English version in order for them to analyze how the capital-in-general works in order to gain more money for more money's sake, aka, G-W-G' process, or manmon the money, not the capital of some specific economic entities such of that as many factories producing stuff <S> A,B,C or railroad companies, or banks, shipyards, farming section like poultry makers or gigantic food chain under the capitalistic mode of the production. , whose mode was at that time and also currently prevalent today. <S> So there should be no definite article, or more to say <S> , there shouldn't be no definite article, since Marx' and Elgel's focus in not on that of one company but as the capital in general observed wordlwidly under the capitalistic mode of the production. <S> The Capital? <S> Actually, the article "Das" in German points out that it is not any capital, but the capital as the process of the current production mode - which is, in fact, capitalism. <S> Yes so as I answered, it is not any capital but the capital as the process of the production mode, which is G -W- G' which is, in fact, capitalism. <S> Actually Marx and Engels are not using the word "capitalism". <S> They are using "capitalistic mode of production" instead, if you understand if you read it. <S> Since it seems to me English lost the gender distinction of nouns and adjectives etc, Marx chose the word "Capital" in order to express the "capital in general" in English version. <A> Abstract nouns do not take articles in English. <S> Marx is using the term in an abstract sense and that is why there is no article in the title. <S> Other languages don't all have this feature. <S> Just like: goodness, wealth, poverty and capital. <S> Capitalism is all about capital. <S> Wealth must be built. <S> Goodness is a relative term in cooking and philosophy. <S> Etc. <S> Etc. <S> Etc. <S> But please note:- <S> The capital the bank had in its reserves was not sufficient to meet the reserve standard. <S> The wealth of a nation is measured through macroeconomics. <S> The goodness of your friends is not easy to measure. <S> This is a basic grammar rule in English. <S> abstract nouns <S> [Please note: the society of the spectacle is wrong. <S> A society of spectacle.]
| In Marxian political economy, capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a profit.
|
Grammatically , when can we use "you is" instead of "you are"? Can we say "you is" instead of "you are"? For example; "You is smart" <Q> It is incorrect in standard English. <A> When you are teaching someone that 'you' is a pronoun which has no singular form in Modern English . <A> Is is singular, whereas are is plural. <S> Here is the simple answer from a question asked on ELU: <S> "you" is always plural. <S> Or at least, it was so historically, and that has carried over into the present in verb conjugation. <S> The other answer that post offers: <S> is that "are" is the form of "to be" used for first person plural, third person plural, and both plural and singular in second person (with you). <S> Thus, "are" with a singular "you" is also singular. <S> It just looks exactly like the plural form. <S> The same goes for "were" in the past tense, or for any other verb in second person: The form of the singular is identical to that of the plural. <S> Although I do think this isn't as simple. <S> In modern times, you is has crept in as a colloquialism (presumably stemming from this confusion), but is considered incorrect.
| The only time you would hear "you is" for "you are" is in dialect forms of English.
|
Why is the word "rain" considered a verb if it is not possible to conjugate it? As a Spanish speaker and an admirer of the English language, I am always trying to know and understand more, but sometimes, something appears and I just cannot understand it, in this case, I looked for an answer on the Internet without success, so I come to you for help. Why is the word "rain" considered a verb if it is not possible to conjugate it? <Q> Why the word "rain" is considered a verb if it is not possible to conjugate it? <S> Rain as a verb acts like any other regular English verb. <S> English verbs don't have much in the way of conjugation, but there are 4 forms. <S> Third-person singular: <S> rains <S> Past tense/past participle: rained Present participle <S> /gerund: <S> raining Everything else: rain . <S> The subject of rain is usually the indefinite it . <S> It is raining today. <S> English verbs require the subject to be expressed always unless the mood is imperative. <S> Some other languages with more elaborate conjugation schemes (like Spanish) allow the subject in non-imperatives to be omitted sometimes, since the verb conjugation provides information, but not English. <S> It's possible for other things to rain, especially if they are liquid and are behaving like rain. <S> This is typically figurative. <S> Tears rained from the dragon's eye. <S> Blood rained from the sky as the monsters fought. <A> English does not really have conjugations with the exception of the verb to be. <S> English has a morpheme in the third-person singular present tense (an s or es in written form): <S> It rain <S> s <S> a lot here. <S> It does not rain a lot here. <S> Does it rain a lot where you live? <S> Those are all the verb rain in the present tense. <S> Other languages have conjugations. <S> Not English. <S> Except for what is explained above, there is no conjugation. <S> Conjugations are for Romance and other languages. <S> English has verb forms and tenses. <S> It rained yesterday. <S> Simple past. <S> The verb rain is a regular verb which means an ed is added to rain to make it into a simple past. <A> "rain" is considered a verb because it goes where other verbs go, and not where a verb can't go, except where identified as another class of word. <S> Noun <S> the cloud the clouds <S> the air (uncountable) <S> the rain <S> the rains <S> (usually uncountable, but countable "rain" is possible) <S> Verb <S> it eats <S> it is eating it <S> ate <S> it is going to eat it <S> rains <S> it is raining it <S> rained <S> it is going to rain Adjective <S> the bus is big and red the big red bus <S> *the bus is rain and red <S> *the rain red bus (in "the rain cloud", "rain" is a noun adjunct ) <S> So, out of the three word classes we've looked at, "rain" can be a noun or a verb, but not an adjective. <S> It is still possible to say "I rain", "we rain", etc. <S> "I rain my blessings upon you", so it can be conjugated too. <A> I wouldn't say it's impossible to conjugate "to rain". <S> It usually doesn't make sense to say, for example, "I rain", but there are certain circumstances in which other subjects are used with the verb. <S> Sometimes, the verb can take a meaning similar to "shower", as in "I shower him with praise" being similar to "I rain praise unto him". <S> It's an uncommon figurative usage of the verb, but hardly impossible. <S> In some languages (I think some Romance Languages), "to rain" really only takes "it" or "he" as a pronoun, like the french "pleuvoir". <S> This isn't exactly the case in English, but it's uncommon to hear any other pronouns simply because "to rain" is a very specific verb describing a very specific process. <S> For example, in English, you'd never hear "We photosynthesize", since that makes no sense. <S> Example of an English verb that really does not have certain conjugations: <S> Can (Past tense of "can" usually is replaced with "was able to", "could", etc., and future is usually said as "will be able to", "shall", and other phrases that seem unrelated to the infinitive.
| raining is a verb form, a gerund or used in continuous tenses (It is raining.//It has been raining, for example) and rained is a verb tense.
|
"Literally" Vs "In the true sense of the word" The Cambridge and other dictionaries say that "literally" can be used as an emphasis on something. But there is another term: "in the true sense of the word", which to mea has a quite similar meaning to "literally" in this sense. I have made two examples in order to define whether they mean the same or not: You Don't know him, but I have socialized with him for over 15 years. He's ___________________ a gentleman. a. literally b. in the true sense of the word Note: I have not found any reliable dictionary including this term, but Ngram acknowledges that there is such a term in English. (I thought it might be a direct translation from another language to English.) I studied for two years and finally I managed to pass that exam; that was ________________ a difficult exam. a. literally b. in the true sense of the word To me, both choices work equally the same in both examples above. I was wondering if I can use the these options interchangeably in my examples without any considerable change in meaning? <Q> While "literally" and "in the true sense of the word" can mean essentially the same thing, they do not both always suit the same situations and are not interchangeable in the same sentence structure. <S> For example, I would probably not say: He's literally a gentleman. <S> This is because "gentleman" has <S> more than one "literal" meaning - one dictionary definition says it is "a polite or formal way of referring to a man". <S> Saying " he's literally a gentleman " is like saying " he's literally male ". <S> I would be more likely to say <S> : He's a gentleman in the true sense of the word. <S> As you can see, the structure of the sentence is different for a start, which is why they are not strictly "interchangeable". <S> But this expression would be understood in this context because, while there are multiple definitions of "gentleman", it is clear you are referring to one specific "sense". <S> Referring to your second example, I would personally not say: That was literally a difficult exam. <S> The word "literal" is heavily overused these days, sometimes incorrectly. <S> Among people that care about language, its overuse is highly divisive. <S> The primary definition of "literally" is to make it clear you are not using a word or expression figuratively . <S> An exam could not be figuratively difficult, and for that reason, many (including myself) would object to that usage. <S> By the same reasoning, the phrase "in the true sense of the word" would be redundant too as there is no other "sense" of the word "difficult". <S> Others may disagree, as many dictionaries acknowledge a secondary use of "literally" to simply emphasise a statement, and some (but not all) even acknowledging that the word can be used to mean figurative - the complete opposite of its primary definition! <S> I am not simply being pedantic, but as the word is sometimes misused, and even when one dictionary may support a particular use it <S> is still divisive <S> , I would caution an English language learner not to overuse it, because if native speakers can't even agree on its proper use then learners have little chance of getting it right! <A> A word that fits both of your examples naturally and with your intended meaning is "genuinely". <S> In the first case probably more idiomatic is "He's a real gentleman." <A> e.g. <S> A man blames who blames a heart attack on stress due to problems with his wife might say, "she literally broke my heart!" <S> Your two examples don't really fit, although the gentleman possibly could, but not as you've written it. <S> Because the word "gentleman" doesn't necessarily mean that the man is really gentle (it can imply that he is, good, considerate, trustworthy or moral / honourable) <S> I suppose you could say he is "literally a gentleman" about a man who is particularly gentle. <A> "Literally" is misused frequently. <S> More often than the current whipping boy "forte" which means loud. <S> "Fort" is strength. <S> The two lions at the entrance to a certain library are named...? <S> Anyway, literally is not an emphasis word, it's the true meaning of something. <S> Consider:If Bob is not very smart, saying he's "literally a rock!" <S> out of frustration communicating with him makes a point but is incorrect. <S> If Bob is a granite statue, "literally a rock!" is correct.
| "Literally" means that while your statement could be interpreted as hyperbole or being figurative, you're saying that you wish to convey the true meaning of the word.
|
Can I write the word 'mother-in-law' as 'mother in law' or 'mother in-law'? In Longman Dictionary I have found the word 'mother-in-law'. Can I write the word 'mother-in-law' as 'mother in law' or 'mother in-law'? <Q> Not all compound nouns require hyphenation, however, "mother-in-law" does require hyphenation to avoid ambiguity. <S> Without hyphenation, it could mean that your mother works in the field of law: <S> I have a brother in banking and a mother in law. <S> Your other suggestion of partial hyphenation doesn't really make any sense. <S> Compound nouns should either be hyphenated or not. <A> Can I write the word 'mother-in-law' as 'mother in law' or 'mother in-law'? <S> Do so at your own risk and peril, in speech we do not hear punctuation marks, but if you were writing in an English exam or an academic paper, omitting the hyphens would be be considered a serious mistake. <S> Compound words that necessitate the use of hyphens are normally in the attributive position, they are similar to adjectives inasmuch <S> they do not have the plural suffix -s. <S> For example, their three- year -old child , well-known celebrities , a five-page report , five-a-side football , a man-eating shark <S> (sharks that eat humans). <S> If we omitted the hyphen in the last example, it would literally be interpreted as a man eating [a] shark . <S> Hyphens help to disambiguate! <A> <A> MS Word loves to hyphenate words that are never hyphenated but in this case, for the reasons already mentioned, this word is spelled mother-in-law.
| I doubt that you can because other dictionaries, for example: the Cambridge Dictionary, also spells the word like this: mother-in-law.
|
"Just" for recent future As we use the word just for recent past: I've just arrived. They just completed their task when the manager called. Now, Can I use just for recent future that is going to happen shortly? As in: A: How far are you from the top of the hill? B: I'm just getting to the top. M: We are running late, you must complete it as soon as possible. N: I'm just completing it. X: When will the mechanic come? Y: He is just arriving. Are these sentences fine and idiomatic? How do native speakers say these? Thanks in advance. <Q> I find absolutely no problem in using just in those contexts. <S> In fact, nowhere I have come across any rule that you cannot use just for near future. <S> To quote from MM : Reports are just arriving about the earthquake in Mexico. <A> For meaning 5 in the Oxford learner's dictionary , it's fine to use it with the present continuous as you did in all of your examples, and Maulik V did in his. <S> This is because present continuous relates to what happened in the recent past, is still happening now, and is expected to happen in the near future. <S> If you use it with a future tense, just has meaning 4, only just I'll just pop out to the shops. <S> I'll just be a few minutes. <A> We often use the present perfect or past perfect with this meaning of just when we refer to a short time before the moment of speaking:
| Just can mean ‘recently’ or ‘a very short time before or after speaking’.
|
A single-word verb for "cause to loop/repeat" I am looking for a (preferably single-word) verb that means "cause to loop/repeat". I will use it in a very technical context, so I don't really have a proper example to give. So far, I have been using the verb "wind", as in winding an old clock. I am not sure if it actually has such a meaning, though. It seemed similar enough, but I don't feel so comfortable with it now. Per request, here's an example: The robot A winds the robot B by asking it to fetch a jar of air from outside the window, repeatedly. The robot A winds the robot B by asking it to do the following: Fetch a jar of air from outside the window, repeatedly. This is not the exact way I will be using it but it is very close. The exact use case is with the Turing Machines, and appears after 7 pages of preliminary definitions and examples in my document. Second edit: I changed the example, the previous one was ambiguous and got interpreted differently than I had intended. Edit 2.1: To make it crystal clear, I am looking for a verb that makes the robot A in the example do its thing that I called "winding" only once, and then the robot B should respond to that by doing a specific action repeatedly and forever. <Q> Particularly in a computer science context, I would use "iterates" (or 'iteratively" if an adverb form is needed). <S> The robot A iterates the process by asking the robot B to fetch a jar of air from outside the window, repeatedly. <S> The robot <S> A iteratively invokes the robot B by asking it to fetch a jar of air from outside the window, repeatedly. <S> The use of "winds" in the question seems to be a piece of newly coined jargon. <S> One can assign a special meaning to a word, particularly in a technical context, but one must be very clear that it is a newly coined special sense, and define it (and indicate why it is being used) if no other word quite conveys the exact sense wanted. <S> Many technical scientific, mathematical, and engineering terms were originally coined in this way. <A> This mostly applies to programming, but could be used in other contexts. <S> Another options that would probably work is "to sequenize" or "to sequencify" as suggested in the comments below. <S> They aren't actual verbs that exist. <S> The meaning is "to create a repeating sequence". <S> Be aware though that very few will understand the meaning if not specified upfront. <A> Make restart its process is probably the best you can do if you want to be compatible with non-technical English. <S> Robot A makes robot B restart its process by asking it to fetch a jar of air from outside the window. <S> The word you were probably trying to get at is rewind - which does mean "wind a tape until it's at the start" - which might work well if you are talking about Turing machines. <S> IIRC <S> the concept of the Turing machine was that given a specific set of instructions laid out on a sequentially accessible tape, any mathematical operation can be done. <S> With this establishing context, you can say something like: <S> Robot A makes robot B rewind its "tape" by asking it to fetch a jar of air from outside the window. <S> In rewind X , X has to be a tape or something that works with tape's streaming model, like a video, etc.
| The best I can advise is the verb " to loop " - make repeat constantly.
|
The work is done Can the phrase The work is done mean that the work is in the process in any context? Or does it always mean that the process of doing the work is finished? <Q> The work is being done ^ <S> the work is in process <S> The work is done <S> ^ <S> the work is complete / finished. <A> According to the Cambridge Dictionary done adjective [after verb] If something is done , or you are done with it, it is finished , or you have finished doing, using it, etc. <S> If it's done then it's finished. <S> If the work is still in progress, it's not done yet. <A> A point for consideration is what "the work" actually refers to. <S> For example, any job can be broken down into tasks, and "the work" could refer to the entire job or just a task. <S> Work can also be ongoing , so you could just mean your work for the day, and it will begin again tomorrow. <S> Another possibility is that your "work" was to set some other work in motion. <S> If by saying "the work is done", you were referring to a particular task that set some other "work" in motion, it may be clear to you and the person to whom you are speaking what you mean. <S> Otherwise "the work is being done", or " the work is in progress <S> " would indicate that it is ongoing.
| The short answer is that "the work is done" always means "completed".
|
Is "draw in electricity/energy" idiomatic? I googled "the contact draws in electricity" and found 0 result, yet it seems something you would read in an engineering paper or journal. I couldn't find anything. Is there a more idiomatic way of saying this? The contact draws in electricity from the battery and draws it out to the rest of the electronic device. The contact draws in energy from the battery and powers the electronic device. I can't think of any other way to say this that sounds more idiomatic. "Suck in" might work, but it's informal and even less idiomatic sounding. <Q> You wouldn't say "draws out" in reference to giving off energy, nor "suck in". <S> You could say "distributes the rest..." or "powers the rest...". <S> The second sentence you quoted would be correct. <A> If you are speaking about receiving power (freely) and not attracting it (by force) then the most common term is "to get". <S> "to get" means "to recieve/come to have/aquire/obtain" something. <S> The streetlamps get electricity from the nearby power grid. <S> If you are speaking about getting power by force, attracting it or attaining against will then the more common term is "to drain": <S> The broken circuit drains power from the battery. <S> I also stumble upon the terms "to suck" and "to draw" which, as I have noticed, are mostly used in the same context. <S> As for the output of power from a certain source, terms such as "to give" and "to provide" are often used: The battery provides power to the engine. <S> This power station gives electricity to nearby regions. <A> "Draw power" and "draw energy" are certainly idiomatic expressions. <S> That doesn't mean it is incorrect, just perhaps not idiomatic , which is what your question is asking. <S> See this ngram to show how little "draw electricity" is used in comparison to power/energy. <S> Further to this though, none of these expressions are normally used with the word "in". <S> The word "draw" in this context means to take something from another source, so it is something of a redundancy to say "draw in " as the direction of the flow is already clear. <S> For this reason, the second part of your expression is also wrong - as "draw" means to take in, so it cannot be used to describe the distribution of power from the battery out to the device. <S> I think your sentence should say: The contact draws power from the battery which then flows to the rest of the electronic device. <A>
| You can say "draws in" or just "draws" when referring to the act of taking energy in. However, I have personally never heard "draw electricity" used. "The contact connects one of the battery terminals to the electronic device, providing a path for current flow."
|
Is "along the way" parenthetical in the following example? They dated for two years. Then(,) along the way, their love started to fade. I wonder if along the way here is parenthetical or not. Is it the same as this structure? Then, without even noticing it, their love started to fade. Or maybe it's up to me whether I want it to be parenthetical? And therefore add a comma after Then ? <Q> I would say that "along the way" is parenthetical, or non-essential. <S> Then their love started to fade. <S> would be a valid sentence, with the same basic meaning, although without an added nuance or detail. <S> The other example in the question: <S> Then, without even noticing it, their love started to fade. <S> uses the same structure, although the meaning is not exactly the same. <S> (It is also a case of elision, as it is short for): <S> Then, without their even noticing it, their love started to fade. <S> In both sentences the parenthetical clause should be set off by commas, one before and one after the clause. <A> See below, for others. <S> I see no reason to get tied up in the words parenthetical or non-essential as this question is a matter of style, and, not a grammar question. <S> The phrase is often used. <S> But I would call it an adverbial phrase since it answers the question: When did their love start to fade <S> **? <S> Then, their love started to fade along the way. <S> It could have faded at the end , at the beginning or at some other time. <S> Pre-positioning the phrase is merely style and does not change how it functions in the sentence as an adverbial phrase. <S> No, along the way is like but not exactly the same as: without their even noticing it. <S> Their love started to fade without their even noticing it. <S> That is a prepositional phrase. <A> Questions about punctuation depend on what style guide you adopt. <S> There is no universal agreement on punctuating English. <S> My personal guide is whether there would be a pause if the sentence were spoken. <S> I would say <S> Then brief pause along the way <S> brief pause their love started to fade <S> so I would write <S> Then, along the way, their love started to fade. <S> The purpose of punctuation is to provide to a reader clues to meaning that are given to a listener by stress and interruptions. <S> Punctuation does not exist in the grammar of English as a spoken language. <S> EDIT : <S> English as spoken (except by Viktor Borge) has no punctuation, but has many other extra-verbal cues to meaning that do not exist in written English. <S> There is a significant statistical correlation between quite brief interruptions to the speaker's habitual pace of speech and the use of commas specified as appropriate by many style guides. <S> I did not intend to imply that questions such as the recommended distinctions among the usage of comma, semicolon, colon, dash, and period can also be determined by mimicking quite brief interruptions in a speaker's habitual pace of speech. <S> That is a useful guide to the presence or absence of a comma, but it does not guarantee adherence to all the requirements of any specific edition of any specific style guide.
| along the way is an idiomatic phrase.
|
he not be stopped He kept her gait down because it was very important that he not be stopped. This sentence is from Cold Iron by Miles Cameron, a medieval fantasy book. I find this sentence strange. Could we rephrase it as: ... him not being stopped was very important. or ... him being not stopped was very important. or, maybe: ... it was very important him not being stopped And is it an idiomatic sentence that the writer has written here, or is it just there to impart an archaic quality to the story? <Q> This form is identical to the bare infinitive (and imperative) of the verb (in this case 'be') in all forms. <S> The main use of the English present subjunctive is in that clauses expressing a circumstance that is desired, demanded, recommended, necessary, etc. <S> It is more likely to be found in more formal writing and in speech by educated speakers. <S> English subjunctive <A> I wouldn't say that it's idiomatic or archaic. <S> Remove the negative, and it's a pretty uncontroversial sentence: <S> It was very important that he be stopped. <S> It may seem slightly bit odd because of the passive voice, but this construction isn't unusual in English: They shouldn't be worried. <S> Those weren't meant to be eaten! <S> You shouldn't be sitting there. <S> Your first rephrasing is OK, though the word ordering would seem a bit odd to a native speaker. <S> The second is a bit bizarre, though I've heard similar constructions (usually indicating that the speaker doesn't know the a word, such as an antonym for stopped , and is indicating that while emphasizing the condition they want to express). <S> The third is very unusual, having the pronoun it at the start of the sentence and the antecedent him not being stopped without the word <S> that in between, though with a comma between important and him <S> you get a fairly common construction. <A> A more usual was to express this meaning <S> would be " <S> it was very important that no one stop him. <S> " <S> The quoted passage is in the passive voice, because it is emphasizing the possible act of stopping the character, and the character's efforts to avoid it. <S> The person who might do the stopping, who would be the subject of the verb "stop" in an active construction is not important to the author, and so the author has avoided it by a passive construction. <S> This is a case where a passive construction is better than an active one, in my view. <S> The agent could be indicated with a by clause as: <S> It was very important that he not be stopped by anyone. <S> However, this doesn't really add anything to the meaning.
| "He [not] be stopped" is using the the present subjunctive of the verb 'to be'.
|
"No other except" or "no other besides" when talking about a single exception? Consider this sentence: She has no other family ___ me. Should I use "except" or "besides" here? I already know that "besides" means to include while "except" means to exclude. However I think both explanations work: She has no other family except me =If I am excluded as her only family, then there is no other. and She has no other family besides me =Even if I am included as her family, there is no other. Can anyone help me with this confusion? Thanks <Q> They are both grammatical and idiomatic. <S> They put across the same message (i.e., you are the only family member she has got). <S> In Collins, " besides " means "apart from" or "in addition to". <S> If we break down your sentence, it would read like this: " <S> She has no other family apart from me" or "In addition to me, she has no other family". <S> The second option here is not commonly used at all, but is technically correct. <S> You could also say "She has no other family but me". <S> The choice between "except" and "besides" in this particular sentence/context is a matter of choice/style. <A> Besides and except are synonyms here. <S> The two sentences mean the same thing. <S> As an alternative, you could say She has no other family than me. <A> AIQ mentions that the choice is a matter of style, and I thought I would say something about the stylistic choice. <S> All three choices (including "but" as well as the two you mentioned) are suitable for the most formal writing and also the most informal conversations. <S> But still, some words sound more formal than others. <S> As for "but", it's shorter, which is a plus, but it has a wider range of meanings, so there's more chance of ambiguity. <S> I'm sure there are other considerations. <A> Both answers are correct. <S> You can use 'besides' or 'except' and the meaning would not change. <S> Other ways that you could change this answer in order to make it sound better are: <S> She has no family other than me. <S> I am the only family that she has. <S> She has no family but me. <S> She has no family apart from me.
| "Except" comes from Latin, and "besides" from Old English, and words coming from Latin usually sound a little more formal. Trisct, you are correct that both sentences work.
|
On the meaning of 'anyways' in "What Exactly Is a Quartz Crystal, Anyways?" I couldn't really find the meaning 'anyways' takes in this specific context: What Exactly Is a Quartz Crystal, Anyways? Each of the four definitions of anyways listed in this dictionary, for example, seem to have a meaning that's different, at least I couldn't easily match, to the one used in the above sentence. Source: The heading of this electronics article. <Q> It’s this OED definition (under <S> anyway ): <S> Used for emphasis at the end of a question; ‘may I ask?’, ‘would you say?’ <S> Also sometimes used to indicate firmer intent to direct the conversation, or to register scepticism, exasperation, etc. <S> : ‘anyhow’, ‘more to the point’. <S> In much the same way, exactly also adds emphasis. <S> Another example of “anyway(s)” being used in a title like this is Whose Line Is It Anyway? <S> which is the title of two TV series: <S> a British one and its American remake . <A> Anyways is in increasingly common usage, but is still considered to be incorrect. <S> which is the word you have looked up. <S> Of the definitions in your dictionary link , the first is the meaning of the word in the sentence: (conjunctive) <S> Regardless; anyhow. <S> The overall sentence carries a further shade of meaning as outlined below. <S> 'Anyway' needs to relate to something, and as the title of the article doesn't have any context there is nothing for 'anyway' to relate to. <S> Because of that, as a stand alone sentence the title does not appear to make sense. <S> However this kind of construct is commonly used. <S> Against the background of this interest <S> the question <S> What exactly is a quartz crystal, anyways? <S> is phrased in a conversational style to probe whether the presupposed awareness of quartz crystals is based on knowledge. <S> In the article itself, in the first paragraph it states "... would you ever have thought that quartz crystals would become pervasive electronic components ..." carrying on the conversational style and going on to provide information about quartz crystals and so anwers the question in the title. <S> Interestingly, although the title does include the word exactly, it is only providing information into the relevance of the general awareness regarding use in electronic circuits. <S> In the first paragraph it provides information about the mineral structure and freely admits "(not sure what that means...) <S> " <S> The same construct might be used in converation when someone is making a fuss about any trend or fad - the intention is to ask <S> Do you really know what this thing is that everybody's talking about (or are you just talking about it)? <S> Without using 'anyway' this shade of meaning is not present. <S> For example, just asking: <S> "What exactly is a quartz crystal?" <S> or "What is a quartz crystal, exactly?" <S> Does not carry the implication of a presupposed general level of background interest or awareness in the same way. <A> The other answers are right from a grammatical point of view, but I'd like to add some context, which I think is important to better understand that title. <S> Many years ago, the late Bob Pease — a legendary 1 electronic designer from National Semiconductors — wrote a series of articles (which can be found at this link ) about various aspects of electronic design: each article in the series had a title of the type <S> What's all this X stuff, anyhow? <S> So, in this case, the form of the quoted title with the final anyways , at variance from anyhow , is probably just a subtle homage to Bob Pease. <S> 1 <S> I'm not overstating. <A> Laurel's answer is correct, but sometimes it is helpful to understand how the meaning in context arose out of other, possibly more common, meanings of the word. <S> That is, "what I am going to say is true in any of the possible cases." <S> That's a natural thing to say in a transition. <S> We may not be sure about a difficult work issue, but, in any case , lunch would be a good idea. <S> We don't have to figure out our work issue to agree that we should go to lunch. <S> When it gets used in that way a lot, it can start to serve merely to say "let's stop focusing on what we were talking about, and address this other issue." <S> "Anyway", or the less formal "anyways", I think started out meaning basically the same thing as what "in any case" means now. <S> But over time, it has come mainly to play the role of redirecting your attention rather than expressing the more specific concept that you are about to say something that doesn't depend on which way an earlier discussion might be resolved. <S> And so <S> "What exactly is X, anyways" basically invites you to imagine that there has been a discussion involving X somehow, but that the speaker wants you to ignore that broader discussion and just answer the question of what X is. <A> In this case, 'anyways' has a few different ways in which it could be being used. <S> Used in the same way as “nonetheless” or <S> “regardless”; you were talking about something else or perhaps something that you didn't agree on about quartz crystal. <S> It can also be used to signal the continuation of an interrupted story; you were telling someone about quartz crystal when someone interrupted you, or you went off topic and now you are coming back to the main point. <S> Offence: <S> the tone of how this statement is said should tell you whether the person is being polite or perhaps trying to make a rude remark about what someone else has said about quartz crystal. <S> Someone has been telling you a long story about quartz crystal whilst you sat there patiently, and you shyly ask 'what exactly is quartz crystal, anyway?'.
| If you presuppose that the reader has an awareness of the subject (quartz crystals), but may not have detailed knowledge, then the use of 'anyway' is used to relate to that awareness which is the implied context of the title. There is a longer expression, "in any case", which basically means "we may be unsure about some things, but what I am about to tell you is true no matter if we are right or wrong about those things." It is a colloquial or slang form of the word anyway -
|
Usage of plural form When writing a sentence about a gentleman in his organisation, I come across a question of plural form usage. ...he retains his current role as the CEO of Company A and other JVs." Should the word role be in singular or plural form? I believe that the "role" should be in singular form for both of the following scenarios: "the CEO of Company A and other JVs" where "Company A and other JVs" is considered a single entry; "the CEO of Company A and other JVs" actually means CEO of Company A, CEO of JV(1), CEO of JV(2) and so on. Grateful for comments. <Q> If his role was to be the CEO of one company and the CFO of another, he would then have separate roles in those companies. <S> But he has only a single role and that's to be CEO, however many companies are concerned. <S> Similarly, Rambo's role (singular) is to be an unlikely heroic figure in all the Rambo movies. <S> However, in other movies, Stallone may play different roles (plural). <A> The singular of "role" is correct. <S> You can be the CEO of two companies just like you can be the father of two children. <S> I'm guessing that "JV" is "joint venture" in the context of business, so basically there are multiple companies involved, but the role is still the same. <A> The other answers have their merits, but they miss a subtlety, I think. <S> The singular vs. plural depends on whether the companies / JV's are related or not. <S> Situation 1: <S> the companies are "associated" with each other in some way, and they behave like one big(ger) company (e.g. alliances). <S> In that case, it is correct to use singular "role", considering that one decision from the CEO will apply to all companies. <S> In this situation, the role is: "CEO of (X and Y and Z...)" <S> Situation 2: <S> the companies are not related to each other, but the respective person is hired as CEO in all of them. <S> In this case, he must make distinct decisions for each company <S> / JV separately, he works with different people at different moments. <S> In this case, it is more appropriate to use the plural, because the person is doing more jobs "in parallel", even if the jobs are very similar. <S> In this case we have several distinct roles: (CEO of X), (CEO of Y), (CEO of Z)... <S> Note: <S> I am not sure if the situation 2 is legal or not in real life, but from a purely linguistic point of view, it is still a valid option.
| His role (singular) is as the CEO, whether of one company or more than one.
|
Does "as soon as" imply simultaneity? Someone has told me recently that "A as soon as B" does not imply that B will be complete before A starts, but rather that both events will take place at the same time. Example: He will speak as soon as he finishes eating. I have always understood that the subject will start to speak right after he finishes eating. According to what I have heard recently, the subject will start to speak while he finishes eating. Which one is the correct meaning? <Q> Where I come from, " A as soon as B " means " A immediately after B " (not during B ). <S> Examples: <S> We will inform you as soon as we have the information. <S> I'll be able to leave as soon as my car is fixed. <S> Add the noodles as soon as the water starts to boil. <S> They will continue the work as soon as the power comes back on. <S> This would apply especially to your case where B has the word "finish" in it. <A> He will do B as soon as he finishes A. <S> (as in the example) should mean that B will start right after A ends. <S> However He will do B as soon as A occurs. <S> may mean that B will be started more or less right after A is started. <S> It depends on the nature of A, and of any qualifing words used. <S> He will call you as soon as he goes on his trip. <S> may mean that he will call from car or airport by cellphone, or that he will call once he arrives at his destination. <S> He will call you as soon as he leaves on his trip. <S> should mean that he will call while enroute. <S> Also, people are sometimes less than precise with their wording, or do not act exactly as they have said they plan to. <A> It does not. <S> This always means A will happen when B is completed. <S> If A or B talk about a "spawning process", then that's where some complexity could happen. <S> I will eat as soon as Jane starts talking. <S> Jane will be talking while I eat. <S> Technically, though, the event called "starting talking" has been completed - the moment after she starts talking, she is now "continuing talking." <A> But I don't think there is a guarantee that A will happen immediately. <S> Clearly "I'll answer as soon as I can" implies some deliberate vagueness about exactly when I will answer; and if I respond to an email saying "I'll deal with it as soon as I'm back from my vacation", I don't think anyone would expect me to deal with it as the first thing I do after I arrive home. <A> If B is an event - i.e. of negligible duration, then A is triggered by B and would occur with negligible delay at the time of B . <S> If B is an action of appreciable duration, then a triggering event E should be described for action B on which A could be triggered unambiguosely - such as the start of B or the end of B ; for example: "The Band should resume as soon as the rapper drops the mike during his recital" <A> He will speak as soon as he finishes eating. <S> As a native speaker of English, he is definitely going to speak after eating. <S> Consider another case that implies concurrency: She will turn off the lights as soon as the music starts. <S> Something is still happening after an event, but since the triggering event is not ending it can be interpreted that the events happen concurrently. <S> The music will be playing while the lights are being turned off.
| If A "will happen as soon as B", this certainly implies that B is a precondition that must be satisfied before A happens; there is also a strong suggestion that A will happen soon after B happens. This depends on context. It may be risky to assume precise timing without quite explicitly confirming the planned sequence.
|
How do I know whether a noun is countable or not? I'm new learner and often confused with countable nouns. Is there any way that I can know whether a noun is a countable noun? Thanks <Q> You can use any online English to English dictionary that let you know if the words countable or uncountable. <A> But some tricks may help you <S> Book is countable because you can use its plural books Rice is uncountable because you can not say rices Gold is uncountable because you can not say golds <S> But the problem in English is: Headache is countable and soap is uncountable. <S> suggestion is countable but advice is uncountable <S> So it is beter to buy a good grammar book which deals with different types of nouns and which explains countable or uncountable nouns in detail. <S> You have to read grammar regularly and systematically. <A> Most dictionaries indicate whether a particular noun is count or non-count. <S> As a general rule we can say that count nouns denote entities that can be counted, while non-count nouns denote entities that cannot be counted. <S> A simple test for count nouns is the ability to combine with the cardinal numbers one , two , three , etc. <S> : "one plate" ~ "two plates" ~ "three plates" [count] *"one crockery" ~ *"two crockeries" ~ *"three crockeries" [non-count] <S> The last three are ungrammatical since "crockery" is non-count and hence cannot combine with cardinal numbers.
| Although there are some rules to tell whether a noun is countable or uncountable, it is not easy to differentiate because what are countable in our mother-tongue may be uncountable in English and vice versa.
|
How are you finding [something]? I have read the expression "How are you finding [something] ?" (= What are you thinking of [something] ?) for the first time today. Is it used only/mostly in UK? <Q> I would think that this usage of 'find' has a place in US English, judging by this entry in the Merriam-Webster (an American dictionary) entry: <S> 3a: <S> to discover by the intellect or the feelings : EXPERIENCE find much pleasure in your company <A> How are you finding may be American usage <S> What are you thinking of / about is quite idiomatic in British English. <S> What do you think about something is used to talk about an opinion . <S> What are you thinking of? <S> ( idea) <S> I am thinking of going to America.(idea) <A> (I forgot to try Merriam-Webster.) <S> However the OED mentions it specifically, as described here on StackExchange when a similar question was asked two years ago. <S> The somewhat similar legal usage 'Do you find the accused guilty or not guilty?' <S> is perhaps related.
| Although the usage is common in the UK ('I've always found him pleasant', for example), the online dictionaries I've looked at on and offline are strangely reticent about this precise meaning.
|
What does it mean by "my days-of-the-week underwear only go to Thursday" in this context? Emily: Lorelai? I'm going shopping this afternoon. I thought I'd pick up a few things for Rory. Lor: I already took care of all that, mom. I got her two skirts and a bunch of tops. Emily: But there are five days in a school week. Lor: Really? Because my days-of-the-week underwear only go to Thursday. Emily: Is that a joke? Lor: Two skirts are fine, mom. This conversation is from the Gilmore Girls TV series. Lorelai is Rory’s mother. I googled "days of the week underwear" and found out that they are a set of underwear with days of the week written on them. But what's the meaning of "go to" in this context? I don't understand what this sentence as a whole means. <Q> Go from [something] to [something else] can describe or define a sequence from the first something to the other something. <S> In other words, from and to are being used in an ordinary way to indicate a starting point and an ending point. <S> It goes from A to D. → <S> A B C D ... goes from 1 to 3. <S> → 1 2 3 <S> These go to 11. <S> → 1 2 3 <S> ... 10 11 <S> It's understood that the starting point is Monday, since that's when the school week starts. <S> Hence Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Days-of-the-week underwear are underwear with the days of the week printed on it, one day per pair. <S> When Lorelai says <S> Really? <S> Because my days-of-the-week underwear only go to Thursday. <S> she's implying that she doesn't know there are five days in the school week because she only has four days-of-the-week underwear (Monday through Thursday). <S> As others have stated, this is sarcasm. <S> We can infer that the intention is something like <S> I know there are five days in a school week. <S> I don't need to be reminded. <A> It is possible to buy underwear with a day printed on it as a joke or as a gentle reminder to a child (or adult) to change their pants each day. <S> But I think Lorelai is being very sarcastic here. <S> Emily implies that only two skirts are not enough, and Rory should be wearing a fresh skirt each day. <S> Lorelai sarcastically says "I didn't know that there are five school days, because my kids pants go to Thursday" ("go to Thursday" means she has Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thrusday, but not Friday) <S> This means (without sarcasm) <S> "I know that there are five school days. <S> Everybody knows that. <S> I don't need to look at my pants to find out which day it is." <S> The use of sarcasm is very common when teens talk to their parents. <A> This sounds like a sexual innuendo. <S> The surrounding context makes the situation sound like a late teen female discussing a younger sibling with her mum. <S> Given that Lorelai is shopping for clothes for her younger sibling, it is safe to assume she is either legally an adult or almost so. <S> Lorelai's day of the week pants only go to Thursday. <S> The literal meaning is in Em's answer. <S> But the hidden implication is that Lorelai does not wear pants on a Friday. <S> This is potentially an off colour joke, given mum's reaction. <S> The same phrase between peers would imply a certain availability on a Friday night. <S> The updated context that the show is the Gilmore Girls doesn't really change anything. <S> Lorelai is an adult and during the show is in relationships with a number of different people. <S> The conversation seems like a two digs at her mother, firstly that she is capable of clothing her own child appropriately and secondly suggesting a reason why she might not be able to that simultaneously puts the fault onto her own mother whilst calling back to the underlying premise of the show, Lorelai's teen pregnancy that resulted in Rory. <S> The TV Tropes page praises wordplay as one of the selling points of the show. <S> What really sets Gilmore Girls apart from other shows of its type is the heavy use of clever, fast-paced wordplay. <S> Really fast. <S> Sexual innuendo is at heart wordplay, no matter what else it means for the characters. <A> Lorleia was poking at her mom for stating an obvious fact that there are five days in a school week. <S> WLor: <S> Really? <S> Because my days-of-the-week underwear only go to Thursday. <S> Sarcastically suggesting she thought there were only 4 days based on her set of available underwear. <S> Emily <S> : Is that a joke? <S> Lor: Two skirts are fine, mom. <S> Satisfied that her Mom is thrown off guard <S> , she confirms her assertion that the two skirts she bought will be sufficient. <A> Lorelai is sarcastically joking that she only thought there were four days in the school week because her days of the week underwear only go from Monday to Thursday. <S> (In other words, she is pretending she didn't realize there are five school days because she only has Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday panties and no panties with "Friday" printed on them.)
| Days of the week underwear are usually for school-aged children and sold seven panties in a pack (with one day of the week printed on each panty).
|
"I will not" or "I don't" as an answer for negative orders? She: "Don't forget to bring washing powder. I: Okay, I don't. (or I will not?) I know the rule of thumb that in interrogative sentences we always have to answer in the same tense that we were asked. (For example: Are you there? Yes, I am. or "Do you like it? Yes, I do.) But in this case which is not interrogative sentence but an order, I'm not sure what would be correct. <Q> In your example the responses: " <S> Okay. <S> " <S> "I won't." <S> "Okay, I won't." <S> "Don't worry, I won't." <S> are all colloquial and correct. <S> "I don't" sounds odd and is incorrect. <S> "I will not" is technically correct but sounds stilted and a native speaker would never use it in this situation. <A> Your example uses the negative. <S> Let's start with a positive version and go from there. <S> Remember to bring the washing powder! <S> This is an order (the imperative ), and the verbs "to remember" and "to forget" imply the future in an order: <S> Remember to bring the washing powder [when you come over later]! <S> So the response must be about the future as well. <S> Two common ways of talking about the future are "will" and "be going to". <S> Okay, I will [remember] <S> [when I come over later]! <S> Okay, I'm (I am ) going to [remember] [when I come over later]! <S> It's not: <S> * <S> Okay, I remember [right now]! <S> The negative in English requires <S> do-support for most verbs, including "to remember" and "to forget". <S> It's not natural to say: <S> *Forget not to bring the washing powder! <S> Instead we say: Don't (do not) forget to bring the washing powder! <S> We still have to reply using the future, so it's: <S> Okay, I will not [forget] <S> [when I come over later]! <S> Okay, I'm ( <S> I am ) not going to [forget] [when I come over later]! <S> Don't drive through any red lights! <S> It's okay <S> , I don't [drive through red lights] <S> [anyway]! <A> It would also be polite to thank the first speaker for the reminder. <S> "I won't forget, thanks for reminding me" or <S> just "OK, thanks" I could only see a native speaker saying, "I don't" with a testy, negative connotation meaning "You don't have to remind me, I never forget things like that" <S> but even then it would be more typical to say "I never do" <A> In English, 'don't X' has an implied future to it. <S> In your example, we get something like "Do not forget to buy washing powder when you go out shopping in the future." <S> You would then respond with (literally): <S> "Okay, I will not forget washing powder when I go out shopping." <S> Because you both understand the context that you are talking about "buying washing powder when you go out shopping," you shorten your phrasing to "I won't," where "won't" is the contraction of "will" and "not." <S> I can't think of a situation off-hand where you would say "I don't" in response to that, however "I didn't" could be said if you bought washing powder in the past that your conversation partner doesn't know about. <A> I think this is one of the very few cases where a contraction can be used but the full version not. <S> Don't (Do not) forget to bring the washing powder. <S> — I won't. <S> works while <S> Don't (Do not) forget to bring the washing powder. <S> — I will not. <S> cannot really stand well on its own and would want to be <S> Don't (Do not) forget to bring the washing powder. <S> — I will not forget. <S> Note that if you want to sound old-fashioned British correct, you'd use <S> Don't (Do not) forget to bring the washing powder. <S> — I shan't. <A> From a former ESL student - the problem is that the rule cited in the question is only applicable to answering questions. <S> It is not applicable to conversations in general. <S> "Did you forget so-and-so?" - " <S> No, I did not" "Please do not forget so-and-so" - " <S> No, I will not"
| If you use "I don't" it means you're talking about habitual behaviour.
|
Can I use "the British" as a specific British person or persons? A: The British person I met was very friendly. B: The British I met was very friendly. C: The British persons I met were very friendly. D: The British I met were very friendly. Are B and D right? Can I use "the British" as a specific British person or specific plural British persons? If so, is it the same with Chinese and Japanese? <Q> While B and D might well be understood, I would call them wrong. <S> " <S> British" here is an adjective, and needs a noun to modify. <S> When referring to British people in general <S> "The British" can be short for "the British people" as in: The British are often thought to be stiff and formal. <S> Even in that context, i think it poor practice, but many people write like this. <S> Much the same is true of other adjectives indicating a nationality or an ethnicity, such as "chinese" or "japanese" or "american". <A> In short, no. <S> The type of subject you're thinking of is called a nominal adjective, and these are perfectly valid in English, but that's not quite how they're used. <S> When we refer to "the British," it means the people of Britain as an abstract body. <S> The British like drinking tea, for instance; or, perhaps, the British are invading. <S> You can't use nominal adjectives if you need to differentiate one British person from another; use a conventional adjective/noun pair instead. <S> For more about nominal adjectives, here's an article: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nominal-Adjectives.htm <A> In your first example, "British" is an adjective . <S> Your definite article is, therefore, operating on the word "person". <S> He is the British person you met (as opposed to every other British person). <S> If you want to omit the word "person", you could use the noun "Briton". <S> It is the equivalent of "the German", or "the Russian", although it is not used quite as often as it used to be. <S> Just for clarification: <S> Nouns: <S> Briton, <S> German, Russian Adjectives: <S> British, Germanic, Russian
| "The British" can be used as a noun for all British people.
|
What adjective does lay between "selfish" and "unselfish"? Selfish means someone who doesn't care about others' needs. Unselfish means the one who is willing to put others' wishes before her own. These two adjectives are radically opposite. What adjective does describe the one who prefers her own desires, but she does not completely ignore others'? Background : In a multi-agent system, if an agent only cares about reaching its own target, it is called selfish. Instead, if it prioritizes the reachability of its neighbors and completely ignores its own, it is called unselfish. Now, I need to define an agent which still prioritizes itself, but also careful about its neighbors' reachability. So, it cannot be completely "balanced" or "objective" as it is still inclined to itself a bit. <Q> People can be categorized by countless criteria: age, sex, height, hair color, intelligence, (un)selfishness, friendliness etc. <S> From the point of view of (un)selfishness, the people can be either selfish, or unselfish. <S> There are no gradual in-betweens. <S> The only amendment to this is that people can be (un)selfish depending on context, so the following can be used as a surrogate of "grading": occasionally (un)selfish; terribly selfish; usually (un)selfish; and others following this spirit. <S> The key to understanding is already written in your definitions: who is willing to put This translates to: <S> if it is the case / needed, the person will help others; the person will not help others when it is not needed. <S> Example: The person will not help an old lady cross the street, when the lady does not want to cross the street. <A> It’s a difficult question to answer, as it takes words/ideas that can be highly subjective and somewhat philosophical, and applies them to what sounds like some kind of logical/linear/technical context. <S> The best I can do in your given context would be: Charitable <S> To be charitable, one usually first accumulates via healthy self-interest, and then chooses to give <S> some of what they have obtained to others. <S> In a somewhat abstract sense, I think this could be applied to the system you describe. <S> You might also consider synonyms such as “generous”. <A> I like both Chris Mack’s and Virolino’s answers. <S> I would like to propose another point of view. <S> The state of being you describe needs no adjective or descriptor. <S> If a person is neither selfish nor unselfish, they are simply a person. <S> You must find another quality with which to describe them. <S> But that can only be used in the context of a team. <S> Although, being part of the team means that you are being both selfish and unselfish. <S> Because, when the team wins, they win (there is no “I” in team). <S> Another form of this is a “Win-Win Mentality”. <S> This means that, in the grand scheme of things, we both must win if either of us is to truly win (or not lose). <S> This implies a symbiotic relationship. <S> Another possible term is “conscientiously.
| One possible term is “team-player”.
|
Can we say "He divorced" instead of "He got divorced"? I know that if the subject consists of a couple that got divorced, we don't have to use the word "got", so we can say "John and Jennifer divorced" , "His parents divorced" , "They divorced" etc. This is an example of it from the Cambridge dictionary: "My parents separated when I was six and divorced a couple of years later." I have seen examples of it in other dictionaries as well. So, my question is, can we also say "He divorced." "My sister divorced last year." "John needs to divorce." "Just divorce." "He might regret it if he divorces." etc. to mean "He got divorced." , "My sister got divorced last year." , "John needs to get divorced." , "Just get divorced." , "He might regret it if he gets divorced." etc? These sentences have only one person as the subbject as you can see, and in these kind of cases, "get divorced" sounds more familiar to me than "divorce". <Q> Yes, both are idiomatic but can mean different things. <S> Technically, when used as a verb, divorce denotes who is the petitioner in a divorce (ie the person who "files" for divorce, or the person who has the legal grounds to request a divorce). <S> For example: She divorced him. <S> This would normally mean that the woman (she) petitioned for the divorce, and her husband was the respondent. <S> "Get a divorce" can mean, idiomatically, that someone has been granted a divorce. <S> To be granted one, you must be the petitioner. <S> Often though, it is not the intention of the speaker/writer to indicate this, for example: <S> John and Sue divorced. <S> or John and Sue got divorced. <S> or John and Sue are divorced. <S> This just shows that the two were married but that now that marriage has been dissolved by divorce. <S> Bear in mind that any inferred legal meaning of any of these expressions may differ between English-speaking countries if their divorce laws differ. <S> At the present time, anyone petitioning for divorce in the UK must have "grounds", but the future possibility of "no-fault divorce" has been considered by the parliament of the UK. <S> If, in another English-speaking country there was no such legal requirement for "grounds" then perhaps none of the above would carry such inference of who petitioned. <A> They have to be 2 persons (a husband and his wife) to be divorced, so the plural they divorced, John and Mary divorced, etc. <S> is fine, but he / she divorced, John divorced without mentioning the other person (the spouse) in incorrect. <S> So use <S> he divorced her, John divorced Mary, etc. instead. <A> Harry divorces his wife Sally. <S> Harry and Sally divorced [each other]. <S> If you're using divorce as a noun, then it doesn't need anything extra. <S> This refers to the actual legal order. <S> Divorce is complicated. <S> He got a divorce. <S> In idiomatic American English, you can refer to someone who is the one who didn't file as the one "getting divorced". <S> Usually, it implies the divorce was contested or unwilling. <S> He got divorced.
| Divorce is a transitive verb, so there must be a direct object, but it can be implied.
|
How should verb goes with "let" be in past tenses? How should verb goes with "let" be in past tenses? Present tense: let's go; let me see Past tense: let's went? let me saw? I'm unable to search for any information about this. It seems like let will never be used in a past tense sentence <Q> The past form of let is let. <S> Let-let-let. <S> It is also used in the imperative. <S> Let me see it <S> You can not have past forms for imperative sentences. <S> However you can say: My principal let me leave early yesterday . <S> He let me see the picture yesterday <S> Negative sentences: <S> The principal did not let me leave early yesterday <S> He did not let me see the picture yesterday <A> There's no such thing as a "past tense" for <S> Let's go <S> , Let me see - which technically speaking are imperative requests / commands / suggestions, with implied subject "you". <S> The nearest equivalents I think of are <S> We should have gone, You should have let me see , because the "present tense" versions are equivalent to <S> We should go, You should let me see . <A> Let's go . <S> let's + a verb in English is an imperative . <S> Imperatives are only in the present tense. <S> The meaning is: Let's leave this place or Let's do [something]. <S> Let me see. <S> means to allow someone to see something or <S> it is an idiom meaning: <S> Let me see if something another person says works or is right in a context. <S> They let us go to the movies. <S> [both simple present AND simple past]They have let us go to the movies. <S> [this week, this month, recently, this year etc.]They are letting us go to the movies. <S> There are other verbs that do not change in English: put, set, hit, cost, hurt, shut, quit, split, and spread. <S> I know of no language that has imperatives in other tenses. <S> The nature of the imperative is that it applies to the present. <S> "My principal let me [do something]. <S> " can be simple present or simple past. <S> Only a specific context will tell you which it is. <S> to let go is also a phrasal verb: Let it go. <S> [disregard it or let something loose, like a fish you catch]
| The verb let is the same in all tenses:
|
What does IKEA-like mean? I found the text below in a website and I'm trying to understand the meaning of IKEA in the context: Technically, this kit allows you to follow an IKEA-like manual and put together a guitar, functionally identical to a cheap guitars of well-known-brands-we-won't-mention here for a fraction of their price. I found these two definitions for it: IKEA Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd (Swedish home furnishings retailer; derived from founder's initials and hometown) IKEA I Know Everything Already ...but none of them seems to make any sense to me. <Q> A person who founds a business can give it any name they want (so long as no-one else legally controls that name). <S> The founder of IKEA was a Swedish businessman called Ingvar Kamprad. <S> He made up the name by using his own initials (i.e. the initial letters of his first and last name) and then adding on the first letter of the farm where he grew up (Elmtaryd) and then the first letter of his home town (Agunnaryd). <S> Hence, the made-up name is "I-K-E-A". <S> The IKEA brand has developed its own particular styles of furniture and furniture assembly and even instructions. <S> The IKEA-brand instructions generally involve no words but very clear drawings on how to assemble the furniture, step-by-step. <S> As a result, many people will refer to "IKEA-style" to mean - for instance - furniture that is delivered packed in a box (as a "flat-pack"), ready for the buyer to assemble it themselves, or even to the instructions. <S> The IKEA-style instructions for your guitar would therefore mean instructions that are clearly laid out, step by step, probably with clear drawings but few words. <A> IKEA furniture is sold as kits. <S> Most buyers save money by assembling the furniture themselves. <S> Most of the instructions are in the form of pictures, with no words. <A> It's just an example of what the manual looks like. <S> i.e. it can be compared to the looks of an IKEA manual. <S> They could probably have written LEGO-like, but went with a brand that is (more)known for their self-assembly manuals, that is without any words but clear illustrations. <S> To illustrate:IKEA: <S> Lego:
| IKEA is just the brand name, or business name, of a global business; it's a name just like "Apple" or "Google" or "John's Grocery Store".
|
Do I have to use “about” in the following sentence? Do I have to use “about” just like number2? The book you told me sold out in one day. The book you told me about sold out in one day. [ You told me the story. ] -> [ The story you told me was great. ] Can't I make the sentence like this without 'about'? <Q> Most verbs can be directly associated with a maximum two things (nouns, pronouns, or whatever) - a subject, and (optionally) an object. <S> If you want to associate any other things to the verb, you have to use a preposition to define the relationship between the thing and the verb. <S> You told me about the book <S> In this sentence, you is the subject and me <S> is the object of the verb. <S> In order associate the book with the verb, you need to use the preposition about . <S> When you want to make book the subject of another sentence, and use a relative clause to specify which book we are talking about: <S> The book [that you told me about] sold out in one day. <S> you still need to use the preposition about in the relative clause, to describe the relationship between the book and the verb of the relative clause told <A> "The book you told me about has sold out". <S> The first option - "The book you told me has sold out" is not correct. <S> There are other variants of this sentence that don't use "about". <S> Some examples are as follows. <S> The book you mentioned sold out. <S> The book you mentioned to me sold out. <S> The book you referred me to sold out. <S> The book you encouraged me to read sold out. <A> Absolutely. <S> You need "about" in the sentence. <S> The book you told me about sold out in a day. <S> You could use other constructions instead: <S> The book you told me to bring home sold out in a day. <S> Or The book you told me to read sold out in a day.
| Yes, you do need to use "about" in the phrase
|
"Kept that sister of his quiet" meaning Dumbledore kept that sister of his quiet for a long time. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I could not find it a phrase in dictionaries. Is it an common idiom? I only found "on the quiet" in dictionaries. I think both phrases mean the same thing. <Q> The text you highlighted contains two very common idioms: <S> That [x] of his. <S> Kept quiet. <S> When people say "that [x] of his/yours", it is usually said disparagingly. <S> For example: That dog of yours kept me awake all night with its barking. <S> Instead of saying "your dog", the inference is that the dog isn't even worth naming or referring to properly, hence "that dog"; yet the speaker also wants to apportion blame by saying that the dog is your responsibility. <S> "Keeping quiet" literally means to maintain silence. <S> Keeping someone else quiet means taking action to ensure that the other person is silent, perhaps by keeping them occupied with something as a distraction, eg: <S> He kept his dog quiet with a bone. <S> However, "keeping someone quiet" can also mean to stop them from airing their thoughts or opinions, rather than literally preventing them from speaking. <S> "Keep quiet about..." can also idiomatically mean that you keep something hidden , that you do not talk about it yourself. <S> Without context, it is unclear to me whether your example means Dumbledore didn't speak about his sister for a long time, or if he stopped her from speaking (or from having her opinions heard) for a time. <A> Dumbledore kept that sister of his quiet for a long time. <S> You should parse the sentence like this: <S> Dumbledore kept [that sister of his] quiet for a long time. <S> This would be identical in meaning to: Dumbledore kept [his sister] quiet for a long time. <S> Here are the relevant paragraphs (Chapter 8, page 154): <S> “Thought wrong, then, didn’t you, Barry!” said Auntie Muriel, looking delighted at the effect she had produced. <S> “Anyway, how could you expect to know anything about it! <S> It all happened years and years before you were even thought of, my dear, and the truth is that those of us who were alive then never knew what really happened. <S> That’s why I can’t wait to find out what Skeeter’s unearthed! <S> Dumbledore kept that sister of his quiet for a long time!” <S> and later: “Why did nobody ever see her, Elphias? <S> ” squawked Muriel, “Why did half of us never even know she existed, until they carried the coffin out of the house and held a funeral for her? <S> Where was saintly Albus while Ariana was locked in the cellar? <S> Off being brilliant at Hogwarts, and never mind what was going on in his own house!” <S> (Note that these characters are repeating rumors, and may not be describing the truth of what happened to Albus Dumbledore's sister Ariana.) <A> "Sister of his" is another way of saying "his sister", so "of his" is not attached to "quiet", but rather "sister". <S> "Kept that sister of his quiet" means that he did not talk about his sister, specifically hiding information about her. <S> You can find it by looking up <S> " Kept quiet ". <S> This quote is probably easier to understand if you rewrite it as "kept quiet about that sister of his".
| Normally "kept quiet" would be interpreted literally, that he kept his sister from making noise , but in context, it is a little unclear whether that's what is meant, or if it means he kept her existence and/or condition secret .
|
What is the meaning of "shop-wise" in "… and talk turned shop-wise"? I read a sentence in Word by Word by Kory Stamper which was: We had the restaurant mostly to ourselves, and talk turned shop-wise . The context is: A month, I have come to discover, is not that long in lexicographical terms. In 2013, the University of Georgia hosted the biennial meeting of the Dictionary Society of North America, an academic society for lexicographers, linguists, and logophiles interested in dictionaries. One of the attendees was Peter Gilliver, a lexicographer from the Oxford English Dictionary, who joined a crew of us for dinner. We had the restaurant mostly to ourselves, and talk turned shop-wise . We discussed the differences between defining for the OED, which is a historical dictionary with over 600,000 senses, and defining for the Collegiate Dictionary, a relative lightweight at about 230,000 senses. I want to ask what does shop-wise mean in the above sentence. <Q> To "talk shop" means to talk about work/business. <S> See Merriam Webster : to talk about work <S> They like to talk shop during lunch. <S> The -wise suffix means with respect to, concerning. <S> For example: "security-wise" means concerning security, about security. <S> So "talk turned <S> shop-wise" means they started to talk about work. <A> We had the restaurant mostly to ourselves, and talk turned shop-wise . <S> We had the restaurant mostly to ourselves, and talk turned to the subject of shops . <S> However, in the context of the full passage, it's clear they're talking about their work, in this case dictionary writing. <S> The author has used "to talk shop " (a standard idiomatic phrase) in a non standard (but still understandable) <S> way with the word "turned" and the suffix "-wise". <S> We had the restaurant mostly to ourselves, and talk turned to the subject of work . <S> See shop from Wikipedia <S> (definitions 4 & 8): <S> Noun shop ( plural shops ) <S> An establishment that sells goods or services to the public; originally only a physical location, but now a virtual establishment as well. <S> A place where things are manufactured or crafted; a workshop. <S> A large garage where vehicle mechanics work. <S> Workplace; office. <S> Used mainly in expressions such as shop talk , closed shop and shop floor . <S> A variety of classes taught in junior or senior high school that teach vocational skill. <S> An establishment where a barber or beautician works. <S> a barber shop <S> An act of shopping, especially routine shopping for food and other domestic supplies. <S> This is where I do my weekly shop. <S> ( figuratively , uncountable ) Discussion of business or professional affairs. <S> See <S> -wise from Wikipedia: <S> Suffix <S> -wise <S> in the direction or orientation of <S> The gaoler slowly turned the key clock wise . <S> in the manner of You need to follow the instructions carefully; other wise , the project may not turn out. <S> Contrari wise , it could be a good idea. <S> in the matter of; with regard to This morning looks promising, weather- wise . <S> One (thing) at a time Add the reagent drop <S> wise to the solution. <S> The usage is rare in this particular case and is done for humour or a light style. <A> Without the full context, it's hard to know if it literally means that they began talking about a previously mentioned shop ("shop-wise" meaning " about/related to a shop "). <S> More likely they began " talking shop ", which means to talk about the work they have to do.
| I understand it out of context as "in the direction of the subject of shops", especially as it's introduced with "turned", and the sentence mentions a restaurant, "shop" being an informal word for a business.
|
"Shake your head all you like" meaning "Yes, Ariana might have made a desperate bid for freedom and killed Kendra in the struggle," said Auntie Muriel thoughtfully. " Shake your head all you like , Elphias! You were at Ariana's funeral, were you not?" Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I can find " shake your head ". I think, in this context, it means: To express confusion or bewilderment about something that has just happened or been revealed. This usage does not always indicate a literal movement of the head. But I don't really understand the whole phrase: "Shake your head all you like". What's it supposed to mean? <Q> As another answer says, "all you like" (or "all you want", or "all you please") means: <S> It doesn't matter how much you do something... <S> So, in a context like: "Shake your head all you like, Elphias! <S> You were at Ariana's funeral, were you not?" <S> that means roughly the same as: " <S> No matter how much you shake your head, Elphias, you can't deny you were at the funeral!" <S> another way to say it might be <S> : "All the head shaking in the world won't change the fact that you were at the funeral!" <S> If someone is accusing me of something, and I don't want to acknowledge it as fact, I might "shake my head no" in silent protest. <S> If my accuser doesn't believe or accept my denial, though, they might say: You can shake your head all you want, J.R. <S> ; I still know you did this! <A> I think you have missed the basic meaning of shaking the head in British (and other cultures) that it means emphatically no . <S> There are cultural differences in a head-shake as indicated in Wikipedia and notes differences in India and South Eastern Europe. <S> Also in British culture a nod means yes, <S> but this is also variable by geography. <S> The emphatic no meaning to the head shake is documented in this British Dictionary , so to shake one's head many times means No, No, No, No , which is a very clear statement. <A> The expression 'all you like' can be used in connection with an action (by a listener), which the speaker wishes to imply is pointless, or will not have any effect on something the speaker knows, believes, or intends. <S> Elphias is, I think, shaking his head in disbelief at what Auntie Muriel is saying.
| From the context, it seems like Elphias is shaking his head in denial, not in bewilderment or confusion.
|
Meaning of 'pound' in "felt a fury that was not his own pound through his body" Harry had given a cry of pain; his scar had burned again as something flashed across his mind like a bright light on water. He saw a large shadow and felt a fury that was not his own pound through his body, violent and brief as an electric shock. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows What does 'pound' mean in this context? I've looked it up in free dictionary . But I don't know which definition fits. <Q> You parsed it in error. <S> It's not (not) <S> felt (not) <S> a fury (not) that is not his own pound(not) through his body <S> The noun is not "pound" being modified by "fury". <S> It is "fury" being modified by "pound". <S> felt a fury that is not his own pound through his body <S> It's an action. <S> Note that two phrases are modifying "fury": "that is not his own" and "pound" . <S> If we simplify the sentence as much as possible by removing modifying phrases (except pound), we get <S> He saw a shadow and felt a fury pound. <S> Or simpler, He saw a shadow and felt a fury. <A> The term "pound" in this instance means to pulsate or throb. <S> The sentence could have been written: " <S> He felt ... <S> fury ... <S> throb through his body". <S> or <S> " <S> He felt ... <S> fury ... pulse through his body". <S> We often refer to blood "pounding" in a person's veins when a person is angry or fearful, because of the faster and harder heartbeat that is created by anger or fear. <S> See definition of verb "to pound" . <A> "pound" is a verb form of "to pound" here. <S> It is the same construct as "I felt a bee sting me". <S> The core part means "He felt a fury pound through his body, a fury that was not his own". <S> I'd use "rush" instead of "pound" here maybe, because furies tend not to move in one's body in much of a pounding manner. <A> Pound = heartbeat <S> As in the hearts making a pounding from within. <A> The answer by Harper provides an excellent technical analysis. <S> For simplicity, the problem of comprehension can also be resolved by the minimal use of punctuation for clarification: "He saw a large shadow and felt a fury that was not his own, pound through his body". <S> I have done work translating German technical documents into English. <S> As a result, I would not want to translate an English document into German.
| "Pound" is what the fury is doing . The sentence above has an implied or sub-textual reference to a pounding heart or blood pounding through the veins of the person who is experiencing fury.
|
What word should I use to describe something is not carefully made? E.g. I read a book teaching people how to cook. The first chapter is written great(carefully made) while the latter are bad. (bad and so-so would be too generic I think) "The first chapter is great while the latter are ______." rough? crude? <Q> One might say "this is a crude copy of [x]", which would be quite clear because the word "copy" indicates that you are referring to the item's creation. <S> However, in your context of chapters of a book, I'm afraid people might assume you mean another definition of crude which is " offensively coarse or rude, especially in relation to sexual matters ". <S> "Rough" would be a better word in this context, or perhaps shoddy or inferior . <S> You could also just say "poorly written" or "badly written", if you want to make it absolutely clear you are referring to the writing quality, rather than the story content. <S> Also, as your sentence begins "The first chapter is great... <S> " one might expect that you are drawing a contrast, and that the word you use to describe the later chapters ought to be an antonym of "great" such as "bad", or "poor". <S> You might want to consider stating that the first chapter was "well written", and then whatever word you choose to describe the later chapters, it becomes more clear that this is about the writing standard. <A> If your intention is to express admiration about the first chapter and disappointment about the lack of same quality in the next chapters, you just write something in the sense: "This is good but that not." <S> The first chapter is written great while the latter ones <S> not so. <S> If your intention is to express what specifically you miss in the latter chapters, you can say something that is not necessary an adjective or antonym of the first quality: <S> If it has to be an adjective and the opposite of ´great´: <S> The first chapter is written great while the latter are thin or week or poor or not impressive or disappointing. <A> half-baked <S> For what it's worth, this figure of speech comes from the topic of your book: cooking. <S> dictionary.com insufficiently cooked Cambridge not planned or considered carefully enough <A> If the verb here is 'write', I'd rather just use 'badly-written', if the verb is 'cook', it could be 'badly-cooked'. <S> This way is simple, but does the trick. :D
| The first chapter is written great while the latter are not detailed enough or not that useful. "Crude" is a good word for something that is " constructed in a rudimentary or makeshift way ", but it does have other definitions too, so when used, your context must be clear.
|
How can I choose between using (in) or (on)? Consider the following example: “In making his choice, Otto Frank had to bear several points in mind.” You see, there is no particular pattern that helps me decide whether I have to use “on” instead of “in.” Could I use “On making his choice, Otto...” instead? Also, I know they are occasions where “on” should be used instead of “in.” For instance, we have: “on entering the room, she saw him.” So, that is the problem. I do not see any distinctive pattern that helps me identifying which one of them I have to choose. <Q> Hopefully you are aware of the most basic meanings of "in" and "on". <S> " <S> In" - means that something is between, within, or inside other things. <S> "On" - means that something is atop of something else. <S> If you don't instinctively know which to use, try considering the wider implication of what you are saying. <S> Take your first example: <S> In making his choice, Otto Frank had to bear several points in mind. <S> "Making a choice" is a process . <S> You may think about and consider various things over a period of time. <S> So, the points he had to bear in mind appeared within that process, so "in" is appropriate. <S> Your second example (slightly changed): <S> On entering the room, he noticed her. <S> Entering the room is an event , and as soon as he was in the room, he saw her. <S> They happened at the same time, so "on" is appropriate. <A> Also, you can different between (on) and ( in) <S> by the meaning sentences, it depends on it. <S> Both of them are prepositions and locate the place of the things. <A> They seem to me to be idioms that have the same meaning but are used in slightly different situations. <S> "On mind" is used in expressions such as "What's on your mind?" or "I've got you on my mind." <S> On the other hand, "in mind" is used in " <S> Did you have something in mind?" <S> or "I'll keep you in mind." <S> Based on these examples, "on mind" seems to be used chiefly when you have something between "on" and "mind." <S> But "in mind" can also be used like that, in the case of something like "In my mind, I imagined that you'd like the gift a lot more." <S> So, "on mind" is when something is "on your/my/etc mind." <S> "In mind" can be both. <S> (Although I fail to think of a situation where someone would say "In your mind.") <S> Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English also has "on mind" to be written as "on your/somebody's mind." <S> on your/somebody’s mind <S> a) if something is on your mind, you keep thinking or worrying about it <S> He looked as though he had something on his mind. <S> Sorry <S> I forgot. <S> I’ve got a lot on my mind (= <S> a lot of problems to worry about) at the moment. <S> b) if something is on your mind, that is what you are thinking about <S> She’s the type of person who just says what’s on her mind <S> Merriam Webster Dictionary writes "in mind" to be "to have (someone or something) in mind." <S> have (someone or something) in mind - idiom : to be thinking of (someone or something): such as 1 : to be thinking of choosing (someone) for a job, position, etc. <S> They have you in mind for the job. <S> 2 : to be thinking of doing (something) "I'd like to do something special for our anniversary." <S> "What sort of thing did you have in mind?"
| When used in connection with a timeline, as a general rule we say "in" to refer to something that happened between other events, and "on" to refer to something that happened at the same time as another event.
|
Everyone with plural usage Everyone want their homes to be in the centres of cities Is this correct usage or is there any alternative way to convey the same? <Q> Not quite right. <S> First of all "want" needs to be wants . <S> Everyone wants their homes to be in the centres of cities. <S> This does sound a little like everyone has more than one home, though. <S> You could instead used the singular of "home", in which case "centres" and "cities" need to be singular too: <S> Everyone wants their home to be in the centre of a city. <S> If you were speaking more generally about people's preferences you could also remove "their" and say: Everyone wants homes in the centres of cities. <A> I think the sentence should just be changed as: <S> Everyone wants their homes to be in the centres of cities <S> Everyone <S> it self is singular though it takes a plural pronoun <S> they .Everyone usually takes a singular verb. <S> So the verb should be <S> wants but not want .The <S> verb does not depend on the subject that follows. <S> It does not matter whether it is home or homes but since the pronoun is <S> their homes, cities and centres can be in the plural. <A> First of all, "everyone" is singular: "Everyone want s ..." <S> You can't always count on English words making sense, but in this case, it turns out that "everyone" can be broken down into logical components, "every" "one" = " <S> each" "one" -- <S> > <S> singular. <S> The rest of the sentence is a little more complicated. <S> Traditionally it was taught that using a plural pronoun for a singular individual was incorrect. <S> Therefore, both "Everyone want their ..." <S> and "Everyone wants their ..." would have been considered wrong, and the traditional English-teacher-approved construction would be: <S> "Everyone wants his ..." <S> even if the gender of "everyone" is unknown or mixed. <S> But the people here, on this site, accept the plural pronoun "their" as a gender-neutral option for use as a singular pronoun <S> (since, as many people like to point out, it has been used that way "for hundreds of years"). <S> However, this does not mean that [everyone's] "home" needs to become plural. <S> I guess this is subject to debate, but I feel that each person really only has one home: <S> " <S> Everyone has his one true home." <S> "Everyone has <S> her one true home." <S> (if we are talking about females) <S> "Everyone has their one true home." <S> (acceptable here, now, but not to Mrs. Elliot in her 9th grade English class if I remember right) <S> So your sentence ought to have a singular verb, a singular pronoun (even if it is the gender-neutral plural-singular option: "their"), and a singular direct object (in this case, since the word is "home"): Everyone wants their home to be in the city centre. <S> Everyone wants their home to be in a city centre. <S> Everyone wants their home to be in the centre of the city. <S> Everyone wants their home to be in the centre of a city. <S> would all work. <S> Traditionalists would specify a traditional (masculine if the gender is unknown or mixed) <S> singular pronoun: <S> Everyone wants his home to be in the city centre. <S> etc. <S> as above.
| Because you are using the plural of "homes", it is okay to use the plural of "centres" and "cities".
|
What is the meaning of "comes out wrong" in this context? This is the context: We definitely know that particles pop in and out of existence. it happens everywhere all the time and this is what people think might be responsible for dark energy. Only the problem is, when you do the calculation, it comes out wrong by 10 to the 120th power. I don't get the bold part. can anyone explain? <Q> It's a way of saying the size of the error (is this vast number). <S> If, for example, I calculate that 2 x 5 = 15, my calculation comes out wrong by 50%. <S> The writer is saying that the calculation concerned is wrong by zillions of times; in other words, a number far beyond the conception of the human mind. <A> The bolded phrase is a colloquialism (not formal; something used in conversation). <S> If this was written in a more formal way, one could say: ... <S> the result is off by about 10^120. <S> or ... the result is incorrect by a margin of about 10^120. <S> I hope that makes it more clear. <A> When people are doing calculations they often express the answer by saying 'it comes out to...' <S> If I multiply 5 by 3 it comes out to 15. <S> The number of poor people in the country comes out to something in the hundreds of thousands, but I'm not sure exactly how many. <S> When my calculator battery is low, the answers always come out wrong. <S> When you add 'by' to the phrase you're giving the amount of the difference between the calculated answer and the real answer. <S> When my calculate battery is low, the answers come out wrong by random amounts.
| You can also say that the answer 'comes out wrong', meaning you get the wrong answer.
|
Can 'whole' be used as an adverb? It rained the whole week except on Sunday. In this question is the word 'whole' an adverb? Or since the word 'week' is a noun, will it become a determiner? <Q> Since whole modifies the noun week , it is an adjective (but see below about determiners). <S> Here are other sentences with an adjective modifying week : <S> It rained all of last week except on Sunday. <S> It rained twice during that unpleasant week. <S> A determiner is an adjective that specifies something about which instance or instances the noun refers to: a new instance not previously talked about (as indicated by a ), an instance previously talked about (as indicated by the ), the number of instances, the concept in general rather than any specific instance, etc. <S> In your sentence, whole specifies how much of the instance is referred to, <S> so it's usually considered a determiner . <S> Some people don't count determiners as adjectives. <S> I don't think it matters as long as you understand the difference between specifying which instance of the noun (as in " last week", " the whole week", and " that unpleasant week") and providing additional information about the instance ("that unpleasant week"). <S> If you're asking in preparation for taking an exam, though, you should find out whether the author of the exam counts determiners as adjectives or not. <S> If you're not sure, then bet that they consider them separate parts of speech. <A> It rained the whole(entire) week except on Sunday <S> In the sentence whole modifies week which is a noun. <S> So it is a an Adjective. <S> It is not an adverb. <S> An adverb usually does not modify a noun or a pronoun. <S> It may modify a noun phrase or sometimes a whole sentence. <A> Yes it <S> can be an adverb - just not in your example sentence. <S> An adverb is a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb. <S> In your example, it is modifying the noun "week". <S> For it to be an adverb, there would need to be another adjective or verb used, for example: <S> It's a whole new ballgame. <S> That's a whole other story.
| Adverbs modify anything other than a noun: a verb, an adjective, a preposition, another adverb, or a whole clause or sentence.
|
What does "Cheer up" mean? Some people say that you can't use that phrase when the listener is in real bad situations, such as having their arm broken, car accidents or something like those, because the phrase could feel like "Hey that's nothing, just shrug it off and stop being childish". But I've seen some scenes in many media where people use it even to the ones whose family member has passed away. How should I use "Cheer up" correctly? <Q> 'Cheer up' means become happier. <S> There is a difference between grammatically correctly and being socially aware. <S> Oh your brother has just died, cheer up! <S> is grammatically correct, but damn insensitive. <S> It is now very rarely considered okay to say "cheer up", "smile it might never happen" etc unless you know the person and what has made them unhappy in the first place. <S> Here is a scene where it is okay, but it is not okay in virtually any other situation. <S> Wife: Why are you so sad? <S> Husband: I just spilt the whole bottle of milk <S> Wife: <S> Cheer up! <S> I will go to the shop and buy you another one, I was just going anyway. <A> It can be said to someone else as a request , or perhaps more accurately as words of encouragement , for example: <S> Why are you looking so sad? <S> Cheer up! <S> It can't be that bad! <S> It can also be used to describe the action of trying to help someone else to lighten their mood, for example: <S> I'm going over to John's house to see if I can cheer him up. <S> You are right that it can be said in a way that shows a lack of sympathy for the other person's condition. <S> Context and tone of voice are what make the difference. <S> Obviously, if someone grumpily says "cheer up, for goodness sake!" they are probably not particularly sympathetic towards your situation. <S> With your specific example of bereavement, I have to say that "cheer up" does seem inappropriate for this context. <S> Most people understand that grieving is necessary, and telling a bereaved person to "cheer up" would be thought of as inconsiderate. <S> However, many people do appreciate some levity during such a time, and it does not seem inappropriate to say that you would like to cheer someone else up, if they were suffering a loss. <A> Cheer up is used in this context to try and tell someone to not focus on something negative in their life. <S> In your example, people trying to cheer up a friend who had someone pass away in their life, is them trying to get their friend to stop focusing on the negative emotions associated with death and to refocus on something else. <S> This is why just telling someone to "cheer up" when something is going wrong rarely works. <S> It's like telling someone with a broken leg to simply not feel the pain instead of doing something to take the attention away from it.
| "Cheer up" means to lighten one's mood.
|
Articles at the beginning of sentences in scientific writing I'm writing my master thesis in English as a non-native speaker. I start a lot of sentences without an article and one of my lectors (a non-native speaker like myself) found this to be odd and marked every occurrence. My question to the native speakers is: which method would be considered better? A few examples: Identification of such failures is usually a tedious manual task. Automatic identification of such failures would be highly beneficial. Examination of test data reveals... Literature review confirms that... Application of these models shows poor results. My lector would correct all these examples with a definite article: The identification of such failures is usually a tedious manual task. The automatic identification of such failures would be highly beneficial. The examination of test data reveals... The literature review confirms that... The application of these models shows poor results. <Q> I'm a native speaker who occasionally works professionally as a technical writer and editor, including writing scientific journal articles. <S> In my opinion, your versions of the sentences, without the leading article, are more conventional. <S> Adding the article isn't wrong, but it's not the customary way to express those facts in academic writing. <S> You're invoking the subject noun as an abstract concept, e.g. "identification of such failures" as an idea or possibility to entertain, not as a specific occurrence of identifying certain, specific failures. <S> You can write <S> the to indicate that you intend a noun to be taken as an abstraction rather than an instance, as is commonly done in many languages with a definite article, but in contemporary English this is usually done only with a small range of nouns. <S> For example, it's done with species and organs, such as "the elephant" and "the stomach". <S> With most nouns, we determine them abstractly by omitting the article entirely. <S> You would say " The literature review confirms that…" only if you were referring to a specific literature review already introduced. <S> It suggests that literature review in general, or some unspecified amount of literature review, confirms your conclusion. <S> There's really no distinction here between treating "literature review" as an abstraction or as a mass noun; either way, it takes no article. <S> You could introduce your literature review with " A literature review confirms that…", but this leaves open the possibility that you're referring to someone else's literature review. <S> That could be OK if the following text makes it obvious that you mean your literature review. <A> Sentences 1, 2, and 5 are fine either way in my opinion. <S> I slightly prefer no article. <S> The third sentence should be either your way, or "An examination". <S> I prefer your way with no article. <S> "The examination" would make sense if you were referring to a particular examination that had been done in the past. <S> Like, "The examination of the data revealed ..." <S> But you're using present tense, which means "examination" is used in a more abstract sense. <S> That logic does not apply to the other sentences because "the identification" could also make sense as the process of identification, not a particular identification that had been done. <S> The fourth sentence sounds better as "A review of the literature confirms that...", or "Review of the literature..." <S> but if you don't mind sounding a little clipped, you could also put it your way, or "A literature review...". <A> You should not omit the article. <S> Doing so is not common, whether in academic writing or not. <S> Perhaps you picked up the habit after noticing and subtly misanalyzing mass nouns. <S> One of the features of academic writing is coining new terms by converting a mass noun to a count noun or vice versa. <S> For example, "pedagogy" has recently been pluralized now that academic writing has turned its attention to different types of pedagogy (e.g. Indigenous vs. Western pedagogy). <S> So let's imagine that you've seen the word "pedagogies" and it seems like a count noun in your mental grammar. <S> Later, you come across this sentence: <S> Pedagogy is a question not only of the means of teaching, but also of its ends. <S> Then you might (incorrectly) conclude that the determiner has been dropped from the beginning. <S> In reality, it's being used as a mass noun here. <S> Let's look at your examples. <S> All four of your opening nouns (identification, examination, application, review) are abstract and exist in this limbo between count and mass noun. <S> However, the meaning they have in your sentences does not appear to be the mass meaning. <S> This would be right: <S> Academics prefer to write about theory rather than application. <S> But this would be wrong: <S> We decided to investigate possible application of our theory. <S> Note that in the titles of academic publications, much like in newspaper headlines, none of this applies and you are certainly free to drop the determiner.
| If the sentence introduces your literature review, expressing it without the article is customary.
|
The word "attendance" and "at ten dance"? When I was at college, my English teachers used to say that the word attendance was derived from at ten dance . In schools the children used to dance at Ten AM in the British Rule and slowly it took the form attendance. Is there any base for this tale that the word attendance really derived from at ten dance ? This story is prevalent in India.The English teachers who taught me this way were good scholars. I do not know How they believed and spread the story. I suspected the tale but it is very widespread. Some myths have spread into India very mysteriously which have to be debunked on sites like this; this question is intended to dispel widespread misinformation. <Q> That is pure nonsense. <S> Like modern German and English, Latin made verbs by combining prepositions and root verbs. <S> So "attendere" was formed by combining the preposition "ad" (meaning "to" or "toward") and the verb "tendere" (meaning "to stretch"). <S> So if you are paying attention, it is natural to stretch toward whoever is speaking. <S> The verb "tendere" is thought to derive from the root "ten" (meaning to "stretch") in Proto-Indo-European, the partially reconstructed parent language of most languages in Europe, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India as well as the Americas. <S> Source: <S> https://www.etymonline.com/word/attend <A> Yes, there is a basis for this tale. <S> It's a spelling <S> mnemonic - a little trick to help us remember how to spell attendance . <S> There are other spelling mnemonics for various tricky English words. <S> My favourite is <S> Rhythm helps your two hips move , for a word that I've always found difficult. <S> I figure attendance <S> could be a tricky word for people learning English - does it have one T or two? <S> One D or two? <S> Does it end with -ance, -ence, -ince, <S> -anse, <S> -ense or -inse? <S> It wouldn't be too unreasonable to spell it <S> atenddinse <S> would it? <S> But if you remember at ten dance , you'll never get it wrong. <S> Unfortunately, from this spelling mnemonic sprung a fictional etymology. <S> As others pointed out, this is not the correct etymology of the word attendance . <S> But sometimes, a good story takes on a life of its own. <S> Just ask Mr Gorsky! <A> No. "Attendance" comes from the Latin verb attendō, which means "I pay attention". <S> There are actually three Latin roots in "attendance": <S> ad-, meaning "toward" <S> (cognate with English "at") <S> -tend-, meaning "stretch" -antia, which makes an abstract noun out of another word, such as a verb <S> The idea of "stretching toward" started in reference to aiming a bow and arrow at a target. <S> The same roots appear in many other English words. <S> If you "attend to" the roots, you can often get an understanding of how English works, including, especially, how English spelling works. <S> Here are some other English words that contain -tend-. <S> extend , whose Latin roots mean "stretch out". <S> As usual, English has Anglo-Saxon and Latin synonyms that carry almost but not quite the same meanings. <S> The synonym from Latin carries more precise meanings, as required in science and administration and other more formal activities. <S> Maybe now it is clear why we speak of extending an invitation to someone as well as extending a vacation. <S> tension , which is the opposite of flexion in medical terminology for the actions of muscles: tension is "stretching" and flexion is "bending". <S> A tension headache results from "stretched" muscles around the head (or at least that's one theory). <S> intend <S> also derives from pointing a finger or aiming a weapon, but this idea is lost in modern English. <S> Your belly is distended if it's stretched out more than normal. …and many others. <S> Any good dictionary will include an etymology with every word. <S> It's usually worth looking at the etymology to understand the relationships among different words and, sometimes, metaphors that still live in English words. <S> Another excellent resource is etymonline . <A> No, it's not "at-ten-dance". <S> Before about World War II, new English words were almost always adapted from other languages (partifularly French, Greek and Latin) and from adding prefixes and suffixes to existing words. <S> It's only later that people started making new words from abbreviations (such as acronyms*) or gluing together existing words. <S> So, if anybody proposes to you that a word was made in one of these modern ways, ask yourself if the word is really that modern. " <S> Attendance" is clearly a pretty old word – surely pre-20th-century – so it would have been made by one of the old methods: adding the suffix "-ance" to "attend". <S> * <S> A common false acronym etymology is "posh", which is not derived from "port out, starboard home", supposedly the preferred side of the ship to have one's cabin when sailing between Britain and India. <S> The actual etymology of the word is unclear, but it's probably from the Romani language .
| "Attendance" is a derivation from the root of the modern English word "attend," which goes back to Old French "atendre," which in turn goes back to Latin "attendere," meaning "to pay attention to."
|
Is "become" both stative and dynamic verb Since it is OK to say "The house is becoming more expensive", become can be a dynamic verb for dynamic verbs allow the progressive tense. I wonder if become is also considered as a stative verb. <Q> Become is a contraction of come to be , which is a general Inchoative (change of state) predicate, like start, finish, end, begin, and continue . <S> He became tired ~ <S> He came to be tired - <S> He was not tired at time t₀ , and he was tired at (later) time t₁ . <S> He became a doctor ~ <S> He came to be a doctor - not a doctor at time t₀ , and doctor at (later) time t₁ . <S> Inchoatives change states, but change between states may be gradual, allowing for optional continuous constructions, under the right circumstances. <S> These all mean the same thing, for instance: <S> The value of the house continues to rise every year. <S> The value of the house is continuing to rise every year. <S> The value of the house becomes higher every year. <S> The value of the house is becoming higher every year. <A> I do not know what do you mean by dynamic <S> but I think <S> you mean action verb and a state verb <S> So it can be a state verb but may not be a dynamic verb though it is used in the progressive forms <S> but know and understand <S> can be pasivized though they are not usually used in the progressive forms. <S> Become can not be used in the passive voice. <S> It is always intransitive like come and go and usually talks about a change of state. <S> Anyhow, it is a special verb . <S> He became a doctor <S> He became famous <S> Previously, he was a doctor. <S> Later he became a professor .(change of state in the past) <S> I will become a doctor. <S> ( future time) <S> English is becoming difficult for me day by day . <S> ( present progressive) <S> It is becoming cold ( present progressive) Unlike verbs concerning mind such as <S> know <S> , understand etc. <S> become can be used in the progressive forms in all tenses. <S> Here is the link. <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/become <A> The verbs look, sound, appear, became can all describe a state.i.e. <S> be a stative verb. <S> He became red in the face all of a sudden. <S> They became rich because they worked hard.
| Become can be used in the progressive forms and other forms too.
|
What do you call this when cats hunch their backs and their fur stands on end? I know there is such a word but I cannot recall it. This word can be used figuratively when saying that someone gets surprised, angry or react badly to something. <Q> The word bristle is used to talk about animals' hair standing stiffly because they are afraid or angry. <S> And it is also used figuratively to say that someone is angry or annoyed. <S> For example: The director bristled at the fact that the movie got negative reviews. <S> The phrase get someone's back up can also be used to say that someone is made angry or anoyed or someone makes someone angry or annoyed. <S> This phrase is, obviously, a reference to cats, that is when they are angry, they arch their backs. <S> For example: The comment about the boss's weight got his back up . <A> A person can also "get their hackles up", or you can "make someone's hackles rise". <S> In the literal sense, hackles are the bristly hairs on the back of an animal (particularly a dog), which stand up when the animal is alarmed or frightened. <S> Humans don't have hackles in the literal sense, but one can still talk about a person who is alarmed, annoyed, or frightened "having their hackles up." <S> Usage examples from the OED: <S> His voice was tinged with enough condescension to make my hackles rise. <S> A blinkered assumption... led them to behave in a manner which undoubtedly got the public's hackles up. <A> I don't think there is a word for it as such, but the most common expression I am aware of is " arching their back ". <S> From the website <S> petassure.com : <S> Why do cats arch their backs? ... <S> Not only does he arch his back as a form of stretching "sleepy" muscles after a nap, the arched back is also a form of showing that the cat is feeling threatened. <S> In the latter case, the arched back is usually accompanied by his hair standing out all over his body, especially on his tail. <A> Scaredy-cat "an unduly fearful person" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scaredy-cat <S> I recall this word getting used as a child, usually chanted like an insult when someone was afraid to do something. <S> Occasionally in a sentence like: <S> He won't do it because he is a scaredy-cat.
| The figurative expression you may be thinking of is "get (one's) back up", which means (in humans) "to become or cause to become angry, hostile, defensive, or irritable".
|
What does “studies need to be taken with more than the usual grain of salt” mean? I found this quote in a psychology paper entitled If We Are So Rich, Why Aren't We Happy? by M. Csikszentmihalyi: “Thus, the results of culturally and methodologically circumscribed studies need to be taken with more than the usual grain of salt .” focusing more on the part: studies need to be taken with more than the usual grain of salt What does this idiom or phrase means? <Q> The writer is altering the well-known idiom <S> take something with a grain of salt to get a new meaning. <S> (I believe this is an example of metalepsis ). <S> Here’s a relevant entry for take something with a grain of salt : take (something) with a grain of salt To consider or evaluate something, such as a statement, with the understanding that it may not be completely true or accurate, typically due to the unreliability of the source. <S> I heard that you can get a free movie ticket if you wear red, but Kevin told me that, so I'm going to take it with a grain of salt. <S> Take whatever that paper publishes with a grain of salt <S> —it's really a tabloid. <S> (TFD) <S> In this case, by analogy, if a grain of salt represents a certain level of skepticism, then more than the usual grain of salt suggests that we should be more skeptical than usual. <A> The phrase take it with a grain of salt is an English idiom meaning, "Be skeptical about it. <S> " <S> The "it" is usually a statement heard from someone else, like a factual claim or advice. <S> It can also mean that while the statement is mostly true, it might include some error or it might not be true when applied in every circumstance; you will need to take care and use common sense when applying it. <S> Historically, the expression with a grain of salt comes from reports by the ancient Romans, such as Pliny the Elder in the Naturalis Historia, that adding a grain of salt to a certain recipe or to poisons could make you immune to poisons; see here for a little more information. <S> Most English speakers today don't hear any reference to poisons when they hear the idiom, but the grain of salt vaguely suggests protection from something mildly dangerous in the thing that you are taking it with. <S> Quoting a little more of the context of your example helps show its meaning there: <S> Direct evidence about the ambiguous relationship of material and subjective well-being comes from studies of happiness that psychologists and other social scientists have finally started to pursue, after a long delay in which research on happiness was considered too soft for scientists to undertake. <S> It is true that these surveys are based on self-reports and on verbal scales that might have different meanings depending on the culture and the language in which they are written. <S> Thus, the results of culturally and methodologically circumscribed studies need to be taken with more than the usual grain of salt . <S> Here, the meaning of this variant of take it with a grain of salt <S> is: "You should ordinarily be skeptical of results of psychological and sociological studies. <S> But these studies merit even more than the usual skepticism, because they are based on self-reports and verbal scales that are open to a lot of ambiguity and misinterpretation." <A> To take something with a grain of salt is an idiom meaning to hear or accept something while not completely believing it. <S> To take something with a grain of salt <A> The other answers are good and describe the overall idea, but I wanted to focus on the fragment's meaning within the entire sentence. <S> When you restrict a studies' participants to only people within (circumscribed by) a certain culture, one should be extremely cautious against extrapolating the findings of that study to other groups. <S> While the sentence specifically mentions culture, it applies whenever you try to use a non-representative group to say something about a larger population. <S> This can be a major issue with some university studies (particularly in psychology and sociology), because you will see studies that use university students as the study participants and then try to use the results to say something about the population at large. <S> A well-known example of this is the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, which was comprised of participants who were almost entirely young white male students. <S> You will also hear about similar issues in medical studies, where they don't have enough participants in all gender/ethnic groups to form a statistically representative sample. <S> In these sorts of cases you should 'take with a grain of salt' when the researchers attempt to extrapolate the results to a larger population.
| If you take something with a grain of salt, you do not believe that it is completely accurate or true.
|
Ambiguity - Should it be "mindful of committing logical fallacies" or "mindful of not committing logical fallacies"? From Collins, If you are mindful of something, you think about it and consider it when taking action. When I am writing, I am always mindful of committing logical fallacies (e.g., red herring, hasty generalization, post hoc, straw man, false dichotomy, and appeal to authority). This sentence is ambiguous. What I am trying to say is that when I write, I am careful not to commit the logical fallacies in my arguments. While I can say it this way, trying to use "mindful of" makes things confusing. Does "mindful of committing logical fallacies" mean (a) mindful that I don't commit fallacy or (b) mindful that I do commit fallacy? One answer in this post Be mindful of using vs be mindful of in ELU - says "Be mindful of using verbs in your sentences" tells you that you should be careful to make sure you include verbs in your sentences. As per that logic, "mindful of committing logical fallacies" in my original sentence means that I am mindful that I do commit fallacies. Should I write: "mindful of not committing logical fallacies?" <Q> Being "mindful" means simply that you keep something in mind. <S> For example, a British employment lawyer says that "Businesses need to be mindful of falling foul of sex discrimination rules". <S> He does not mean, and nobody thinks that he means, that businesses should strive to get in trouble for sex discrimination ... <S> "Please mind the gap" does not mean you should aim to step into the gap <S> You could say either "... of committing..." or "... of not committing...", and it will be understood the same way: You try to avoid fallacies. <S> A sentence like that would be simpler and clearer: <S> "I try to avoid fallacies" <A> Either works, although the implied meaning is different. <S> The first suggests you pay attention to any logical fallacies you might make (presumably, in order to avoid them). <S> The second suggests that you pay attention not to make the logical fallacies in the first place. <S> It's two ways to say the same thing. <S> Because the word "commit" is slightly ambiguous in this context, I would be more inclined to phrase the first sentence as I did above: <S> I am always mindful of any logical fallacies <S> I might make . <S> Of course, in a different context, this kind of ambiguity might be intentional (for satirical effect): <S> A: <S> As a government official with a sterling reputation, I have to be mindful of committing any crimes. <S> B: <S> So you can avoid doing anything illegal? <S> A: <S> No -- so I can make sure to destroy the evidence! <A> mindful of doing means careful to do <S> So what you want is <S> When I write, I am always mindful of not committing logical fallacies <S> I have to say that I find the construction verbose and a bit convoluted although admittedly idiomatic. <S> When writing, I always strive to avoid logical fallacies. <S> But that is rhetoric, not grammar. <A> Either looks awkward to me, partly because each expresses observation rather than agency; to be mindful of (not) committing fallacies is merely to be aware of them (or their absence), and does not unambiguously imply any effort either way. <S> I would prefer any of these: mindful not to commit fallacies mindful to avoid fallacies mindful of fallacies mindful of the danger of fallacies
| The context and common sense would mean that if you are "mindful of committing logical fallacies" you are keeping them in mind so that you can avoid them .
|
Meaning of "in arms" What does it mean "in arms"? And is there a double meaning here, since they are goalkeepers? They are brothers in arms , members of the goalkeeping fraternity, like their father before them. Their mum, too. Alisson returns for Liverpool on Sunday after suffering a calf injury on the opening day of the season. His older sibling, Muriel, who plays for Fluminense back in Brazil, will be tuning in, nervously, recalling the days when, as boys, they pushed each other to sporting success. The Telegraph: 'I bullied Alisson but that was only because we were so close': Liverpool goalkeeper's brother lifts the lid on sibling rivalry growing up in Brazil <Q> "Brothers in arms" is an idiom and a fixed expression. <S> We don't tend to use "in arms" except in this expression. <S> "Brothers in arms" means men who are as close as brothers because they have fought alongside each other in a war. <S> Jack and Arthur were infantrymen in the second world war. <S> They both fought on the Beaches on D-day. <S> After the war they met most evenings at the British Legion club. <S> They were best men for each others weddings. <S> When Jack died, Arthur gave the eulogy. <S> They were truly brothers-in-arms. <S> The expression is best known now from the Dire Straits song and album. <S> Brothers in Arms . <S> In the example given, it is likely a metaphorical use. <S> They aren't actually soldiers, but they "battled" together on the football pitch. <A> Your focus is slightly misdirected. <S> I'm guessing you didn't consider " brothers in arms" because the article is about an actual brother. <S> However, the word is actually part of an idiom. <S> Here's an entry for arms : <S> arm noun 1 Usually arms. <S> weapons, especially firearms. <S> (Dictionary.com) <S> Now, in arms : in arms in British or under arms armed and prepared for war <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> Now, that's the literal meaning. <S> In everyday, figurative language, it means ready to fight . <S> Yes, they are actually brothers. <S> However, the entire phrase here is brothers in arms : in arms idiom Definition of in arms —often used in the brother/sister/comrade in arms to indicate one has helped to fight an enemy especially in a war // <S> He and I were brothers in arms. <S> (M-W) <S> Again, it is not literal in the sense that they go to war. <S> It is figurative and used to say the players are a close, tight-knit group, like a group of men in the military who battle together. <S> They happen to be brothers, and it has a double meaning in that sense, but the idiom can be used with any group, even if the members aren’t actual brothers. <S> As for a double meaning in in arms , yes, you could argue that there is one since the goalkeepers use their arms to play the game and capture the ball. <S> You could also argue that there is also a double meaning in the usage of fraternity . <S> A fraternity (from Latin frater: "brother"; whence, "brotherhood") or fraternal organization is an organization, society, club or fraternal order traditionally of men associated together for various religious or secular aims. <S> Fraternity in the Western concept developed in the Christian context, notably with the religious orders in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. <S> The concept was eventually further extended with medieval confraternities and guilds. <S> In the early modern era, these were followed by fraternal orders such as freemasons and odd fellows, along with gentlemen's clubs, student fraternities, and fraternal service organizations. <S> Members are occasionally referred to as a brother or – usually in religious context – Frater or Friar. <S> (Wikipedia) <S> I don't think the writer is referring to an actual club of goalkeepers. <S> It's just being used to convey the close relationship. <A> Brothers in arms is an idiom which means soldiers who are fighting on the same side. <S> They play football like brothers (actually they are brothers too), as fighters and help each other and may be injured sometimes. <S> Their father was also a player like them <S> Here is a link which shows the meaning: https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/brothers-in-arms/
| It's being used to continue the metaphor of a close group of men being brothers, but fraternity literally means brotherhood : I think it is used figuratively.
|
Use "it" to describe something in a general tone I am not a native speaker of English. I wonder whether using "it" to talk about something in a general tone is weird. In the example down below I use "it" to talk about "a tiger", not any specific tiger. I don't know if it is correct or not. Maybe it is grammatically correct but sounds weird. For example: Kid: What is a tiger? Me: A tiger is a large animal that feeds by hunting other animals. It is ferocious and smart.......... <Q> A tiger is a large animal that feeds by hunting other animals. <S> It [the tiger] is ferocious and smart....... <S> Because animals are often referred to as it. <S> Animals can also be he or she in specific contexts. <S> That [female] tiger is ferocious. <S> She doesn't seem to like the other tigers. <S> That [male] tiger is ferocious. <S> He doesn't seem to like the other tigers. <A> That is correct, but if you're talking about tigers in general, it would likely sound better to use "they are ferocious and smart...". <A> Here what a tiger is is being described. <S> What is a tiger? <S> A tiger is a large animal that feeds by hunting other animals. <S> It is ferocious and smart. <S> A tiger refers to tigers in general but not about a single tiger.? <S> It refers to tiger. <S> we use it for an animal when we are not particular about its gender.since <S> it is a tiger. <S> we may use he for a tiger and <S> she <S> for a tigress though. <S> A tiger is a large animal. <S> It is ferocious. <S> The above sentences mean: <S> Tigers are large animals. <S> They are ferocious . <S> I think the above question and the definition are correct.
| Yes, it can be used like this: Me: There is nothing weird about the use of it or a tiger
|
To beat someone in a competition/debate/etc in a humiliating way What is the most common informal/casual idiom / expression / verb to imply making someone feel defeated in a humiliating way in AE? For instance, let's say two youngsters are playing soccer against each other for a bragging right. Before the game, one of them threatens the other guy and needs to convey the message that he will put him down in his place. I know three idioms that seem to be close to the meaning in my question: To take the wind out of somebody To take somebody down a peg To face somebody down What should he say? a. I'll take the wind out of you b. I'll take you down a peg c. I'll face you down Just for more clarification let me raise another example: Please imagine two people are arguing in a social setting in a serious manner and they both want to have the last word and it turns out to be of paramount importance for both to succeed in that debate.Finally one of them persuades the other one and after they scatter, the winner says his friend proudly: a. I took the wind out of him b. I took him down a peg c. I faced him down I was wondering which choice encompasses my intended meaning. What would the best idiom to use for this? (Open to further suggestions if they fit better) <Q> All of those three imply some degree of defeat , but not necessarily humiliation . <S> The strongest is "to take someone down a peg" but this sounds more like genteel British understatement than any kind of sincere gloating. <S> Instead, on the polite side, try "rub someone's nose in the dirt" , implying that someone was so defeated they were forced face-first into the ground. <S> Wow, look at him run off. <S> I really rubbed his nose in the dirt with that one. <S> On the less polite side, there's the scatological "kick the shit out of someone", implying such an extreme defeat that they soiled themselves from fear. <S> Hah, look at him go. <S> I really kicked the shit out of him . <S> Naturally, there are many other expressions than these. <A> An expression that implies utter defeat with ease is "wipe the floor with" . <S> After the competition you can say "I wiped the floor with [insert name or pronoun]". <A> How about "I'll show you who's boss?" <A> "I'm going to make you my bitch ." <S> Urban Dictionary , for lack of a more concise source.
| Before the competition you can say "I will wipe the floor with [insert name or pronoun]". Show someone who's boss After beating them, you'd say "I showed you who's boss."
|
What is it called when at university there are two subjects being held at the same time? For example, I need to enroll in two different courses at university, but there is a schedule in which both are held. Is it an 'overlapped schedule' or something similar?Is there a proper expression for this purpose? <Q> In my experience the most common idiom is a scheduling conflict <S> This can apply anywhere, not just to academics. <S> For example, in a work email: <S> Hi Jim, can we move our meeting to 3pm? <S> I have a scheduling conflict with another meeting at our original time. <S> Thanks. <S> Note <S> this assumes you want to participate in both events. <S> If these classes just happen to be at the same time, then Laurel's answer of "simultaneous" is more accurate. <A> Oh no, I have another timetable <S> clash this semester. <S> or I have to see my tutor <S> ; plant biology clashes with statistics on Thursdays <A> — <S> Lexico/Oxford Dictionaries <S> Here's an example in use (from a tango site ): <S> Saturday July 25th <S> 1-2:15pm w/Anais - Beginner Level - Embellishments for the leader and follower 1-2:15pm <S> w <S> /Carlos - Intermediate Level - Paradas/Barridas (above classes are simultaneous) <A> From what I understand, you are saying The "Microeconomics - ECON101" class is scheduled at 11 am, and so is "Introduction to Psychology - PSYC101". <S> Is that correct? <S> Well, may be the easiest way to say this would be <S> Both Econ101 and Psyc101 classes are scheduled at the same time. <S> You could also say ... <S> my Econ101 class coincides with my Psyc101 class ... <S> From Cambridge (1) and Collins (2) "coincide" means (1) to come together in position or happen at or near the same time <S> (2) <S> If one event coincides with another, they happen at the same time. <S> There are many ways to say this (you have not provided an example sentence) <S> You could use the word <S> "concurrent" meaning "happening at the same time" <S> (Cambridge) ... <S> Econ101 and Psyc101 classes run concurrently ... <S> As Andrew mentioned, you can also say There is a scheduling conflict [or schedule conflict] ... <S> A scheduling conflict occurs when two (or more) subjects are offered at the same time, and the student must make a choice between the two. <S> - How to Build the Master Schedule in 10 Easy Steps (2008). <A> I would express it by saying that the classes are "in conflict." <S> Oh no! <S> My math class is in conflict with the English class I wanted to take. <S> Or... <S> That job would be a conflict with another commitment I have. <A> Overlapping schedule is not a bad phrase. <S> (Furthermore, neither are some of the other good answers.) <S> That is certainly a phrase that is used. <S> Although, if you know exactly how many items are having overlapping schedules, it may be a bit more common to say a more specific term, "double-booked " or " triple-booked ". <A> If you are scheduled to be in two classes (or appointments in general) at the same time, you'd describe yourself as double-booked .
| The classes are simultaneous : occurring, operating, or done at the same time. I had this happen to me a lot at University, and the word in use then was 'clash'.
|
Regarding a gown: Pull up, pick up, lift up, hike up, hitch up, hold up? If someone is walking up the stairs in a long, fluffy ball gown, and thus has to hold it in order to climb up the stairs, what sounds natural: She had to pick her gown up to climb up the stairs. She had to lift her gown up to climb up the stairs. She had to pull her gown up to climb up the stairs. She had to hike her gown up to climb up the stairs. She had to hitch her gown up to climb up the stairs. She had to hold her gown up to climb up the stairs. Are all of these equally likely? What do you think? <Q> The proper term is: skirt of her gown. <S> [gown's skirt, would be acceptable, gown skirt is not really as this is not like a car door, where the first word becomes closely associated with the second] <S> All the verbs can be used two ways for the same meaning. <S> That means you can say: hitch up the skirt or hitch the skirt up. <S> The best verbs here are: lift up, hitch up, hike up, <S> pull up: <S> Be aware that hitch up and hike up <S> are often associated with informality AND the fact of the action often starting at the waist, involving the waist or the upper body: <S> He hitched up his pants until the waistband was way above his waist. <S> She hiked up her bathing suit from the straps so much it looked ridiculous. <S> Sort of acceptable <S> : hold up and pick up. <S> Generally, if you pick something up, it involves taking hold of an object in its entirety.- To pick the cat up off the floor. <S> The entire cat is lifted off the floor. <S> Hold up is not great here, because hold up is used like this: He help up a sign in front of his chest because he was hitchhiking. <S> It involves the entire object. <A> Not listed is "gathered up her skirts" which is what I would expect as a description of a woman in a formal ballgown/formal context. <S> Here's an example from the fairytale Cinderella. <S> Why is skirt plural there? <S> Because it's not just the skirt of the dress, but the several layers beneath--petticoat(s), slip, etc. <S> " Hiked up " or " hitched up " have a very strong implication of informality and specifically unladylike behavior. <A> Of your choices, lift will be the best <S> Pick up works for tools or items that you carry in your hand, or in a bag/container, but is a little "rough" when applied to a ball gown. <S> This might work figuratively if the wearer of the dress is being clumsy or ungraceful. <S> Pull up is used to talk about the elastic or belted part of clothes, like at the waist or the top of socks/stockings. <S> Pull up a ball gown would mean to raise the waist of it higher. <S> This is typically a lewd connotation. <S> Hitch means to attach to something, like with pins or hooks. <S> It's rough sounding as a common use is hitching trailers to cars/vehicles. <S> Holding with hands doesn't count as a hitch. <S> Hold up means to keep at a elevated height. <S> Lift up means specifically to transition from a low position to a high position, so it's more "action oriented" for a storytelling context, but otherwise fine.
| Hike up when used with a skirt means to tease erotically and show or get close to showing what's beneath it.
|
How to express "naked" in different situations? In the dictionary , naked [more naked; most naked] : not wearing any clothes : not covered by clothing a naked [=nude] man the naked human body her naked [=(more commonly) bare] shoulders He was naked from the waist up. The prisoners were stripped naked. [=all of their clothes were taken off] She was half naked [=partly dressed] when the doorbell rang. He's stark naked. [=he's completely naked] So, if a girl has no clothes whatsoever on, we can say " she is naked " What if she has no clothes from her waist all the way up to her neck but still has clothes from the waist down to the feet? How to express in that situation? or she has no clothes from her waist all the way down to the feet but still has clothes from the waist up to her neck? or she is wearing a dress or skirt but wearing no pants or underwear? She can say " she is half-naked " but that is not so clear. How to express " naked " in different situations? <Q> Technically, "naked" is an absolute adjective. <S> " <S> Nakeder" and "nakedest" make no sense and should seldom be used except for humorous effect: after all no one can have fewer clothes on than none. <S> If we want to emphasize how shocking the nakedness is, a frequent intensifier is "bare" as in "bare naked," which is redundant but not absurd. <S> Or you can use a simile such "naked as a new born baby. <S> " <S> When it comes to people who are not literally naked but only partially clothed (remembering that "fully clothed" is a socially defined and thus somewhat fuzzy concept), the most general expressions relate to being clothed, which does admit of degree. <S> He was partially unclothed or He was only partially clothed. <S> We can of course describe where a person is naked (again this depends on social definitions of an unusual degree of bare skin) <S> She was naked from the waist up implies that she was not naked otherwise. <S> She was naked from the waist down <S> implies that she was not naked otherwise. <S> And you can say <S> She was almost naked <S> That implies that she literally was not naked but that the social effect is the same as though she were. <S> But none of this works if the bare skin is considered socially acceptable With that shirt, you will be naked from your biceps to your fingernails <S> is either a joke or an absurdity. <S> And finally you can make use of "except" if someone is almost fully unclothed to specify in what respect that someone is not naked. <S> He was naked except for his silly cowboy boots. <S> If you want to get more detailed about what items of clothing considered socially appropriate are absent, then a single word will not do. <S> What in the world are you writing? <A> If she has no clothes from her waist up to her neck you can say she is topless <S> If she has no clothes from her waist down to her feet you can say she is bottomless <S> but this is less common and may only be understood in relation to being topless. <S> If you are looking for a more demure way to say she is completely naked, you can say that she was nude <S> You could use the borrowed French <S> au naturel for not wearing underwear. <A> You could say "half-naked" but that has the problems you mention. <S> One option is to say "half naked from the waist down" or "half naked from the waist up. <S> " If you are referring to a specific situation, you could describe what she is wearing to make sure your reader understands. <S> "She was only wearing a skirt" or "She was only wearing a red shirt." <A> Naked: is an absolute adjective. <S> Meaning someone, something, some idea or a place is without traditional covering. <S> How you can use it depending on your context : <S> What if she has no clothes from her waist all the way up to her neck but still has clothes from the waist down to the feet? <S> How to express in that situation? <S> She was naked from waist all the way up to her neck. <S> or she has no clothes from her waist all the way down to the feet <S> but still has clothes from the waist up to her neck? <S> She was naked from waist all the way down to the feet. <S> or she is wearing a dress or skirt but wearing no pants or underwear? <S> She was naked under her skirt. <S> She was naked under her dress. <S> What are the other situations you can express naked at: Merriam-Webster: Devoid of customary or natural covering; not enclosed in a scabbard a naked sword not provided with a shade a naked light <S> lacking embellishment <S> hands naked of rings <S> unarmed, defenseless unwilling to hurt a naked man lacking confirmation or support naked contracts <S> devoid of concealment or disguise the naked truth <S> naked aggression unaided by any optical device or instrument the naked eye <S> there are many other examples can be given about it <S> but this must be enough..
| You can also use it to say that she was nude from the waist up or nude from the waist down
|
What does "T.O." mean? This line is said in the very first episode of a cartoon show, Total Drama Island. This is the first time the characters are introduced. I assume the comment is about their clothing being out of place. But I can't find out what "T.O.ed" means. Chris Mclean (The host) says: We told them they'd all be staying at a 5 star resort, so if they seem a little T.O.ed, that's probably why. <Q> the cancellation really ticked me off <S> (M-W) <S> The language is flexible enough to allow us to say T.O.’d. <S> This kind of usage is not unprecedented (e.g. K.O.’d for knocked out ). <S> We understand T.O.’d to mean ticked off . <S> It seems to fit, as the plot suggests the characters are deceived: <S> Total Drama Island is set in the fictional titular reality show, which follows the competition of 22 unsuspecting and unknowing teenagers at Camp Wawanakwa, the most rundown, bug-infested, disgusting island located in an unspecified area in Muskoka, Ontario. <S> The campers participate in competitions and challenges which get more insane and dangerous each week to avoid being voted off the island by their fellow campers and teammates. <S> (Wikipedia) <S> They were expecting a 5-star resort, but ended up in rundown dump. <S> Hence, they were T.O.’d, ticked off . <S> To me, tick off is a milder version of piss off . <S> Also, we sometimes use acronyms or abbreviations to soften or censor a word or phrase (e.g. F off , a steaming pile of S , an M-Fer , that S.O.B. ). <S> The usage of abbreviations like this is informal. <S> I was able to find a clip here (the line in question begins around 2:40 ). <S> The host talks in an informal, slangy way that appeals or mimics the way teens and young audiences speak. <S> The choice to use T.O.’d here, I think, not only serves to soften the language, but also to sound catchy or slangy (maybe even jocular). <S> All in all, the usage of T.O.’d makes sense in this context. <S> In general though, I’m not sure how common T.O.’d is, but I think P.O.’d (pissed off) is somewhat common. <A> As in Em's answer, it's short for "ticked off", which in turn is a common euphemism for "pissed off", meaning angry (as an adjective or rather participle) or "made angry" (as a verb), to avoid saying the word "piss" (urine/to urinate). <S> "P.O.'d" is also a euphemism of sorts for "pissed off", and "T.O.'d" seems to be following the same pattern. <S> It might even be poking fun at avoiding the word "pissed" by (rather pointlessly) avoiding the word "ticked" in the same manner. <A> "Teed off" maybe? teed off (idiomatic, slang) <S> Annoyed, upset, angry <S> It's not a phrase you hear that much these days (in the UK at least), and I've never heard it as an acronym, but it seems to fit the context.
| Looks like T.O. could be tick off : Definition of tick off transitive verb 1: to make angry or indignant
|
Can I say: “The train departs at 16 past every hour“? In German, we can say "jede Stunde um 16 nach" . I just overheard someone teaching there was no such possibility in English. Yet I found "hourly at 45 minutes past" in one answer here . Is the following also correct? The train departs at 16 past every hour. <Q> I have seen this written many times on bus timetables etc. <S> and find no reason why someone wouldn't understand it. <S> To be extra clear, I would make one amend:: <S> The train departs at 16 minutes past every hour. <S> Or even better <S> The train departs at 16 minutes past the hour, every hour. <A> What alephzero said (in comment) is also true of US English: "every hour at 16 past the hour." <S> From Merriam Webster dictionary Definition of past the hour <S> used with a certain number of minutes to indicate how long after the beginning of an hour something will happen <S> "Trains leave every hour at ten minutes past the hour." <S> This is more colloquial, to my ear, than "past every hour" and Google agrees One can also say "16 minutes before the hour," whereas "before every hour" is almost unattested <A> You may hear more casual variations of this such as: <S> There are trains at 16 past, every hour. <S> The trains are at 16 past, every hour. <S> Generally, the trains will not be running on the same schedule for the entire day, so you'll often hear this with a time constraint: <S> There are trains at 16 and 39 past, every hour, until 5. <S> There are trains at 16 and 39 past, every hour, from 9 until 5. <S> You'd also be likely to hear these further condensed: <S> There are trains at 16 and 39 past until 5. <S> There are trains at 16 and 39 past from 9 until 5. <A> The idiomatic expression in English related to this is "every hour, on the hour" (with the comma sometimes being omitted, as in: By 2002, the RUC was run every hour, on the hour , producing 12-hour forecasts with a 1 hour temporal resolution. <S> Which means that it ran at 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, etc etc. <S> Closely-related is "every hour, on the half-hour" (with the comma and/or the hyphen sometimes omitted,) as in: <S> Retrieval times are 9:30, then every hour on the half hour , with the last retrieval at 3:30 <S> (4:30 on Tuesday and Thursday). <S> To further approach your specific question, we also have "every hour on the quarter-hour", which I hope you might guess is: <S> Train: <S> Oxford Road to Urmston though it's only every hour, on the quarter hour , so not necessarily the best way. <S> All of that has been generalized to "every hour, on the X", where X is some number, and usually pluralized: <S> It looks like the buses leave every hour on the 16s . <S> This can also be generalized to frequencies other than hourly: <S> Providing you with up to the minute breaking news, headlines and video, as well as <S> traffic and weather updates every ten minutes on the ones . <S> This is, I think, a bit less-formal than some of the other correct expressions listed in other answers, but I would expect any competent English speaker to readily-grasp the meaning. <A> In British English (and I believe AmEng too) there are idiomatic ways of stating specific times on the clock, although these expressions do not necessarily apply when speaking about hours and minutes in general. <S> You can write any time numerically in 12, or 24-hour format: <S> Trains depart at 15:16, 15:46. <S> 16:16 etc <S> How we say those times depends on the number of minutes past the hour, and if writing them in words, we would write them as they should be spoken. <S> We don't usually use the words "hours" and "minutes" when quoting a specific time, and when the minutes are divisible by 5, for example: <S> Five past four (16:05) <S> Twenty-five past five (17:25) Twenty to six (17:40) <S> Also, when the time is precisely 15, 30, or 45 minutes past the hour, we tend to say: A quarter past five. <S> (17:15) <S> Half-past five (17:30) <S> A quarter to six (17:45) <S> However, when the number of minutes is not divisible by 5, we do include the word "minutes", for example: <S> Six minutes past four (16:06) <S> In everyday situations, British English speakers tend to round times like this and say things like "It's nearly ten past four", or "It's just gone five past four". <S> Obviously that would not be the case with a transport timetable. <S> For the reasons above, we would definitely include the word "minutes" in your example, <S> if only because it is an "unrounded" number of minutes (not divisible by 5): <S> OR <S> The train departs at 16 minutes past each hour. <S> It is also idiomatic, when speaking about any hour, to say "past the hour", as in this example from MW dictionary: <S> Trains leave every hour at ten minutes past the hour.
| The train departs at 16 minutes past every hour.
|
The correct capital G and J in cursive I've come across two versions of writing a capital G and a capital J in cursive. I cannot understand which one is correct because Wikipedia shows that the capital G from my textbook is, in fact, the capital J from Wikipedia and vice-versa. Is it a mistake in my textbook or one can use them interchangeably and just needs to be consistent when deciding which one to use as a capital letter? Here are examples from my textbook. UPDATE Thanks. I've corrected my textbook. <Q> As an American who learned her cursive penmanship in the early 60s, I am shocked to see cursive capitals J and G , respectively, written that way. <S> but just the capitals; the lower case look fine. <S> Is it possible <S> they write these differently in the UK? <S> I would tend to doubt it. <S> My opinion, strange as it seems, is that your book is in error, and Wikipedia is correct. <S> However, standard, uniform cursive penmanship has been de-emphasized in importance lately. <S> In my part of the US, I think they have even stopped teaching it in elementary schools altogether. <S> The way the letters are formed, especially capitals, are pretty individualized these days anyway, and a lot of people prefer to print, or even mix printing with some form of cursive that they find natural. <A> As a Brit, I agree with the previous answer, that the capital letters are the wrong way round. <S> Here is an example <S> picture which looks correct for all letters to me: <S> It's worth mentioning that, although technically correct, I tend to use roman capitals (as mentioned by @JamesK) to avoid any confusion. <A> In the Palmer Method (1888) the G has the form shown next to the J above. <S> You can see that the G is just a big version of the g , with a hugely exaggerated back-and-forth motion for the tail. <S> The Palmer Method emphasized muscle motion, and the exaggerated stroke led to more movement of the arm as well as giving the letter a more distinctive shape. <A> And as an ex-South African I found both styles strange when I moved to North America, I almost freaked when my daughter started doing cursive and the some of the letters are written backwards and require more pen up, pen down actions than the system <S> I (and it seems is still taught in South Africa) <S> Short answer <S> , there is no "right" answer, there are easier and more legible versions. <S> I will always prefer my G's and J's (and <S> I's and S's and...) <A> In my view, the main reason of good font is in its middle ground between understandability and charm. <S> For exmaple, below font's J is more recognizable in both cases(not <S> G , though, in my opinion, this one(as some above) looks similar lowercase one): <S> Source ... <S> and here G looks better: <S> Source <S> Of course, second variant might be more formal than above fonts, but as I said, it is essential in some cases imho . <S> Though, merging these two fonts should not be difficult.
| They seem to be switched in my humble opinion ("G" for "J", and vice-versa),
|
What do you call the movement you do by car within a local distance? If you move from a place to another by feet, you call it a walk. A long distance displacement by any means can be called trip, travel, journey. But what about small distances, like inside your own town, (e.g. by taxi). What is the most appropriated word? "Yesterday I made a __ from Brooklyn to Queens (in my car)". <Q> "Trip" is fine and doesn't carry any implication that it covered a long distance. <S> In my experience it would be the most common and ordinary word to use. <A> Though I'm not sure I'd call it that if I traveled by taxi, I'd probably call that a ride or a trip. <S> A drive is if I drive there myself, the passengers take rides or trips. <S> Edit: This qualifies as slang just barely, so I'll note that I speak American English. <S> You may have different answers from other regions. <A> The general activity is driving, no matter the distance. <S> You can qualify the trip as a 'short drive' if you really want to structure the sentence the way you did (but see a bit further down on other ways you might express the same thing). <S> In general, English tends to prefer to use phrases like this to express specific concepts instead of using special words. <S> There are, as with anything in English, exceptions to this practice, but you will almost always be understood if you choose to phrase things this way instead of using more specific nouns. <S> You might also hear 'short trip' used in the same way, which has largely the same meaning but doesn't necessarily imply that any particular vehicle (or any vehicle at all for that matter) was used, just that the person traveled a short distance from one location to the other. <S> However, I would probably not structure things this way in the first place. <S> At least in the American Midwest, it's far more common when you're specifying both the point of origin and the destination to just say that you drove from the first location to the second location. <S> So, your example might instead be better worded as "Yesterday I drove from Brooklyn to Queens". <S> Note how this does not try to qualify the distance traveled, because that's usually implicitly known (or at least, generically understood) <S> based on the two locations that were mentioned. <S> This also can be easily extended to include the exact distance if required. <S> Using your example, if you were known to be in Brooklyn yesterday, you could instead say: 'I took a short drive to Queens yesterday." <A> "Short drive" or "short trip" are both perfectly idiomatic. <S> A more colloquial expression for a short trip is a " hop " ( <S> see definitions under nouns and phrases), for example: <S> It's a short hop to the local store. <S> It is used as an informal way of referring to any short journey, especially one you might make regularly. <A> Aside from words mentioned in other answers, like "trip" and "drive", you might also hear it simply as: <S> Yesterday I drove from Brooklyn to Queens. <S> The distance might often be implied by context, i.e. the listener is familiar with the places, and the distance between them. <S> If you didn't expect they'd be familiar, you might actually say something like (if you really wanted to express the idea of it being a short distance): <S> Yesterday I drove from Brooklyn to Queens, which isn't too far. <S> Or, as said by @Astralbee, you might describe it as a "short" trip or drive.
| Going a bit further, if you were known to be somewhere specific at the time you started traveling to the destination, you might just omit the point of origin altogether and simply say you made a short drive to your destination. Yesterday I made the short hop from Brooklyn to Queens in my car. That is called a drive. When speaking about a regular journey that you make, such as a daily commute to work, it is idiomatic to refer to any hop/trip/journey using the indefinite article, for example:
|
"advocate xxxism" or "advocate for xxxism"? (where xxxism is an ideology, e.g. Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, Platonism, Communism) "advocate xxxism" or "advocate for xxxism"? (where xxxism is an ideology, e.g. Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, Platonism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism) <Q> The verb to advocate is normally transitive . <S> That's to say it takes an object (the thing being endorsed / defended) without needing a preposition. <S> The full OED does specifically mention intransitive use - essentially, exactly the same as usual, except that the object takes an explicitly specified preposition (usually for ). <S> Note that it's relatively uncommon to include for if the object is an idea / philosophy being promoted, but it's quite natural to say things like <S> He advocated for the victims (or ...on behalf of the victims), where the object is "beneficiaries", rather than "ideas". <S> See this NGram , showing that when advocate is a verb (as in <S> He advocated [ for ] civil rights ) <S> there's normally no preposition. <S> But see this NGram showing that when it's a noun (as in He is an advocate for / of civil rights ), we do include a preposition (usually, for ). <S> In short, you don't normally want a preposition between (verb) advocate and thing advocated , but you do need one if it's a noun usage, or the object of the verb is a reference to whoever / whatever benefits (by having their cause advocated). <A> You can see the definition here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advocate "Advocate" can be used a verb or a noun. <S> In the verb sense, you would "advocate xxxism", or "advocate for xxxism". <S> With regards to the difference between the two verb senses. <S> I advocate xxxism. <S> This sounds (moreso than using "for") <S> like you are suggesting the application of xxxism in a particular situation. <S> E.g.: <S> I advocate xxxism, it will solve this in no time. <S> On the other hand: I advocate for xxxism. <S> This is closer to saying that you advocate on behalf of xxxism; it sounds less like you are directly recommending the application of xxxism, and more that you are advocating to further the cause of xxxism. <S> It has a more general feel to it. <S> With regards to ideologies, I feel the noun form would usually represent the appropriate usage: <S> I am an advocate of xxxism. <A> I would use: advocate of [some ism or other noun denoting a field]or <S> [some ism or other noun denoting a field ] advocate. <S> Making an adjective of a noun is common in English. <S> For example: social justice advocate, advocate of social justice or advocate for social justice <S> social justice advocate advocate of social justice and advocate for social justice <S> Likewise, advocate of Marxism, Marxism advocate or advocate for Marxism Bear in mind that <S> the use of for implies: on behalf of [some ism or idea], more specifically. <S> communism, socialism and capitalism are not proper nouns and do not require a capital letter. <S> He advocates for immigrant rights , is a verb. <S> But for does not always require a verb. <S> He is an advocate for human rights.
| In the noun sense, to describe something/someone as an advocate, you would use "advocate of xxxism".
|
Why is it “Cat in the Hat”? Shouldn’t it be “Hat on a Cat” instead of "Cat in the Hat"? The hat is sitting on the cat. If it was a cat in a hat, it seems like the cat would be completely in the hat. <Q> Presumably, you are talking about this cat: <S> If not, that's OK. <S> Hat on a cat describes a hat being atop a cat, as you say. <S> Cat in the hat can mean what you describe, the cat being inside the hat (e.g. the cat being inside a much larger hat). <S> However, there is a different usage of in here: in 9. <S> preposition <S> If you are dressed in a piece of clothing, you are wearing it. <S> He was a big man, smartly dressed in a suit and tie. <S> ...three women in black. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> In other words, we can use in [article/piece of clothing] to mean that someone or something is wearing the clothing. <S> So we understand that the cat is wearing the hat, like above. <S> This usage of in is common: the man in the red shirt the girl in the skirt <S> the boys in blue <S> * <S> [= <S> the boys wearing blue attire ] the baby in the skeleton costume <S> * <S> As @ShadowRanger mentions, the cops are sometimes referred to as the boys in blue , but actually I had the Los Angeles Dodgers and their iconic white and blue uniforms in mind at first ( too soon!! ). <S> Regardless, this broadly applies to anyone in any color clothing. <S> The context will make the meaning clear. <A> The other answers do a fine job explaining how the you can use in to describe someone wearing clothing. <S> However, there is another difference between the two alternatives you give that I would like to highlight. <S> When using the phrase without the context of a sentence (e.g. as the title of a book) this is a simple matter of which of the two you want to focus on. <S> However, when using the phrase as part of a sentence, this becomes a lot more relevant. <S> Consider the following two sentences: <S> The cat in a hat is black <S> The hat on the cat is black <S> The first sentence is about a black cat wearing a hat. <S> The second sentence is about a cat wearing a black hat. <A> You can also use in to mean dressed or attired in something . <S> I would expect this usage came from French. <S> the man in the suit <S> the woman in the pretty sun dress a boy in a bathing suit <S> the girl in an orange wig <A> Also, in the story, there are a series of recursive cats in corresponding hats. <S> A cat's hat in that context is actually the hat belonging to their host cat, which they are in fact positioned entirely within. <S> Not for nothing. <A> The Cat: Because it's a specific cat having a specific identity and/or personality. <S> If it were about any cat, it would be A Cat . <S> In: Because he's wearing it. <S> If you are wearing an article of clothing you are dressed in that article of clothing. <S> On a cat means the hat is sitting on top of a cat but the cat isn't wearing it. <S> The cat just happens to be existing underneath the hat. <S> It would not have the same meaning. <S> It must be In because the cat is wearing the hat, not just sitting underneath it. <S> The Hat: <S> Because the hat is also special. <S> If it were just about a cat that wears any of a number of different hats it would be called The Cat <S> In A Hat . <S> But this book is about a specific cat and a specific hat.
| The phrase "cat in the hat" focuses on the cat (who is wearing a hat), while the phrase "the hat on the cat" focuses on the hat (which is being worn by the cat).
|
Can "marriage" be used as a verb? In the movie Love, Actually there is this quote: "Beautiful Aurelia, I've come here with a view of asking you to marriage me." However, I've learned that 'marriage' can be used as a noun, not a verb. Similarly, there are other quotes which are said by the same person, such as "of course I prediction you say no... ". I also have learned that 'prediction' can be used as noun, not verb.I am confused with this. <Q> In this scene in the film, Jamie is speaking broken Portuguese. <S> The English subtitles are deliberately also broken to indicate this fact. <S> "Marriage" is always a noun, never a verb. <S> The implication is that Jamie has made a similar error in his Portuguese speech. <S> Furthermore, "with a view of" is a rather awkward way of saying it. <S> "I've come here to ask you to marry me" is much more idiomatic. <S> Again, the implication is that Jamie's Portuguese is also awkward. <A> No, it cannot. <S> The use of it in this film is deliberately incorrect . <S> The words are not spoken in English in the original English language version of the film - they are spoken in Portuguese, and the English subtitles are meant to convey the idea that the character is speaking Portuguese badly. <S> I imagine that the comedy effect of this could be lost if the film were to be dubbed in another language, or if the entire film was subtitled in a different language and those watching did not notice that the character was speaking a different language in this section. <S> A similar use of "bad English subtitles" for comedy effect was used in the movie 'Four Weddings and a Funeral', also by Richard Curtis (the writer of 'Love, Actually') in which a character learns British Sign Language to communicate with a deaf person. <S> Instead of spelling "nice", they spell the word " mice ", which appears in a subtitle. <A> Marry is the verb. <S> Marriage is the noun. <S> Using one for the other is like saying "can you postage a letter?" <S> instead of "can you post a letter" ... <S> "Please replacement my book" instead of <S> "please replace my book" . <A> Not generally no. <S> it does seem that this is the real quote (you didn't mishear) <S> But it was probably done for a specific purpose. <S> Maybe it was part of a joke or the character is supposed to be stammering a bit, I don't really remember much of that movie. <S> So while the meaning is perfectly clear it is technically incorrect. <A> As with many things in English, the answer is "No, No, Yes, No." <S> No: <S> As per the rules of English, No, Marriage is not a verb, and shouldn't be used that way. <S> No: As per the traditions of English, there is a 'proper' way to ask that particular question, and in this case, it would be "Aurelia <S> , will you marry me? <S> " if you want to sound more loving or "Aurelia [Aurelia's last name], will do me the honor of becoming my wife? <S> " if you want to sound more pretentious. <S> Yes: As English is evolved language, not a managed language, technically there is only one true prerequisite for whether or not you can do something in English, and that's "Will English speakers understand you?" <S> Although worded very oddly, it is clear enough to be understood, and therefore it can, in fact, be used that way. <S> It will, however, cause lots of unintended connotations, however. <S> Depending on tone of voice, it could come across as idiotic, false archaic, or simply unknowledgeable. <S> No: <S> As far as intent of statement and desired outcome, due to connotations, it will likely fail, even if technical meaning is conveyed. <S> (Note: In the context mentioned in the original post, it was meant to demonstrate the difficulty in speaking the language.)
| Marriage proposals in English are generally questions and not statements.
|
When should we use "Got it?" and "Get it?" I started learning english. Often we hear "Got it?" sentence. So I'm confusing following two sentences. When should we use one over the other? 1) Got it? 2) Get it? Thank you. <Q> “Got it?” <S> could be a question about whether a physical object has been obtained. <S> Ex. <S> : I hand the coat to you. <S> You’ve got it. <S> It could also be asking whether you understand something that has already happened. <S> Ex. <S> : <S> You explained to me how to get to the library. <S> I got it. <S> “Get it?” <S> might be a question about understanding something happening now. <S> Ex. <S> : I am explaining to you the differences between these two questions. <S> Do you get it? <S> It can also be about generally understanding something but not at any particular time. <S> Ex. <S> : <S> Do you understand the rules of chess? <S> Do you get it? <S> Also it could be used in the same way as “Got it?” <A> "Got" is the past tense of the verb, and "get" is the present tense. <S> Except that the past tense is irregular (it is "got," not "getted") <S> this works the same as for any other verb. <S> Note that "to get it" has two different meanings: the literal meaning of "to have some physical object" and also the meaning of "to understand something". <A> Get/got = to understand. <S> [Do you] get it? <S> Meaning <S> : Do you understand what I am saying or explaining to you. <S> Often expressed as: <S> Get it? <S> Present tense. <S> Now, for this meaning at a present time, we also use: <S> [Have you] got it? <S> Like this <S> : "Got it?" <S> So both can be used to mean: understand something at a time in the present. <S> So, the reason either one can be used is that get is present but the present perfect (have you got it?) <S> refers to the present time and when used as Got it? <S> means understand, also. <S> Do not confuse that with : Did you get [receive, buy, etc.] <S> it? <S> That is simple past. <S> And: Have you got it? <S> Which means: <S> Do you have it?. <S> Both those are present tense. <A> Only difference between them is the time. <S> while Got is the past tense form. <S> -I get the tools. <S> (I am moving to get it) <S> Present <S> -I got the tools. <S> (I already got it) <S> Past <S> Also in the meaning of understanding something: -I get what you mean by that. <S> (I understand it right now) <S> Present <S> -I got what you mean by that. <S> (I already understand it) <S> Past <S> Direct usage of get it / got it: -Did you get the tools? <S> No, I am going to get it. <S> (I am starting to move to get it) <S> Yes, I got it. <S> (I already got it) Also in the meaning of understanding something: -I explained to you how this machine works, you get it? <S> Yes, I get it. <S> (You understand it right now) <S> Yes, I got it. <S> (You understand it already) <S> There are perfect tenses which are tricky and also makes them look the same <S> but there is a little difference; <S> Get it? <S> -Me <S> and my father were going to fishing today <S> and he asked me; <S> Father: <S> Did you get the tools? <S> Me: <S> No, I didn't get it. <S> Father: <S> Than go, get it. <S> Yet offcourse we can always catch them with our bare hands. <S> Roar! <S> (acting like a bear punching fishes in the river) <S> Father: <S> Did you get the joke? <S> Me: <S> Yeah, I get it. <S> I will get the tools. <S> Got it? <S> -Me <S> and my father gone to fishing yesterday <S> and he asked me if I have got the tools. <S> -Than he started to act like a bear punching the fishes in the river and asked me if have got the joke... <S> -I said I have got the joke <S> and I am going to get the tools. <S> If you are talking about a close proximity timeline use GET ; <S> -Excuse <S> me <S> I didn’t quite get what you said right now. <S> Could you come again please? <S> but if you are talking about a long-past event use GOT ; <S> -Excuse <S> me <S> I haven't quite got what you said earlier this morning. <S> Could you come again please? <S> so a native speaker may not notice the difference between them <S> yet there is a big difference about the time we are talking about. <A> You have to get the difference: Got - Past Tense. <S> Get - Present Tense. <S> For example: When you say "I got it", that means that you already got that thing - <S> whereas "I get it" means that you get that thing now. <A> I think none of the (current) other answers are correct. ' <S> Got' is not always past tense. <S> From what I understand, you ask for either the phrase 'Got it?' <S> or 'Get it?' <S> as a confirmation after saying/explaining something. <S> In which case they are not part of a larger sentence and 'got' is not past tense . <S> " I need that report today. <S> Got it? " <S> or " I need that report today. <S> Get it? " are the same here. <S> Got it <S> is in this case short for " Have you got it " <S> and Get it is short for " Do you get it "; both meaning " Do you understand? ", and both being present tense. <S> In conclusion, you can use either one.
| Get is the present tense form
|
What does "notoriety" mean here? As you know the word "notoriety" often has a negative meaning: notoriety :the state of being famous for something bad. notoriety : fame for being bad in some way. But it seems notoriety has a posetive meaning here: Basically, notoriety administration is the process that is carried out keeping in mind the end goal to track the notoriety of your organization. https://belowthelinemarketing.com/about-btlmg/what-is-notoriety-management/ Or here: Bernays went on to pull off these kinds of cultural coups regularly throughout the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s. He completely revolutionized the marketing industry and invented the field of public relations in the process. Paying sexy celebrities to use your product? That was Bernays’s idea. Creating fake news articles that are actually subtle advertisements for a company? All him. Staging controversial public events as a means to draw attention and notoriety for a client ? Bernays. Pretty much every form of marketing and publicity we’re subjected to today began with Bernays. ( Everything is F cked* by Mark Manson) I wonder why "notoriety" has a positive meaning in marketing and branding area. And what does it mean here? Fame?could you please explain it to me? <Q> The definitions you give are somewhat incomplete. <S> From Merriam-Webster's definition of notoriety : : the quality or state of being notorious From its definition of notorious : : generally known and talked of <S> // <S> iron is a notorious conductor of heat — <S> Lewis Mumford As you can see, this does not mean something negative. <S> It is correct, however, to think that notorious often is used when talking about something negative. <S> The definition of notorious continues with this: especially : widely and unfavorably known // <S> a notorious gangster // <S> an area <S> notorious for soot, smog, and dust — <S> Pliotron <S> But the fact that notorious means something negative in those examples is made apparent from context. <S> In one, notorious is followed by gangster ; in the other, notorious is followed by soot, smog, and dust . <S> Even if we tend to think of <S> notorious and notoriety in more of a negative sense by default, they can still be given an explicitly positive meaning by associating them with something positive <S> : Florida is notorious for its warm beaches. <S> Charities are notorious for their goodwill. <S> The woman gained notoriety and acclaim for her generosity. <S> If it seems odd to hear those words being associated with something positive, you don't need to use them in that way yourself. <S> However, people do associate the words with positive things in some cases; it's just not as common as associating them with negative things. <S> So, if you see the use in association with something positive (or neutral), it might be a little unusual, but it's not actually wrong. <A> I wonder why "notoriety" has a positive meaning in marketing and branding area. <S> And what does it mean here? <S> Fame? <S> could you please explain it to me? <S> This is less of a language question than a marketing question; even in the quotes that you've pulled, it is being used with the negative connotation, so you're right about the definition. <S> However, it's a bit of a marketing cliché that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" , because even negative attention can increase awareness of a product. <S> In the art world this is sometimes referred to as succès de scandale . <S> In a new study from Stanford Graduate School of Business, researchers say in some cases negative publicity can increase sales when a product or company is relatively unknown, simply because it stimulates product awareness. <S> [...] <S> The research indicates that new entrants may have little to lose when it comes to publicity of any kind — the key is simply to get seen. " <S> Smaller [motion picture] producers," the authors write, for example, "may want to allow, or even fan, the flames of negative publicity." <S> Indeed, bad press, they suggest, may even serve as a form of direct marketing that can "slip under the radar" and be unrecognized as such. <S> https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good <S> The cliché obviously isn't universally true. <S> Some bad press can be harmful, especially to more well-established businesses or when exceedingly negative. <S> But overall, it is a well-known adage and occasional marketing strategy. <A> Notoriety does not have positive or negative connotations. <S> It's all about context... <S> Now, this definition does also say "especially : widely and [unfavourably] known" . <S> Which has come about because of common use. <S> I.e. we talk about criminals being notorious for [cutting up their victims/leaving a calling card/escaping from prison]. <S> This means that the word now if often viewed as negative (as in the definitions OP have provided). <S> My answer is backed up by this word of the day from alphadictionary : <S> [Notoriety is] a good example of the difference between a word and its usage. <S> Notoriety by itself simply means "famous, well-known"; however, it is used most often to refer to that which is known for its bad qualities, such as a notorious criminal. <S> This makes the use of this word quite tricky since its connotations tend to be pejorative. <S> Notoriety is the noun for the adjective notorious. <S> It comes immediately from Latin notorius "well-known" from notus, the past participle of noscere "to get to know". <S> The original root word was Proto-Indo-European gno- "to know", which lost its initial G to become noscere. <S> It came to English in several forms, once the G changed, as expected, to K.
| Notoriety - is the state of being notorious which is just generally known and talked of.
|
What's the difference between words "tongue" and "lingua"? Dictionary.com definitions: tongue - the usually movable organ in the floor of the mouth in humans and most vertebrates, functioning in eating, in tasting, and, in humans, in speaking. lingua - the tongue or a part like a tongue Both words have the same meaning. Why is the word "lingua" almost not used in spoken language? And in what cases can the word lingua be used? <Q> "Lingua" is not an English word. <S> To my knowledge it is only found (in English) in the expression lingua franca which comes from Italian and refers to a "common language" between two or more groups of people. <S> It is a loan word . <S> "Lingua" itself is Latin, and this root is the basis for several English words like "language," "linguistics," "bilingual"; as well as scientific names in anatomy like "lingual artery." <A> lingua isn't used on its own, but the latin root is part of a lot of words. <S> sublingual - below the tongue <S> linguist - someone who studies languages bilingual - someone who speaks 2 languages linguine (or linguini) - a delicious pasta, that somehow relates to tongues. <A> The simple explanation is that in anatomy, latin terms are used (for adjectives "dorsal"= of the back, "ventral"= of the belly/front, "jugular"=of the throat, "ischemic", "sciatic", "cranial", ... ; or for parts, like "retina", "vena cava", "atrium", "vestibula", "cranium", ... ). <S> In English, you will find "lingua"/"lingual" almost exclusively used in an anatomy context, because there it's "proper". <S> One of the advantages of using Latin is that a first year's med (or bio) student starts from a blank slate (I'd say, tabula rasa ): <S> There's no imprecise, overlapping terminology, no confusing half-synonyms (no "tummy", "belly", "stomach" for generally the same region). <S> The other advantage is that (as lingua franca in classical learning) older & foreign language texts use exactly the same verbs and adjectives; important as much scientific research is published in English but not written nor read by native speakers. <A> I cannot think of any use of lingua however sublingual means under the tongue. <S> Sub means under or below and lingual means tongue. <S> The word tongue is not used for the anatomical structure alone. <S> For instance, the tongue of the shoe. <A> The noun lingua is not used (Is it even in an English dictionary?). <S> It's probably been made redundant in the formation of the English language from its ancestors. <S> Tongue is always used as the noun, and can mean "language" as well, for example <S> mother tongue <S> (the language one learned from one's mother). <S> On the other hand, the adjectival form lingual is used, meaning "related to the tongue". <S> Not common on its own. <S> Prefixed forms are more common, and can relate to both meanings. <S> Sublingual : under the tongue. <S> Bilingual : fluent in two languages.
| When referring to the anatomical thing, we always say "tongue" and never "lingua."
|
Meaning of "Turn aside from" What does this sentence/phrase mean? As they grow older, many children turn aside from books without pictures, and it is a situation made more serious as our culture becomes more visual. Does this mean: many children turn to books without pictures? Or many children turn to books with pictures? <Q> In a wider, figurative context, " turn aside from " can mean to abandon something, for example a course of action, either due to lack of interest or because of a change of heart, eg " he turned aside from his former ways ". <A> Like you said in your comment, it does mean the children move away from books without pictures. <S> The preposition should help you. " <S> From" indicates a starting point, a source. <S> So if they're moving away from books (or "turning aside from "), it means they stop reading those books (or don't want to). <S> "To" indicates direction, so it's directed to books, they're probably moving towards them (figuratively, so reading them more). <S> So even if you don't understand the expression, looking at the prepositions should give you a rough understanding of the sentence. <S> Here, " to turn aside from smth " means " to turn away from smth ", which is the exact opposite of " to turn to smth " <A> Does this mean: many children turn to books without pictures? <S> Or many children turn to books with pictures? <S> What the original sentence means is that many children don't like books without pictures - <S> this means many children like books with pictures (e.g., comics). <S> As children grow older, they lose interest in books without pictures. <S> Note that "turn to" is a phrasal verb meaning "to go to someone or something to get help with a difficult situation" (Cambridge) <S> "Turn aside" is a phrase. <S> From The Free Dictionary 1.To deflect something; to direct or divert something away. <S> A noun or pronoun can be used between "turn" and "aside." <S> Special shielding on the space shuttle's windows turns harmful solar radiation aside to protect the astronauts inside. <S> The president turned aside questions about his involvement with the company and changed the subject to matters of foreign policy. <S> 3.To reject or dismiss something. <S> They turned aside my entreaties to reverse their decision. <S> Unfortunately, we've had to turn a number of applications aside because the applicants did not follow the instructions correctly. <S> While no. <S> 3 seems very relevant, it has an implied sense of "deciding" that something is "not important and not worth considering. <S> " <S> Children are simple - they just don't like books without pictures (I don't think they make a conscious decision that those books are not important). <S> You can of course say that "children reject books without pictures" - that seems to be very direct though (e.g., after skimming a few pages for pictures, a child throws away the book realizing there are no pictures and starts to throw a tantrum). <S> 4.To divert someone or cause someone to deviate from some activity, course, or direction. <S> Having kids turned me aside from my ambitions as a writer, but I don't feel any regrets about it. <S> Don't let the promise of power or wealth turn you aside from your moral compass. <S> Also "turn something aside" is "to evade something." <S> Ann turned the awkward questions aside. <S> She turned aside the questions she didn't want to answer. <S> For your case, I think no. 4 fits best. <S> The absence of pictures in books turns children aside from reading them. <S> It simply means that children don't like to read books without pictures. <S> They lose interest quickly (if they have already started reading them) and tend to avoid them as they grow older.
| In your specific example, it seems to imply that children may lose interest in books without pictures, although this may perhaps mean they literally look away. "Turn aside" literally means to turn your head (or body) to one side, so as to either look away from something, or perhaps to face a new direction to look at something. "Turn aside from " something specifically means to look away from it.
|
What is the common term to express "your shorts are so sagging that people can almost see your butt"? What is the common term to express " your shorts are so sagging that people can almost see your butt "? My little child is wearing shorts & the rubber band of the shorts is so weak that it can not hold the shorts up. So the shorts are a little sagging on my child butt & everyone can almost see his butt. Can I say " you are wearing sagging shorts with butt up " or some common term that native people often say to express that situation.? <Q> Funnily enough, you used the word yourself: sagging (also "low-riding"). <S> From Wikipedia : <S> Sagging is a manner of wearing trousers or jeans that sag so that the top of the trousers or jeans are significantly below the waist, sometimes revealing much of the underwear. <S> Sagging is predominantly a male fashion. <S> Women's wearing of low-rise jeans to reveal their G-string underwear (the "whale tail") is not generally described as sagging. <S> It has become popular since the popularity of wearing brightly colored and patterned "boxer shorts". <S> Sagging first peaked in popularity during the 1990s and remained popular into the mid 2000s, but it has recently made a comeback in the 2010s, with celebrities like Justin Bieber, Liam Payne, Ross Lynch, Zac Efron and more bringing back the fashion trend. <S> Sagging in the 1990s usually focused on baggy trousers with plaid boxers, but in the 2010s sagging has become popular with skinny jeans and branded boxer-briefs. <S> In this usage, it's a verb that describes the action of the person wearing the pants. <A> Perhaps "low slung", this tends to be a style choice by teens, to wear jeans with the waistband low perhaps showing the waistband of their underwear (but not so low that their butts show) <S> There are no specific words, you would make up your own sentence. <S> In many cases you would leave part of the sentence unspoken . <S> "Jonny! <S> We can see your butt!" <S> (implying from the context that the reason is that the rubber is weak etc.) <S> When talking to little children, families often develop their own expressions: "Jonny, you're wearing your falling-downers again." <S> For an adult you would not normally mention anything. <S> However there is the "workman's bum" (butt-crack exposed by a fat man bending over) <S> So there is no "common term" <S> but you could use a sentence like the one you suggested. <A> I would say, 'You have plumber's butt.' <S> This is a situation like you describe, where the pants are so low in the back that anybody can see the top of the bare behind of the person wearing them, especially when the person is bending over. <S> I don't know why plumbers are named in relation to this condition. <S> It certainly happens with others, but maybe it's because they bend over so much as part of their job.
| A person wearing sagging trousers is sometimes called a "sagger", and in some countries this practice is known as "low-riding". For a little child you would just say "Jonny, your shorts are falling down" or some similar expression.
|
Do these changes of the location of commas in a dictionary make the meaning dif from the original? Does the location of commas in the original explanation (,or not ~ of,) indicate the phrase between them is not neccessary?I wonder whether the change of the location of commas below affects on the original meaning or not~ Ex) 'Deficiency' : The state of not having, or not having enough of, smth that is essential The state of not having or not having enough of, smth that is essential. (Without the first comma) The state of not having or not having enough of smth that is essential. (Without any comma) <Q> The two commas make it clear that the first and last part can combine to make a full sentence. <S> The state of not having smth that is essential. <S> We know from the two commas that the above is part of the definition. <S> On the other hand: The state of not having or not having enough of smth that is essential. <S> This reads a bit too fast, and could also technically be interpreted as: <S> The state of not having something (regardless of whether it is essential or not), or, the state of not having enough of smth that is essential. <S> The other version you mentioned: <S> The state of not having or not having enough of, smth that is essential. <S> This does, in a sense, clear up the ambiguity of having no commas, but also seems a bit odd, due to what is now a very sudden break between "of" and "smth". <S> It would never be written this way. <A> But in this case, I don't think it does. <S> The commas here just add a "breathing pause". <S> Adding or removing them doesn't change the meaning. <S> This is not the same as commas that set something off as a non-restrictive clause, which DOES change the meaning. <S> I remember when I was a kid in school there was an example of this at a political convention. <S> The English teachers in my school all thought this was fun and exciting. <S> The party's platform included the sentence, "We are opposed to any tax increase which would harm economic growth." <S> A delegate proposed an amendment to add a comma before the word "which", changing it to, "We are opposed to any tax increase, which would harm economic growth." <S> Adding that comma changed the clause from restrictive to non-restrictive. <S> Without the comma, it says that they are opposed to tax increases that would harm the economy. <S> They are not opposed to all tax increases, just those that would harm the economy. <S> But with the comma, they are opposed to all tax increases, and the additional clause indicates that they believe that any tax increase would harm the economy. <A> The commas are there so that the sentence is interpreted as The state of not having smth that is essential or not having enough of smth that is essential <S> The commas are basically parenthetical. <S> It makes no sense to remove only the first comma and removing both commas prevents the parallelism. <S> However, even some native speakers misuse commas (because we cannot rely on our proficiency with speaking for help) <S> so there’s <S> actually a pretty good chance that the intended meaning would be understood anyway.
| Moving or removing commas certainly can change the meaning of a sentence.
|
Someone said to me, "We basically literally did." What were they trying to express to me? Someone said to me, "We basically literally did." What were they trying to express to me? Also, can basically and literally be used in the same sentence? My points to my language partner: Literally is an exaggeration and basically is a simplification Exaggerations do not go with simplifications as a general rule oflanguage Basically and literally cannot coexist at their core definitions My language partners' point: Colloquially they are be used together It's slang use <Q> The pairing of "basically literally" is very colloquial/informal and skews young. <S> I hear it moderately frequently, mostly when people are recounting stories about personal interactions. <S> It means "I am emphatic that my description conveys an accurate feeling of a moment/interaction, but it isn't literally true--I am exaggerating or simplifying for story effect. <S> " <S> I would say a slightly more formal translation of "basically literally" would be "pretty much actually," or even just "pretty much." <S> Edited to add: This is an Am. <S> E. perspective. <S> I agree with commenters who say that "essentially" is also a good translation. <A> I'd translate this as "this is actually exactly what we did". <S> The apparent contradiction in meaning resolves to "you might have expected us to do something similar, but we actually did exactly that, not merely something similar". <A> I agree with Em. <S> that recently, "literally" has been used primarily for emphasis, especially by younger people. <S> However, in cases where it is used for emphasis, I find you can drop it without changing the meaning of the sentence at all. <S> In response to "Can you go pick up some bread?", "I literally just got back from the store" means the same as "I just got back from the store" (italics get the verbal emphasis). <S> My impression is that "literally" has been used as an emphasis filler so frequently that it has essentially lost meaning for some speakers, and I have a hunch that plays a role in the statement in question. <S> That said, I would read that statement to be equivalent to "We basically did", with "basically" carrying more weight than "literally" due to a much less frequent usage. <A> I agree with others that this is generally said by younger people for emphasis, exaggeration and creating excitement. <S> "Basically" means they are presenting the information in it's simplest form, cutting out detail, and getting to the bottom line. <S> A person will often begin a summary of some happening or event with, "Basically, ...". <S> It can be used for exaggeration, or humour, as it allows the speaker to omit certain details, which can distort the context. <S> In saying "literally" the person means to express, "I'm not exaggerating, though it may sound like it!" <S> (Though this can of course be said in situations where the person is actually exaggerating.) <S> An example of this would be someone saying something like: <S> I literally slipped over in the middle of the bar in front of everyone! <S> So "basically literally" could be understood to mean something like: <S> In the most basic sense, yes, this actually did happen! <A> It's difficult to give a proper answer without further context. <S> We need to know what exactly it is that they are saying they did. <S> It's possible, as in other answers, that literally is just being used as an intensifier, as you have assumed. <S> However, it is also possible it is being used in its original meaning. <S> My default interpretation would be that "basically literally" is synonymous with "almost exactly. <S> " <S> As such, the sentence would be equivalent to <S> "That's almost exactly what we did!" <S> The point would be to say that, whatever was just described is very close to what they previously did.
| "Basically" is tantamount with "roughly" while "literally" is pretty much "exactly, to a T".
|
What's the second d in "didn't", phonetically speaking? Should we pronounce the second d in "didn't"? What happens to the sound, phonetically speaking? In British English it seems to merge with the n to produce something which isn't on the standard phonetic chart- as far as I can tell. <Q> "Didn't" has two syllables according to Webster's Dictionary. <S> For the first syllable, pronounce "did" as you normally would. <S> For the second syllable, pronounce "not" but without a vowel sound. <S> This is a nasal sound followed by a stop with the tip of your tongue on your front teeth. <S> Run these sounds together as quickly as you can <S> and you have "Didn't". <S> To answer your question, you should pronounce the both d's in "Didn't". <A> When two consonants make a distinct sound it is called a consonant digraph , but I don't think that's what you have here. <S> There is a transition between the d and n in ' didn't ', and that transition sound varies depending on dialect. <S> The two letters are not forming a diagraph. <S> The "n't" part of this, or any other word (*can't, don't, won't etc) does have a slightly different pronunciation in British English to American English - although within both there are many more regional variations of dialect that might disprove any such rule. <S> If you listen to the audio examples provided by Cambridge, you will notice that the British pronunciation appears to have a vowel sound in there, making the transition between the d and n in "didn't" a little like those in the word hidden . <S> As stated, this is just a different transition between the two letters and not actually the two letters forming a diagraph. <A> It is a nasally released stop , marked in IPA with a small subscript 'n' (unicode <S> U+207F). <S> I doubt that any dialect has a glottal stop in that context.
| "Didn't" is, of course, a contraction of "did not".
|
"Have been to" and past events I'm always having trouble to construct sentences with Present Perfect which ask about events in the past. I want to ask "During the time that you lived in Siberia did you ever pay a visit to the North?" How can this be done with "have been to" ? Have you ever been to the North while living in Siberia? Have you ever been to the North during your life in Siberia? I know that I can't use "when" because it implies the Simple Past which doesn't line up with Present Perfect. <Q> A journalist is interviewing someone IN Siberia: <S> Have you ever been to the North while living in Siberia? <S> Have you ever been to the North during your life in Siberia? <S> Both those mean the same thing. <S> They both imply the person is still in Siberia. <S> Both are fine, both are grammatical. <S> Contrast that to: <S> Did ever go to the North while living in Siberia? <S> Did you go to the North during your life in Siberia? <S> That means the person is not longer in Siberia. <S> while living in Siberia means the same thing as during your life in Siberia. <S> The present perfect implies a connection to the present time and that the speaker is in Siberia. <S> If I ask you: <S> SP 1- <S> Have you ever spoken English in public? <S> [that implies a connection to the present time. <S> To the time (NOW) that I am asking you.] <S> SP <S> 2- <S> Yes, I have . <S> SP 1 - <S> When did you do that? <S> SP 2 - A couple of weeks ago. <S> All this applies to AmE and BrE. <A> There is a good reason for having trouble constructing present perfect sentences about events in the past. <S> The present perfect simply is not about events in the past. <S> It's about states in the present. <S> A state in the present can imply an event or an action in the past, of course, but so do many other things. <S> If I understand your context correctly, you know someone who used to live in Siberia but now lives somewhere else. <S> His living in Siberia is a past-tense state. <S> His having been to the North during that time is also and necessarily a past-tense state. <S> The tense appropriate to this context is the past perfect: <S> Had you ever been to the North while living in Siberia? <S> If you want to know about his present-tense state, then the present perfect construction makes sense: Have you ever been to the North since living in Siberia? <S> The phrasing "since living in Siberia" might be interpreted as starting when he arrived there, or as starting when he left. <S> In either case, it represents a period of time that extends to the current moment. <S> It is a present-tense state. <S> It works with the present tense construction of the main clause. <S> Have you ever been to the North while living in Siberia? <S> This version of the question implies that he still lives in Siberia, or perhaps that living in Siberia is an established habit and you expect him to live there again. <S> The phrasing "while living in Siberia" has no tense of its own, but it exists within the tense of its main clause. <S> A past indefinite construction is appropriate: <S> Did you go to the North while living in Siberia? <S> The past tense event of going to the North is made explicit with the past indefinite construction, and implied by either the past perfect or the present perfect. <S> Given your context, you shouldn't use "have been to". <A> Have you ever been to the North while living in Siberia?Have <S> you ever been to the North during your life in Siberia? <S> These are both intelligible. <S> The second implies that the speaker has knowledge that the listener actually lived in Siberia, the first does not necessarily. <S> The first sounds a little bit stilted / awkward, so prefer the second - it is more natural. <S> (With the "ever", it can imply a sense of either expecting a yes, or emphasizing that you are asking about /any/ time the listener was living in Siberia. <S> But it only changes the feel, not the meaning.)
| If you really want to ask about past events or actions, you don't want the perfect aspect at all.
|
Difference between "human" and "people" What is the difference between them in this phrase? And Which one is not correct or are they both correct? These things happen. We are all human. These things happen. We are all people. <Q> When we talk about something that is human <S> we're typically concerned with rights, morals, or laws, or we're being scientific. <S> Person is much more informal and can roughly be considered as anything that you could use the pronoun "someone" instead of "something." <A> Both are correct <S> They both are grammatically correct. <S> The issue at hand is whether there is common understanding between the speaker and the hearer as to what is meant. <S> If it is generally understood that "people make mistakes" then it just means that they understand that you made a mistake. <S> If it is generally understood that "it's human nature to be imperfect" then it means that they didn't expect perfection from you. <S> In either case, it depends on the context and mutual understanding between the two parties. <A> Either will work, but the first is more common. <S> There are two idioms here: "People make mistakes", and "We're only human". <S> Both mean that people will often err, and that one should expect it. <S> The first sentence above is more consistent with the idioms, but most listeners will understand what you mean if you say the second. <S> By themselves: <S> "We're all human" - feels either neutral (the simple fact), or scientific (our taxonomic classification is human) or like we are focusing on our faults (only human, not more). <S> (We're all people, and therefore deserve _______).
| "We're all people" - feels like we are focusing on the dignity of each individual, or trying to include others as equals.
|
How do you express duration in English? Is this sentence correct? I can't breathe properly about 3 days. <Q> No . <S> I guess you're trying to say " I haven't been able to breathe properly for three days. " <A> "I haven't been able to breathe properly for about three days." <S> More native <S> then that would be: <S> "I haven't been able to breathe well for about three days now." <S> or "I've been having trouble breathing for almost three days!" <S> "About" can mean "approximately". <S> "Now" is randomly inserted at the end of sentences which have previously mentioned times, sometimes. <S> It doesn't have any meaning. <S> If you instead meant to figure out whether or not "about" is the right word to describe a time frame: Is isn't. <S> "About" can mean "approximately," but if you weren't trying to say "approximately" thrn about is very, very incorrect. <S> You might say: "I haven't been able to breathe properly FOR three days." <S> (Note that the word "for" is also included in my prior examples.) <S> "I haven't been able to breathe properly SINCE Wednesday. <S> " <S> (In this case, you have to say the specific name of a day, such as Wednesday, or you can say a date, such as November 25th. <S> You can also say a specific time like 3pm, a specific month or a specific year.) <S> "I haven't been able to breathe properly SINCE five hours AGO." <S> (This sentence works when using hours or minutes, but it is not okay to say when using days. <S> In some sentences, saying "since five hours ago" will sound strange. <S> In other sentences, it would be one normal way to say this. <S> In both cases, it is still a correct way.) <S> "I haven't been able to breathe properly STARTING three days AGO." <S> "I haven't been able to breathe properly EVER SINCE some other event occured. <S> ""I haven't been able to breathe properly EVER SINCE I ate that tuna casserole." <S> ("Ever" does not mean anything in this sentence. <S> It is merely part of the term "ever since" and it does not have any independent meaning.) <S> "I haven't been able to breathe properly FOR THE LAST five hours. <S> (This can be used with hours, days, minites, years, or any other amount of time. <S> However, in the context of breathing, it makes the most sense to use this term with hours or minutes, because breathinv trouble is an immediate-issue, and is not normally a days-long issue.) <A> I can't breathe properly about 3 days. <S> This statement is (aside from other syntactical errors) in the present tense, so it doesn't make sense to put a time frame on it.
| You would say: I haven't been able to breathe properly for about three days.
|
Can I freely use 'here is' instead of 'there is' if I'm in the place where that thing is? Here are a few good affordable diners where I live. If a speaker is in the place in which what they talk about is, they can use both 'here is' and 'there is' structures, can't they? <Q> No. <S> Anytime a location is stated, we use "there is...," even when the location is the word "here": <S> There are a few diners where I live. <S> There are a few diners here. <S> "Here is" already includes a location, and no other can be specified. <S> It presents or introduces something that should be visible or perceptible to the listener in the moment. <S> Here are a few diners. <S> (Suggests you can see them, and are showing them to the listener.) <S> Here's your pizza. <A> This usage confuses the use of 'there' as a pronoun with its use as an adverb. <S> This difference is described on MacMillanDictionaryOnline <S> In your sentence you're trying to substitute 'here' for 'there'. <S> This works when 'there' is used as an adverb. <S> In the following examples, 'here' and 'there' are adverbs modifying 'to have'. <S> We have a few good affordable diners there . <S> We have a few good affordable diners here . <S> In your example, with the word 'there' in that position, it is actually a pronoun for 'diners'. <S> This is a common construction in English, particularly when the verb is 'to be'. <S> another ways of writing what you're saying is Where I live are a few good, affordable diners. <S> You don't hear sentences like this by themselves very often, though. <S> This sounds like part of a longer idea and leaves the native speaker expecting something else. <S> It sounds like you are introducing the idea of the diners so you can say more about them. <S> Where I live are a few good, affordable diners. <S> I like to take my friends to them. <S> So, if you want to just state the existence of the diners as an idea by itself, you introduce the subject of the diners using the pronoun, 'there'. <S> There are a few good, affordable diners where I live. <S> Where I live, there are a few good affordable diners. <S> There is one context in which this construction will work. ' <S> Here is/ here are' is used when pointing out something nearby, or giving someone an object to look at. <S> You are looking at the place you live on a map or somehow pointing it out to someone, and you are telling them that there are a few good, affordable diners there, as a way of describing the place. <S> Adding a comma to the sentence makes this meaning clear. <S> Here are a few good, affordable diners, where I live. <A> Here are in "Here are a few good affordable diners where I live. <S> " is being used deictically. <S> That basically means referentially. <S> Another example: <S> Here come the players! <S> [out of the stadium locker room] <S> It implies you are pointing to or otherwise indicating the diners, on a map, for example. <S> Deixis in English can get very complicated. <S> COMPARE here is/are to there is/ <S> are <S> There is/there are are for general statements of any kind but do not have a deictic function. <S> deixis <A> “There is” can do the same, but it can also inform the listener that something exists.
| “Here is” informs the listener of something’s location.
|
Can I say "guess what" to acknowledge new information? I can't remember where I got this from, but it feels deeply correct to me. However it caused a misunderstanding in a chat, and after googling the usage and not finding anything I'm suspecting I might be using it wrong. So in my mind, given the right context "guess what" can be equivalent to "Oh, interesting, who'd have thought that". Like in Them: Did you hear about it, Adam and Eve got married today. Me: Guess what! So I'm saying "guess what" to express my feeling of surprise, not because I actually want them to guess something. Is this usage valid? <Q> It is the other way around. " <S> Guess what! <S> Adam and Eve got married today." <S> Guess what! <S> Adam and Eve got married today. <S> No kidding! <S> See Merriam Webster: —used to show surprise or interest in what has been said <S> "My brother got engaged last month." <S> "No kidding! <S> That's great news!" <S> Edit: Lambie raises an interesting point about punctuation marks. <S> In writing a question mark following "guess what" is indeed common, but I wouldn't call the exclamation mark a mistake. <S> In speech it is rarely if ever uttered in a rising tone. <S> The fact that the exclamation mark is also not uncommon in writing reflects this. <A> Examples include: <S> "You'll never guess what happened today!" or " Guess what I saw today!" <S> The way you are using it is not native and most people may not understand what you are trying to convey. <S> If you want to convey surprise, you might try: " <S> Oh wow!" or "You don't say!" <A> No - "guess what" is not an expression of surprise. <S> You may be thinking of "I never would have guessed!" <A> No, but you can say: "Huh." <S> (very different intonation to "huh?") <S> "How about that... <S> " "Really!" <S> "You're kidding [me]!" <S> And since I'm Australian I have to provide the obligatory: <S> "b**ger me" <A> I'm British, and to me it would sound like a mildly sarcastic way of expressing that something set up as a surprise is not actually all that surprising.
| To show your surprise, you can use "No kidding!" As a Native English speaker, we usually use the phrase "guess what" to introduce a new piece of information, usually to challenge the person we are speaking with to attempt to tell us what we are about to tell them.
|
Can "Have to" be used where there is no compulsion, e.g "...let's listen to what he has to say about the issue" I have been reading something that gives info about how various faiths answer to a question about the animals. The author makes a research and gives what some faiths say about the issue. And the text has the following sentence: " Among other religions, mormons have a clear position, declaring that yes of course animals can go to heaven. Here’s what a few other faiths have to say about the issue.............. When I was reading, the use of " have to " has caught my attention. We know that it is a modal and is used like " must ". And it requires some outside compulsion or obligation. So far so good. However, in the above sentence, there seems to be no obligation or compulsion at all. The author simply shares what various faiths say and the faiths say various things just like a person shares his ideas. So there is not any forced or compulsive situaiton here, and no obligation either. So, why is it ". .. Here is what other faiths have to say about the issue ..." instead of "...Here is what other faiths say about the issue ?" Thanks <Q> "Have to" is being used in this case to explain that faiths literally have a statement to give, not that there is an obligation for them to say it. <S> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have : to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement <S> It might be easier to understand with something other than speech: <S> Alice: <S> The church on main street has gifts to give out for the holiday season. <S> Bob: Oh that's nice! <S> What do other charities around here have to give out? <S> The other charities don't have an obligation to give things out, they have gifts that they're giving out. <S> The faiths in your question don't have an obligation to say something (well, they might, but that's not what the sentence says), they have a statement to give out. <S> As for why they don't just drop the have to, it'd almost entirely a stylistic choice. <S> Perhaps someone else could wade in on that, or another question might be in order. <A> idiom: to have something to say about something. <S> [have an opinion about x] <S> I have nothing to say about the elections. <S> That just means you want to say something about the elections. <S> You have an opinion about them. <S> to have something to say about something is unrelated to: <S> to have to say something. <S> I have to say something about the elections. <S> [am compelled to say something about the elections or feel I must say something about them] <S> The other faiths have something to say = have an opinion they hold on the issue. <A> I think it's worth reproducing this comment to a question I asked on ELU some years ago regarding the two different meanings of have to X ( possess something for some purpose <S> X OR be obliged to do X )... <S> A minimal pair: <S> These are the things I have to play with <S> takes on two different meanings, depending on whether have is pronounced with an /f/ or a /v/ <S> Peter Shor Aug 13 '11 at 1:13 <S> Referring to the difference in pronunciation, the top-rated answer there points out that it's almost universal in standard English (to enunciate as haff / hat instead of <S> have / had where the "obligation" sense applies). <S> There shouldn't be any ambiguity in OP's examples, because pragmatically speaking the "obligation" sense is extremely unlikely to be intended (or indeed understood , except perhaps by some non-native speakers dealing with text ). <S> In the spoken form any ambiguity is dispelled by the pronunciation anyway (any sensible native speaker would always use the "hard consonant" versions if there was any risk of being misinterpreted, even if he didn't always do this in other contexts where there was no potential for ambiguity). <S> And in the written version you could either go for "eye dialect" <S> (actually write "haff / hat"), or more likely just use italics / boldface / underlining to indicate the intended "high stress" version. <S> TL;DR <S> : Unlike many learners, native speakers normally speak / hear English far more than they write <S> / read it. <S> And in this specific case, the net result is that we tend to think of these two different meanings as being conveyed by actual different verbs (that just happen to be <S> written the same way). <S> Thus we barely even notice the potential for ambiguity - which is easily resolved in most cases anyway.
| To have to say something means: to feel obligated to say something.
|
Death, taxes and depending on You for absolutely nothing Death, taxes and depending on (someone / something) for absolutely nothing . what does it means? (for absolutely nothing) <Q> It is an old joke turned into an insult. <S> The joke typically goes something like this: The only constants of the universe are death, taxes, and (fill in the blank with a funny constant). <S> In this case the person is insulting someone by saying they can and will never be able to depend on the specific person they are talking about. <A> I might be wrong, but I think that, given the mention to 'death and taxes' (it's said that these are the only things one can be sure of, because they always come) <S> the person speaking wants to indicate that being totally independent from his/her interlocutor (' <S> depending on you for absolutely nothing') is in the same line of certainty as death and taxes. <S> It creates a parallel by placing them all in line in the same sentence, so the equivalence is implied. <S> Something like saying 'as sure as death will eventually come to every living being <S> I don't (or will not, in the future) depend on you for anything. <A> Without more context, it's somewhat difficult to say for certain.... <S> but, in general, "for absolutely nothing" would generally mean the abscence/lack of dependence on someone else (for any need, purpose or otherwise). <S> To compare, a child can be said to depend on their parents for food and shelter. <S> In other words, children require support from their parents - in the form of their parents providing food and shelter.
| So in full the statement means something like this: "The 3 things that will never change in this universe are death, taxes, and my inability to count on you for anything"
|
What is the difference between scissors and shears? I never saw this word "shears", but I found it on the internet and I went to search the meaning of that. Well, if scissors and shears have the same meaning. Let me know how to use each one. <Q> The technical distinctions the other answers are giving might be true, but for the purpose of an English language learner, I think the most important distinction is that scissors is a very widely used term , and shears is a more specific, more technical term . <S> You're also more likely to hear "shears" with a clarifying adjective, like " pinking shears " or " trauma shears ". <S> In other words, most people are going to call anything with two pivoting blades "scissors", it is only within certain professions/hobbies (hair styling, sewing, crafting), that they bother to distinguish between different types of scissors, shears, or snips . <S> In sewing, for example, you might have specialized scissors like crafting scissors, pinking shears, embroidery snips, dress-making shears, or tailor's scissors. <A> Scissors and shears are essentially the same type of object - that of two sharp opposing blades with some sort of hinge mechanism. <S> Scissors <S> usually (1) refer to the hand held size implements of this type , with a hole on each handle - one for the thumb one for the finger(s). <S> It's important to note that the holes are not necessarily the same size or shape. <S> This depends on the ergonomic design of the scissors. <S> You can get left hand and right handed scissors where the blades are arranged so that you can see the surface of what you are cutting on top of the 'inner' cutting edge. <S> (sometimes also with grooved holes to make holding them more comfortable) <S> Usually (there are probably exceptions the holes are for thumb and one finger (eg for nail scissors), others can have a thumb hold and a longer loop for all four fingers opposite (paper scissors), and some have long loops on both handles so they can be operated either way round. <S> Shears <S> usually (1) refer to larger specimens of these implements , but without the thumb/finger holes <S> You would grip each handle with a whole hand Not a hard and fast rule! <S> There are obviously some exceptions here - particular sheep shears, which are hand held (among many other examples) <S> Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably - particularly I've heard kitchen scissors also being called kitchen shears Also note: I am quoting a UK dictionary, so there is probably some variation in location here too. <S> Edit: Although I have just had a thought that maybe it's the cutting angle?Scissors cut through something (paper, card, the end/middle of hair, Shears to cut something perpendicular to a surface (so to cut wool away from a sheep's skin, to shear your hair close to your head)? (1) <S> At least here in the UK this seems to be the case - mileage may vary <A> Merriam-Webster: <S> shear nounDefinition of shear <S> (Entry 2 of 2)1a(1): <S> a cutting implement similar or identical to a pair of scissors but typically larger —usually used in plural (2): one blade of a pair of shearsb: any of various cutting tools or machines operating by the action of opposed cutting edges of metal —usually used in plural Please see the pictures below. <S> In non-technical terms, shears are usually for cutting hedges or bushes or plants and require two hands when used and they look like this: <S> And scissors are like this and are used with one hand: <A> (Long blades relative to handle mean more cutting distance.) <S> "Shears" is more likely used when the handles are long compared to the blades, and are used to cut through thicker things, like cardboard or branches. <S> (Short blades relative to handle mean more cutting force.)
| "Scissors" is more likely used when the blades are long compared to the handles, and are used to cut through thin things, like paper.
|
What word do you use to describe a predator silently moving toward his prey while keeping its body close to the ground? I have semantic chaos in my head. 'Crawl', 'crouch', 'creep', 'cower' — those words come to my head when I'm thinking about a hunting, say, tiger. Often, when I need to express some meaning, a whole thesaurus (or something that feels like one) pops up in my mind instead of one specific and accurate word that I'm seeking. The problem is the words constituting such a thesaurus are melted together into a shapeless ugly clump in my head and it's difficult for me to separate them from one another. I can look them up in dictionaries but: 1) the knowledge doesn't last long, unfortunately; 2) often, dictionaries don't do a good job spelling out semantic and usage differences between words with similar meanings. "How can I fix this problem?" — this is your additional question you may not answer. The main question, in line with the title, is what should I write in place of the blanks. The tiger slowly approached the gazelle, ____ing, ready to attack at any moment. The tiger (slowly) _____ed to the gazelle, ready to attack at any moment. <Q> English is so lexically rich that it is frequently idiotic to say that X is the only suitable word. <S> In this case, a word that is certainly among those that fit is "stalk." <S> EDIT: <S> In response to the comment below, "crouch" does indeed imply being still, but it also implies a specific body posture. <S> " <S> Hide" and "lurk" also come to mind as implying stillness without implying a specific posture. <A> "Crouch" would be the most common word for a stalking animal in a still position, as in crouching tiger . <A> I think these are possible answers. <S> I will add references when I have the time later: stalking/stalked; creeping/crept; prepared to pounce; and poised to pounce/jump/attack .
| An animal moving whilst maintaining a crouching position is either stalking or possibly slinking .
|
Different phrase for “cash on delivery Can say different phrase instead of cash on delivery as is the case with sentence below. I am asking if it is correct or not grammatically. As I am not a native speaker sometimes I couldn’t find correct phrase. For example , Today I said this to an American native speaker and he understood me. He sent me package by cargo with payment that will be made by receiver. <Q> He sent me package by cargo with payment that will be made by receiver. <S> is intelligible, but sounds awkward. <S> People will understand exactly what you mean, but you will not sound like a fluent speaker. <S> The phrase "cash on delivery" or COD is idiomatic, and in American English we would always use it instead of some other words. <S> If you used other words, a listener might say "wait, let me make sure - you mean COD, right? <S> " <S> If you must use different words, you might consider something like: <S> He shipped me the package by cargo to be paid upon receipt. <S> or He shipped me the package by cargo pending payment. <A> If you use different words, the reader would likely interpret that to mean that you mean something other than cash on delivery. <S> Like in this case, if you said, "payment will be made by receiver", they'd probably wonder if you meant that the receiver will pay for it, but not at the time that they receive it. <S> That is, that they'll get a bill in the mail later. <S> Or something like that. <S> In general, when there's a common word or phrase for some idea, and you intend to convey that idea, you should use the common word or phrase rather than trying to invent a new one. <S> Otherwise, it leads the reader to think you must mean something else. <S> Like if instead of saying, "Bob went to the hospital" you said "Bob went to a big building where they provide medical treatment", a reader would likely think you must mean some sort of medical facility that is not a hospital. <S> Otherwise you would have just said "hospital". <A> "Payment on receipt" is synonymous
| "Cash on delivery" is a common, stock phrase.
|
Can "across" be used instead of "astride"? The lake is located across the border between the two cities. The lake is located astride the border between the two cities. I am trying to describe a certain lake that has a portion in one city and the remaining portion in the other city. I first created the first sentence but after googled, I am afraid that "across" in the first sentence may be misinterpreted as "on the opposite side of". According to my dictionaries, it seems that "astride" can be used in this case, but "astride" is unfamiliar to me, so I want to use a simpler word like "across" if possible. <Q> By using a word for a single location, you are missing the nature of what you are trying to express. <S> Rather than using a preposition, try using a verb: <S> The lake crosses the border between the two cities. <S> From Merriam-Webster's definition of the relevant sense of cross <S> : <S> 6 <S> a : to extend across or over : <S> TRAVERSE // <S> a highway crossing the entire state <A> Neither seems to really fit what you're trying to say, which is "the lake forms the border between two cities". <S> Or "the border between the two cities goes through the lake". <S> Astride is more of a "one foot here, one foot there" meaning. <A> I don't think it sounds right. <S> Here's why. <S> Literally , "astride" means with a leg on each side of . <S> For example, when a person is sitting on a bicycle, they might be said to be astride it, because one leg is on each side. <S> In your example of a lake, as a lake is at ground level (or possibly even below it), it doesn't seem right to say it is astride anything. <S> Further to that, I don't think it is idiomatic to say the lake is located across the border, either. <S> A location is a specific place , so saying that it has a location across <S> two places seems odd, even if it is gramatically correct. <S> I would say either: The lake is located on the border between the two cities. <S> OR <S> The lake lies across the border between the two cities.
| "Astride" is also used in its wider sense to describe anything that extends across something - for example, a bridge crossing a body of water.
|
Is it natural to use the verb "take" in the sense of borrowing something? Is it natural to use take in the sense of borrowing something. For example: Can I take your phone? If it fine, than is it more common to use take instead of borrow ? <Q> Can I take your phone. <S> In the right context, this could mean "borrow", but that does not mean the words are always interchangeable. <S> "Take" could mean taking something permanently. <S> It could also mean taking something along on a specific trip or journey. <S> For example, if I asked my daughter to go to the shops and she asked "can I take your phone" it would be clear that she was taking the phone to the shops and that she would return with it; but if a bailiff "took" your phone <S> it would be understood you weren't getting it back. <S> If the request was unprompted then the asker would almost certainly use "borrow" to establish what they wanted. <A> I think for borrowing (with permission from the owner) it is more common to use borrow . <S> Take refers more to taking the object permanently (without permission from the owner). <S> That doesn't mean that take <S> can never be used when it's intended to return the borrowed object. <S> E.g <S> Can I take your car to work? <S> Here it's fine to use take, since it's a temporary action (you don't take the car permanently, but only for a given amount of time). <A> It is uncommon to use take to indicate you are going to borrow something. <S> While take can be use to describe the part of borrowing where you gain posession of the item, it would be less clear that it will be returned.
| Take is the act of gaining posession of something and can include taking something permanently or taking something without permission.
|
park in/on/at the parking lot Are all sentences below correct? I parked in the parking lot. I parked on the parking lot. I parked at the parking lot. My understanding is that I can use "to park in" if the parking lot is indoors and "to park at" with any kind of parking lot, but I'm not sure if "to park on" is usual for both indoor and outdoor parking lots. <Q> When talking about a structure for holding cars, such as a lot, you park in . <S> "I parked in the lot." <S> "I parked in the parking garage." <S> You can also talk about parking on a surface or on a street/road. <S> "I parked on the concrete". "I parked on 4th Avenue." <S> "Parking on grass is not good for your car." <S> In this sense, saying you parked "on the lot" is also acceptable (but not as common) because the lot is a surface. <S> You never park on a parking garage or other fixed structure that your goes goes inside of. <S> You can also park at a location or destination. <S> "I parked at the store." <S> In this case, the store is your destination. <S> This is a more colloquial way of saying "I parked in the store's parking lot." <S> In the same sense, you could say you parked at a lot or a garage, since they are also locations. <S> "I parked at the lot on 5th Street." sounds natural. <S> The lot on 5th Street is a location that you parked at. <S> This can get even more complicated: If you parked in a parking garage located on 6th Street, you could say "I parked on 6th Street" and then clarify with "in the parking garage." <S> In some cases, all of these are interchangeable. <S> If a friend asks, "where did you park?", you could say "At the lot on 5th Ave" <S> OR "On the lot on 5th Ave" OR "In the lot on 5th Ave". <S> Any of these works because in this situation, the lot could be considered either a location or a surface/structure for cars. <A> I parked in the parking lot. <S> This is correct whether the parking lot is enclosed in some way or not (it doesn't matter). <S> The use of "in" here generally means "within the borders of". <S> This is also the same sense you would use when saying "I parked in a parking space" as well. <S> I parked on the parking lot. <S> This is not common usage for parking lots. <S> It's grammatically correct, but the use of "on" emphasizes the idea of "on top of", and most parking lots don't actually have a "top" <S> (they're open-air spaces with no roofs), so it seems a bit odd to say this. <S> However, it is common to say something like "I parked on the asphalt" or "I parked on the street", because those are flat things you can put a car on top of. <S> I parked at the parking lot. <S> This is also fine. <S> This is using "at" in the sense of a location which you went to <S> and then you parked there. <S> In general: "in" is the most common way to say this, and you can use it really any time you are inside of some area with well-defined boundaries (e.g. "in the parking lot", "in the yard", etc) "at" is also fine, and would not sound particularly strange in most situations. <S> "on" would sound strange to most people. <A>
| I think you use "to park in" both when it’s outdoors and indoors. I have never heard someone saying "to park at" or "to park on".
|
"a few weeks later" vs "after a few weeks" Tell me please which way of saying that after some time something happened: after some time or some time later ? For example: I hurt my back, but a few weeks later it got better. I hurt my back, but after a few weeks it got better. <Q> “After a few weeks it got better” - it got better slowly all the time; after a few weeks the total improvement was significantly better. <S> In the second case, you had a little bit of improvement every week, but it was still bad, just not quite as bad as initially. <S> In the second case, you didn’t feel any improvement until a sudden change. <S> If you read other answers, they don’t all quite agree. <S> Which means you should probably use more words to describe the progress more precisely. <A> Both are fine, though for the second example I would personally say: I hurt my back <S> but it got better after a few weeks. <A> I feel both phrases are incorrect, as they sort of imply that the back suddenly mended itself after a few weeks, as opposed to going through a healing process. <S> I would write it as: <S> I hurt my back, but it was better after a few weeks. <S> I much prefer the "after a few weeks" phrasing as it lends itself more readily to extension, e.g.: <S> I hurt my back, but it was better after a few weeks of rest and light exercise . <A> I hurt my back, but a few weeks later it got better . <S> I hurt my back, but after a few weeks it got better . <S> The first sentence is grammatically correct but in my opinion it is illogical since I understand it as "when a few weeks passed the back suddenly got better", which is not normal. <S> The second sentence is much better, yet it has that feeling to it that week after week it was healing until it got better. <S> I can suggest a third option: <S> I hurt my back, but in a few weeks it got better . <A> I hurt my back, but a few weeks later it got better. <S> I hurt my back, but after a few weeks it got better. <S> I would focus on the verbs: <S> I hurt my back, but it got better a few weeks later. <S> I hurt my back, but it got better after a few weeks. <S> They both mean the same thing. <S> I think putting the time period at the end is more natural in conversation. <S> Also, the verbs are more parallel like that. <S> I left school and moved away a few weeks later. <S> They stopped playing tennis and left town after a few weeks. <S> He drank too much beer and threw up a few hours later. <S> get better is a commonly used idiom to refer to feeling less pain after an injury or to mean the injury is healing.
| “A few weeks later it got better” - there was no change for some time, but a sudden improvement after a few weeks.
|
Simple chair anatomy? Do most people call it "the chair face"? This question is about " Simple chair anatomy? " Most people know what are " the legs or the back of the chair " I found this picture on the internet Look at the picture on the right. They call it " the face of the chair " which is the part of the chair that people sit on. My question is that: is " the face of the chair " a common term just like its counterparts " the legs or the back of the chair "? Most people say " the legs or the back of the chair " but I haven't heard " the face of the chair "? Could we say " Do not put your feet on the face of the chair "? <Q> Could we say " Do not put your feet on the face of the chair "? <S> We could, but no one would know what we were talking about. <S> The part of a chair that we sit on is called the seat, as your left-hand drawing indicates. <S> The clue here is the source of your right-hand drawing. <S> Notice that at the bottom are the words "I am Prikle. <S> " This is the title of a series of on-line comic strips, apparently now defunct (although the google will still find images upon request). <S> Because it's a comic strip, it's references are supposed to be humorous and are not to be taken seriously. <S> In fact, this particular "joke" may be intended as slightly off-color, but I'm far too old to either understand or be amused by online anything. <S> The only thing harder than properly understanding humorous language is spotting it in the first place. <S> By the way, Rowan is a line of chairs, and the title "Anatomy of Rowan" plays on the fact that many parts of chairs share names with body parts. <A> Most English speakers would be unlikely to immediately understand what was meant if it was referred to as the face. <S> Wikipedia's article on chairs has a section devoted to chair seats. <S> In the article it is only referred to as the seat. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair#Seats <A> The part of a chair, a stool, or an armchair on which you seat is called a seat . <S> A seat is the part you seat on because you seat on it. <S> There isn't any part of a chair that is referred to as " the face ".
| Calling it the face of the chair is highly unusual - this is the first I have heard it. The part of the chair on which you sit is almost exclusively called the seat of the chair.
|
meaning of "claim" in "claim asylum" If someone claimed asylum, did he necessarily receive it? I'm asking this because the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives the following sense of " claim ," among others: to gain, win or achieve something E.g. She has finally claimed a place on the team. In context, it would be unsurprising to find confirmatory evidence that the person got a place on the team. But I'm wondering whether that justifies listing the "to gain, win or achieve something" sense for "claim." After all, it is equally likely to find texts where "John asked for something" coexists with "John received something," but we wouldn't say one of the senses of "ask for" is "receive." I'd appreciate your help. <Q> From a Google search: <S> claim <S> (noun) a demand or request for something considered one's due. <S> "the court had denied their claims to asylum" <S> Generally speaking, you would hear of a person in this context as "seeking" asylum. <S> The word "claim" would be used (in the verb sense, corresponding to the noun form above), if the person believed, usually due to the laws of the country in which they are seeking asylum, that to be granted asylum is a right, or something they are owed. <S> In that sense, they believe they have already been offered asylum, i.e. by the country's law. <S> They are making a claim based on the promise of the law. <S> With regards to the "to gain, win or achieve something" definition, I don't believe that applies here (it's in a different section to the "demand legal right" section on the Oxford Learners Dictionaries site). <S> That definition to me, is quite abstract, but could be viewed in a similar way: <S> Where above I have said, "claim based on the promise of the law", someone earning a place in a team could be seen as being "based on the promise of being part of the team". <S> It refers more to opportunity than promise, which can be referred to as a "promise", but with the implicit understanding that it is abstract as opposed to literal, i.e. there are no guarantees. <S> It would be similar to saying something like: <S> He claimed his own version of the American Dream. <S> It's based on the promise of opportunity, and not a literal, concrete promise, but we can still use the word "claim" to describe the fulfilment of that. <A> Black's Law Dictionary: <S> What is CLAIM ? <S> 1. <S> A legal assertion; a legal demand; Taken by a person wanting compensation, payment, or reimbursement for a loss under a contract, or an injury due to negligence. <S> 2. <S> Amount a claimant demands. <S> This is a legal term. <S> It is not related to the win or achieve something meaning of the word claim. <S> claim: in a legal sense <A> A "claim" in this context is a "formally request". <S> Most countries that offer asylum have an application process, which tracks that request. <S> " <S> The claim" can then refer to their original application, or to the process. <S> As a "claim" can be with or without basis, in the context you are asking about (asylum) <S> the claim will be considered to see if it is valid or has basis in law. <S> The term for someone who has made a request, but has not yet had that request processed is an " asylum seeker ". <S> I believe the term for being given asylum is " granted asylum ": From Wikipedia : <S> "A person becomes an asylum seeker by making a formal application for the right to remain in another country and keeps that status until the application has been concluded. <S> The applicant becomes an "asylee" if their claim is accepted and asylum is granted ." <S> Your second example " she has finally claimed a place on the team " contains a slightly different meaning of "claim" - in this context it means to take up something that you have rightly earned. <A> Part of the problem here is that the word claim can both mean "actually secured the thing claimed" and "has asserted a right to the thing they want". <S> For instance, India has claimed Kashmir, but that doesn't mean they actually have it. <S> A person accused of a murder might claim self-defense, but that doesn't mean the court will accept that. <S> You have to try and tell from context which meaning is being used. <S> Claiming asylum is usually meant in the "asserted a right" sense; as lots of asylum claims are denied. <S> Someone wanting to indicate that the request had been accepted should specify that they were granted asylum. <A> I'm asking this because the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives the following sense of "claim," among others: <S> The key there is "among others"; you have to read the full set of definitions, not just one of them. <S> Your example is covered (literally!) <S> by definition 2 on that page. <S> Put abstractly, to "claim" something can be either: to retrieve/take/accept something that is offered to you pending your acceptance (e.g. football team place, misdelivered parcel, lottery winnings), or to request something or assert that something is yours (land, asylum). <S> Either way, your intention is to get a thing, but the semantics are slightly different depending upon your starting state.
| To claim asylum means to make a legal assertion of it or a legal demand for it.
|
Is something rated as Satisfactory implicitly better than other rated as Sufficient? What I mean by this question is: If I say I'm going to test some products and rate them: If I rate one as Satisfactory and other as Sufficient . Which of the two products is better? Is the Satisfactory one implicitly better? Does the order of the options make sense? Options: Very good Good Satisfactory Sufficient Bad <Q> Satisfactory and Sufficient seem to have very similar meanings. <S> I would not be able to distinguish between them. <S> Your list has the problem that four out of five options suggest "no action needs to be taken". <S> Using "satisfactory" suggests to some people "everything is okay" <S> but it suggests to others that "Improvements need to be made". <S> I would suggest (following UK government education guidelines) a four-part ranking: Outstanding <S> Good <S> Requires improvement <S> Inadequate <S> /Poor <S> The ranking "outstanding" means it is exceptional. <S> "good" means that there are no major changes needed. <S> "Requires improvement" means that it is "not good" and so "should be better" and so changes should be made. <S> Finally "inadequate" means that some things are seriously wrong and urgent changes must be made. <S> This scale has been shown to be well understood. <S> If a five-part scale is needed a "very good" could be inserted between outstanding and good (but it doesn't really make the scale easier to use) <A> Because they are different semantic categories of words, you can't rank sufficient on the same scale as good , satisfactory , or bad . <S> Consider the following: <S> "I see you can't even afford a cup of coffee. <S> Would $1.30 be sufficient ?" <S> "Yes, thank you. <S> If that's all you can spare, it will still get me what I need for the moment." <S> "I see you can't even afford a cup of coffee. <S> Would $1 million be sufficient ?" <S> "Absolutely! Not only will that get me my coffee, but it would be amazing!" <S> In both cases, sufficient is used to indicate the logical ability to accomplish a task—getting a cup of coffee. <S> What comes in addition to something being sufficient is how you feel about it: <S> It is sufficient but bad. <S> It is sufficient and satisfactory. <S> It is sufficient and very good. <S> From Merriam-Webster's definition of sufficient <S> : <S> 1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end // <S> sufficient provisions for a month <S> 1 b : being a sufficient condition As further examples of contrast, and the difference between these semantic categories, consider the following: <S> Your generous donations are very good and well received, but they are not sufficient to keep him fed for a month. <S> You have kept him prisoner and force-fed him. <S> That is very bad , but it was sufficient to keep him alive for a month. <A> These are called semantic differentiation scales in marketing and customer satisfaction questionnaires. <S> semantic differentiation <S> They work through opposite ends of a scale like: good/bad or satisfactory/unsatisfactory. <S> This group of words does not conform to a regular good/bad scale semantically as it uses the word sufficient, the opposite of which is insufficient, both of which refer to the idea of "being enough". <S> I would redo the scale like this: Very Good Good Average Below Average <S> Bad <S> Most scales when they follow the Likert 5-point method, use a neutral term in the middle of the scale. <S> Like this from that Wikipedia page: <S> Strongly disagree [Very poor or bad] <S> Disagree [Somewhat poor or bad <S> Neither agree nor disagree <S> [Neither poor or bad] Agree [good] Strongly agree [very good] <S> Editing the OP's we might get: Very good Good Not good or bad Poor <S> Very poor <S> Very goodGoodAverageBelow average <S> Very bad <S> I would not use this one:SatisfactoryAcceptableAverageUnacceptableNot Satisfactory, because it is difficult to do the five-point scale with it. <S> I would not use sufficient because its opposite is insufficient and those mean: not enough of something. <S> The "rule" for designing a five-point scale is that the end points have to be opposite in meaning and the terms on either side of the middle also should be opposites of each other. <S> The middle term should signify a neutral attitude from the customer or client or person answering the questionnaire. <S> This is the basic premise to keep in mind in designing a satisfaction scale. <S> The word sufficient (any dictionary will confirm this) means adequate or enough. <S> I don't believe the OP is testing whether the customer is receiving adequate [x] or enough of [x]. <S> Also, it does not fit the semantic scale. <S> And if the word were to be used, it would have to be paired with insufficient. <S> "Do you believe you receive proper attention from the company?" <S> Insufficient Not quite sufficient Average <S> Almost sufficient Sufficient <S> My example above shows use of the pair sufficient/insufficient and rates the idea of enough attention or adequate attention from a company. <S> And I actually am quite dissatisfied with it. <S> satisfied/dissatisfied would have been a better scale to use. <S> Likert model
| There is no emotional or normative judgment being placed on the word sufficient itself; either it meets the bar of accomplishing the task or it doesn't.
|
Can these be used interchangeably? I would like to know if the following expressions can be used interchangeably. just in case / out of caution / for caution’s sake / for the sake of caution / err on the side of caution . a. I took an umbrella just in case . b. I took an umbrella out of caution . c. I took an umbrella just for caution’s sake . d. I took an umbrella just for the sake of caution . e. I erred on the side of caution and took an umbrella. Thanks <Q> I largely agree with GrammarBoy's own answer (i.e., they all work), but would add a few comments: <S> " Just in case " is used for more casual decisions, or for situations where the risk is low. <S> As mentioned elsewhere, " just for caution's sake " and " just for the sake of caution " sound strange and overly wordy to me. <S> " I erred on the side of caution " is to call more attention to the decision process, and less to the actual decision itself. <S> Caveat <S> : I'm American; British English tends to have different connotations. <A> I emailed Charles Harington Elster, the author of numerous books on the English language, and Kathy Watson, who is also known as the Ruthless Editor. <S> They both said that all the choices are fine, but Mr. Elster added that [ for the sake of caution] and [ for caution’s sake] sound stilted, but not wrong. <A> These choices are grammatical and interchangeable. <S> But the point is that the choice (a) is the most common and natural. <S> There are some other phrases that are more common than the other alternatives expressed in the question presented, for example: as a precaution, for caution, in case of rain or in case it rains (if you want to protect yourself from rain).
| The " caution " phrases imply a larger impact if something goes wrong, and also (to me) imply a more thought-out decision.
|
Difference between “ratio”and “rate” Plastic materials with melt flow index at rate of 10 gr/10 min will be demanded in bulk by the producers. Plastic materials with melt flow index at ratio of 10 gr/10min will be demanded in bulk by the producers. What is the difference between ratio and rate in these sentences? Or Is there any difference ? <Q> Ratio is a dimentionless number (no physical units) obtained by division of variables having the same units of measure . <S> An example: signal-to-noise ratio (times or decibels). <S> Typically, rate shows the speed at which one of the variables changes when another one increases per its unit of measure (time, temperature, etc.). <S> So it's rate in your example ( <S> g/min is not a dimentionless number). <A> A ratio indicates how much of one thing there is compared to another. <S> The ratio of 5g of plastic to 3 containers... <S> When talking about an amount per unit of time, "rate" is more appropriate. <S> I don't know what the "melt flow index" is, but it seems to be a rate of 10g per 10 minutes <A> a ratio compares the amounts measured in the same unit and uses the conjunction to <S> There were 51 women to 49 men is a ratio. <S> Mix four parts gasoline to one part oil. <S> A rate expresses a faction and often uses the conjuction "per" 51% (ie 51/100) of the group were <S> womenthe fuel mix is one fifth oil.he was getting 50 miles per gallon. <S> now the original question as you're comparing dimensinally distinct measures it must be a rate. <S> however melt flow index seems to be an industry term that impplies that it is a rate already so saying Plastic materials with melt flow index of 10gr/10min will be demanded in bulk by the producers. <A> The melt flow index (MFI) or melt flow rate (MFR) is a measure for the ease of flow of melted plastics. <S> It is often used in the plastic industry for quality control of thermoplastics. <S> In general, the unit of index is given in g/10 min. <S> See following diagram: <S> The only different of two statements is rate vs ratio. <S> According to the definition, it should be a rate ( e.g. , amount per time; here given time is 10 min) than ratio (which is a unit less concept; see Jasen's answer).
| Rate is a value obtained either (1) simply by division of two variables with different units of measure or (2) as a point of a derivative of a function describing relationship between those variables.
|
What is the difference between `their own` and `themselves`? There are several different types of buses with their own dedicated lanes like a network in the city. VS There are several different types of buses with themselves dedicated lanes like a network in the city. <Q> their own <S> : refers to something owned by (them)Example: They paid with their own money... <S> the money belong to them. <S> They are the owner of the money. <S> You are the owner of the house if you own it; that is, it belongs to you. <S> with themselves dedicated <S> That's not English... <A> tl;dr <S> The first sentence is much easier to understand, at least without context . <S> There are several different types of buses with their own dedicated lanes like a network in the city. <S> If "their own" were not there, it could become unclear if the lanes were dedicated to the buses as a group (the entire group of 5 buses gets 30 lanes), or to each individual bus (each bus gets 30 lanes, or 150 lanes in total). <S> There are several different types of buses with themselves dedicated lanes like a network in the city. <S> It's hard to imagine a case where "themselves" would work here, since "themselves" is a reflexive pronoun. <S> But here's a very contrived context where it could work: <S> Public transportation on the island is broken down into two types of transportation: buses and boats, each with their own dedicated set of lanes [the buses have a separate set of lanes from the boats]. <S> There are several different types of buses with themselves dedicated lanes [each type of bus has its own set of lanes] like a network in the city. <S> What's happening here is that we're emphasizing layers of ideas. <S> The buses are separate from the boats; and within the buses, bus A is separate from bus B. <S> I'd still much prefer the first one, though. <S> I'd only use the second to avoid the repetition of "their own." <S> You mentioned in a comment an example in medicine: Patients should be able to refer themselves to a specialist in such circumstances. <S> Here, "themselves" is being used as a reflexive pronoun together with a reflexive verb . <S> The statement is that the patient is referring someone to a specialist, and that the "someone" is the patient. <S> It's not <S> the same as in the bus example, where it only serves as emphasis. <S> Here, it would be grammatically wrong to use "them"; instead, use "themselves," since the subject is the same as the object. <S> When in doubt, imagine replacing the subject and object with people: <S> Adam referred himself to a specialist. <S> Adam referred Adam to a specialist. <S> The first one sounds much less weird than the second, right? <A> The correct phrase seems to be: There are several different types of buses by their own dedicated lanes like a network in the city.
| What "their own" does is emphasize that each bus has its own group of lanes, not shared with any of the other buses.
|
"On their way to killing". Does it sound right? Today I saw this tweet from Donald Trump: Russia, Syria, and Iran are killing, or on their way to killing , thousands of innocent civilians in Idlib Province. Don’t do it! Turkey is working hard to stop this carnage. I am not a native English speaker (unlike Mr Trump!) but as far as I have learned, the verb after to is in the infinitive form and this tweet doesn't sound grammatically correct to me. Is this form commonly used in today's English? <Q> Not every "to" marks an infinitive: on their way to the store on their way to victory or defeat on their way to doing something <S> This is the ordinary preposition "to". <S> In general, it takes an object that serves as a destination or target. <S> This may be more obvious when the object is a simple noun like "store" or "victory". <S> When the object is a gerund or a gerund phrase, we still have the same ordinary kind of prepositional phrase. <S> We can treat this "to" the same as we do when the preposition is followed by a simple noun. <S> Those countries are killing, or are going to kill, innocent civilians. <S> This is a reasonable paraphrasing of the tweet. <S> This is probably the structure that you expected to see -- a structure that uses the infinitive-marking "to". <S> As a native reader, I find the grammar of the original tweet to be perfectly ordinary. <S> My paraphrasing is also perfectly ordinary. <S> There's more than one way to be grammatically right. <A> To is a sign of the infinitive, but it's also a preposition. <S> Since nouns are the objects of prepositions, gerunds (which take the place of nouns) can appear after to as well. <S> In the phrase the way to X , to has the meaning of destination. <S> It's the same as saying "The destination of the way is X". <S> It's not incorrect to say to kill either. <A> In this case, to is part of the phrase on the way to, which is suggesting that the people he is talking about are engaged in a course of action that if unchecked could or will lead to multiple deaths. <S> If you wanted to make it easier to understand, you could rephrase it slightly: ... <S> are , or are on the way to , ... <S> but regardless of one's opinion of Donald Trump, this is not bad grammar :·). <A> "Killing" is a noun (gerund) in this case. <S> It's perfectly correct grammatically. <S> In this case it means that Russia, Syria and Iran have killed a number of civilians, and that Mr Trump expects that the number killed will eventually be thousands. <S> I was on my way to simply up-voting another response, but I like to hear myself talk.
| It's a commonly used construction and quite familiar to me as a native speaker.
|
"I have been TO..." is just for countries or for everywhere too? Does the preposition ' to ' in the phrase ' I have been to ...' fit to countries only or it goes well also for cities, supermarket, university etc.? I'm asking it because the main use I've heard this kind of sentence with the preposition 'to' was mainly for countries. I can't recall something else. Examples: I have been to the supermarket and bought some vegtables. Have you been to the university today? <Q> have been to is a phrase used to mean to visit some place and return. <S> The preposition is the part of the phrase and it remains irrespective of the places you have visited. <S> So, to answer, it's not just for a country, but for any place including the instances you have quoted ( another example : Ask Tom for some money. <S> He's been to the bank today ). <S> Even further, someone can also ...has been to Trump's rallies.... <A> You can say:I have been to Mexico. <S> I have been to the store. <S> I have been to Sam's house. <A> I have been to can be used for almost anywhere you go; it's wrong to say: <S> I've been to home. <S> It should be: I've been home. <S> I've been to there. <S> × <S> I've been there. <S> ✓ <S> I've been to here. <S> × <S> I've been here. <S> ✓
| "Have been to" can be used anytime you go somewhere.
|
How to answer a negative question? Take the question: Did you not go to the store? If I did not go to the store, should I then say yes? Or no? If I did go to the the store, would my answer then have to be yes or no? For me I would think that if I did you go to the store, then the answer to the question would be 'yes'. <Q> GREAT QUESTION <S> If you are asked Did you go to the store? <S> If you are asked, Didn't you go to the store? <S> the negative form of the question almost invariably implies doubt or criticism or both. <S> Answers of a bare <S> "yes" or bare "no" do not address that implication. <S> The answer would normally emphasize the mere substance of the reponse with <S> Yes, I did or <S> No, I didn't. <S> If no clarification is added, the usage of "yes" and "no" is the same as though the question were asked in the positive. <S> To avoid potential social misunderstanding, however, ask questions in the positive and answer negative questions with a clarifying " <S> I did" or "I didn't." <S> ADDITIONAL EDIT: <S> In a comment below, reference is made to a response to a similar question. <S> In that response, the point is made that rhetorical questions are frequently made in negative form. <S> Haven't I asked her a thousand times not to bang the door? <S> is not attempting to elcit information, but to elicit agreement and confirmation. <S> Anything other than an emphatic answer is likely to be ill received. <S> To summarize, questions in negative form usually have a social dimension that is usually addressed by answering with extra emphasis. <A> Did you not go to the store? <S> Personally I dislike questions like this, for the exact reason you have discovered. <S> I find it best to just sidestep the ambiguity and answer fully: <S> I went to the store. <S> or: I did not go to the store. <A> Did you not go to the store? <S> If I did not go to the store, should I then say yes? <S> Or no? <S> If you didn't go then it would be correct to say: No. <S> I didn't. <S> If I did go to the store, would my answer then have to be yes <S> or no? <S> If you did so then it would be correct to say: <S> Yes. <S> I did. <A> The question "Did you not go to the store?" contains assumption/suggestion that I went. <S> So the answer should be " <S> The same in the case of "You went to the store, didn't you?" <A> Did you go to the store? <S> is a standard enquiry, so of course "yes" and "no" have their usual meanings. <S> Did you not go to the store? <S> is asking for the same information, the difference is that there is an assumption that you did in fact go. <S> For example, if it is Friday and you always go to the store on Fridays, but today you arrived home early, I might ask: <S> Did you not go to the store? <S> which really means <S> I expect that you went to the store. <S> But you arrived home early, which is making me think you might not have gone. <S> So, did you go to the store? <S> In this case, "yes" means you did go and "no" means you didn't - <S> it's as if there was no "not" in there at all. <S> But it can also depend on intonation. <S> Generally, if you say it in a flat tone, it means as above. <S> Such a question is rarely ambiguous. <S> But there might be a situation where you're really unsure about how to answer, in which case you might consider using " <S> Yes, I did" or " <S> No, I didn't" to clarify. <A> First, consider the question without a negative: <S> Did you go to the store? <S> This question is asking if you did go to the store. <S> Therefore, 'yes' and 'no' are respectively answers of <S> [Yes,] I did go to the store and <S> [No,] I didn't go to the store. <S> You answer 'yes' to indicate that the statement "you did go to the store" is true ; 'no' indicates that this statement is false . <S> The question you wish to answer asks for the negation of this statement Since the question is now <S> Did you not go to the store? <S> you are now answering for the statement " <S> you did <S> not go to the store." <S> If this statement is true, then you answer yes. <S> However, as other answers have pointed out, a question phrased this way often displays or conveys a certain expectation, and sometimes isn't even meant as a question. <S> This may be where the uncertainty in how to answer comes from. <S> Therefore, a full answer that addresses any ambiguity caused by expectations or implications would be <S> Yes, I did not go to the store. <S> or the negation, <S> No, I did go to the store. <S> (which you might consider as "I didn't not go to the store," which can be difficult to understand for some.) <S> If you were then to answer the question with solely 'yes' or 'no', you would say 'yes' if you did , in fact, go to the store. <S> For those unconvinced, consider how one would go about asking for the negation of a question if not in precisely this way - and if the trouble would be worth that interpretation. <A> "Did you not go to the store?" <S> is a colloquial (possibly Irish) version of ' <S> Didn't you go to the store?" <S> It isn't a simple inquiry about a journey that can be parsed by counting up and cancelling out the double negatives. <S> It's asking why there's no food on the table when the obvious solution would have been a trip to the store. ' <S> Didn't you think of doing that <S> (you idiot!)?' <S> Possible answers would include 'Sorry, I forgot!' <S> or 'But it isn't MY job!'
| Yes, I did" if I went or "No, I didn't" if I did not go to the store. "Yes" means that you did go, and "No" means that you did not go.
|
What are the differences between "emigrate" and "immigrate"? My teacher said,emigrate can be explained as move to another place, former place and later place are in the same country. immigrate can be explained as move to another country from other country. But what she said are different in the Oxford Dictionary. Did she right？ <Q> Immigrate is entering a country. <S> Emigrating is leaving it. <A> "Emigrate" is not used when discussing moving from one place to another within the same country. <S> I would say that "move" is appropriate in that context. <S> Let's say you are currently living in Australia <S> but you are going to go and live in South Africa. <S> You would then be emigrating from Australia and immigrating to South Africa. <S> A useful way to remember is: E migrate -> <S> E xit and <S> I mmigrate - <S> > <S> I nto <A> Unfortunately, the teacher is incorrect. <S> Immigration is moving to another non-native country. <S> For instance, you live in India and apply for Permanent Residence to Canada, then you file for immigration. <S> We have professional immigration consultants. <S> On the other hand, emigration is going out of a country. <S> See the fun - when you get your PR to Canada, you are both - immigrant and emigrant! <S> You are immigrant to Canada and emigrant from India. <S> Mind the preposition though. <S> There's one more - migration! <S> It is not necessarily moving permanently. <S> It could be a temporary stay. <S> See here. <S> Birds migrate. <A> Thanks, Kate. <S> You are correct. <S> Migration is any movement. <S> To use immigration or emigration you need a specified source of destination. <S> All immigrants are also emigrants, and vice versa. <S> Thus, when speaking generally about movements of people without a specified country you would use “migration”. <S> The question being asked, specifically, was whether the teacher was using to correct term for internal movements, which the teacher was not. <S> That correct term is “migration”. <S> I did not mean to imply or for anyone to infer that that was the sole correct usage of “migration”.
| "Emigrate"/"Immigrate" are used when talking about different countries.
|
What do you call neither spicy nor sweet food? What do you call food without a lot of pepper or salt or spices? How is the taste of ordinary food called? <Q> Such food is unseasoned : <S> a : not seasoned with added spices or savory ingredients // <S> unseasoned food <S> (source: Merriam-Webster ) <S> Expect both kinds of salsify to be subtle and delicate—too bland for some tastebuds. <S> (source: Merriam-Webster ) <A> Food that is simple , not rich, spicy nor particularly sweet or salty is sometimes said to be plain . <S> Plain food does not mean it is without salt, flavourings or sugar; plain simple cooking is the type of food one eats at home, and is suitable for both savoury and sweet food. <S> Plain yoghurt Plain fish and chips Plain potato soup <S> Plain sponge cake. <S> From Cambridge Dictionaries <S> He prefers plain food - nothing too fancy. <S> From Lexico <S> ‘Yet, perhaps because he deals mainly with sophisticated food, he prefers plain cooking at home.’ <S> ‘He liked plain food , without sauces or cheese, and plenty of fresh vegetables, including those grown in the garden of his estate.’ <S> From FRAZE.IT <S> Either way, a dollop of sour cream or plain Greek-style yogurt is a fine finish Plain rice and water , with 12-hour days, 7 days a week, of hard physical labour Scatter the top with more raspberries and grated plain chocolate before serving. <A> The first problem here is that your question is somewhat ambiguous, because (at least in US English) spicy has two distinct meanings. <S> It can be either something that is flavored with traditional spices like cinnamon, cloves, ginger, nutmeg &c, or it can be something that contains (often to excess) chili pepper. <S> Beyond that, there really isn't a single word that covers all sorts of unspiced foods, since there are so many differently-flavored "ordinary" foods, many of which have strong flavors that aren't the result of either sort of spice - e.g. chocolate, some kinds of cheeses, many fruits. <S> "Bland" doesn't really fit, since it just means that the food doesn't have strong flavors, regardless of whether that lack is innate to the food itself (as for instance mashed potatos), or because it wasn't spiced. <A> There are 5 'flavours' or tastes. <S> They are sweetness, sourness, bitterness, saltiness and umami (all are self explanatory, except Umami, which is described as savory and is characteristic of broths and cooked meats. <S> (a bit like Marmite?)
| If you want to emphasize a lack of flavor, you can use the word bland : 2 c : lacking strong flavor //
|
"I came right back AT her door" or "I came right back TO her door"? What would be correct between these two lines (please explain) : I came right back at her door. Or I came right back to her door. <Q> It sounds much more correct to use "to", as saying "at", to me, sounds like you are "coming back" in terms of a "comeback", as though the door has insulted you, and now you're "going back at" it. <S> It's as though you are attacking the door in some way. <S> Also, I don't know what the context is, but I imagine that in the vast majority of cases you'd actually be wanting to say: I went right back to her door. <A> I think the correct phrase is: <S> I came right back to her door. <S> is incorrect. <S> "I came right back" <S> describes what action was taken. <S> "at" or "to" defines the location at which the action took place. <S> "her door." <S> descibes the destination. <S> I would say "at" implies the speaker was already at the door when they "came back" whereas "to" implies the target of the action of "coming back" as the speaker describes. <S> Consider the following: <S> I walked right back at her door. <S> I would say this implies the speaker is already at the door and then walked, <S> whereas: I walked right back to her door. <S> I would say this implies the speaker is walking towards the door and did not necessarily begin there. <S> In conversational English (which is pretty lenient to errors like this and will provide better context) <S> I think both could be used to say more or less the same thing, but the sentence with "to" makes more sense to me. <S> In writing at any level above conversational I would consider "at" to be an error assuming the writer intends to describe the speaker as walking towards the door. <S> I would use "at" in instances when you wanted to describe the speaker not moving relative the door, or observing the door, for example: <S> I stood at her door. <S> or I gazed at her door. <A> I rang her doorbell <S> but she was not home <S> so I went to do some shopping. <S> Afterwards, I came right back to her door and tried the bell again. <S> compared to: I was the duty firefighter when we were called out to her house. <S> On arriving, I looked through the window and could see her on the floor in the hallway. <S> I started to use the fire axe to break down the door <S> then there was an explosion which sent me backwards. <S> I came right back at her door , attacking it with the axe. <S> If you are going "to" the door <S> then you are going to the location of the door <S> but if you are going "at" the door then you are performing an action at the door. <A> One related thing that I don't see covered by the other answers: while "came right back at her door" means something quite strange, this doesn't mean that "at her door" is always wrong. " <S> to her door" emphasizes travel/motion/action, while "at her door" talks more about the door as a location or end state. <S> For example, you might write, Just an hour later, I was right back at her door. <S> to give the impression that your actions were beyond your control: you just couldn't help but go back. <S> You found yourself at her door without thinking about the act of going there. <A> Most often, you come to a door. <S> You don't come at a door. <S> Likewise, you come to a party. <S> You don't come at a party. <S> Well, I guess it depends on the party. <S> Another exception to this rule may be a bro. <S> You can come to a bro for help, or you can come at a bro to fight. <S> I guess what it boils down to is your intended action once you get to the door. <S> If your intentions are good, then you come to the door. <S> If your intentions could potentially cause conflict, especially against the door itself, then I suppose you could come at the door. <S> I hope that clears things up for you. <A> I came back to her door. <S> This means that I left, then at a later time returned to the location of the door. <S> I came back at her door. <S> This (could) mean that I was playing a game, was killed, and my respawn point was next to the door. <A> Both are grammatical. <S> The only difference I can fathom is that, if you're using the former, then your objective of going back is tethered with the door, and not her . <A> If it is spoken word as opposed to text; Coming right at the door of a female could be misinterperated as slang for directing your semen toward her vagina or buttock region at the point of sexual climax, depending on whether it was the front door (vagina) or back door (anus). <S> For example; "I'd like to smash her back door in" can mean "I would like to have anal intercourse with her" . <S> The verbs 'to come' and 'to cum' are pronounced the same, however, 'to cum' means to ejaculate, hence the potential for confusion. <A> "At" also can mean "on the surface of", also it does not sound like one could use it in normal conversation. <S> Something like "my image on a door" may be a way to use it : She had TVs everywhere. <S> She saw my image on the kitchen's TV and turned it off screaming. <S> I came right back at her door.
| In my interpretation, assuming the speaker intends to imply they are walking towards the door from another location, "I came back at her door" They are both correct but have different nuances:
|
Follower list or followers list Let me check your ‘follower’ list. Let me check your ‘followers’ list. Follower list or followers list, which one is correct here? <Q> The second one, Let me check your ‘followers’ list , is correct. <S> Using the first one would somehow mean that the list itself is following you. <A> I’d prefer 2. <S> However, in computer parlance ordinary English usage can be distorted. <S> If your list is really labelled “FOLLOWER“ and not “FOLLOWERS”, on the screen in front of the user, then sentence 1 might be the best alternative. <S> Why are you using “list” at all? <S> Consider using “Let me check your Followers.” <S> It should already be clear that “Followers” is a list of users/names. <S> Simpler is often clearer. <A> It is a " list of followers " that means a list of some people who are your followers. <S> Thus, the correct options is " a followers list ".
| If the list is a list of your followers (plural), and as a “list” naturally has a number of entries (plural), then I’d expect the list to be called a “followers list” using the plural.
|
"My banana score" or "My bananas score"? Let's say I made a contest to eat bananas in one day. I ate 12 bananas today. That would be: My bananas score Or My banana score <Q> Obviously you'd have to use this in a context where people understood the game, and that you were speaking about the game. <S> I would use: <S> My banana score. <S> I see this as being similar to saying something like: <S> My banana count. <S> I.e. <S> It's your "banana count" for the day. <S> This would be similar to the term "head count", which is used when counting the number of people in some context. <S> In as much as you wouldn't say "heads count", I don't think you would say "bananas count", and therefore you wouldn't say "bananas score". <S> Further to this, unless you had a scoring system more complex than just a direct count, you may just use the word "count" rather than the word "score" <S> - it's actually quite idiomatic in scenarios where people invent these kind of simple contests to have with each other, e.g., many people compare their Fitbit "step count". <S> There could be another situation, where you might say: My Bananas score. <S> This would be the case if you had named the game Bananas . <A> Short answer: <S> The correct rendering would be My banana score. <S> Long answer <S> There is no such thing as a "banana score", but that isn't to say you can't create the premise, and then use it. <S> 11 years ago there was no such thing as an "Uber rating", and now there is. <S> So, assuming you have explained the premise - that you are eating bananas, keeping a count of how many you eat, and "scoring" yourself based on how many you consume in a day - you can refer to this score. <S> I think you should use the singular " banana score " for two reasons: <S> This is consistent with other similar scoring systems. <S> As I mentioned, your Uber rating is based on your use of Uber taxi cabs. <S> Even though you may have ridden in may Ubers, it isn't your "Ubers rating" - it is singular. <S> Also consider the Motion Picture Association of America film rating (it isn't "films"!), and Five Star Hotels (not "stars"!) <A> It is possible in English to create compound nouns in which one noun effectively acts as an adjective limiting another noun. <S> For example, we say "information technology" or "medical technology" to distinguish between technologies used for different purposes or using different aspects of knowledge. <S> This is a grammatical feature of English. <S> If for example I say "My golf score yesterday was awful," it will be understood because almost everyone in the English-speaking world knows there is a competetive game called golf in which each player earns a score. <S> But the compound word "banana score" will be meaningless because virtually no one has heard of your games of eating bananas (or eating partners, which is likely illegal in many jurisdictions). <S> A compound noun is usually an abbreviated way of saying something that avoids the use of prepositional or participial phrases. <S> Like many abbreviations, it is meaningful only if the audience can supply the missing information. <S> People will understand if you say My score in my fraternity's banana-eating contest was 18 because you have supplied contextual information. <S> Unless they were participants or onlookers, they will believe you to be talking nonsense if you say My banana score was 18. <S> The issue of whether "score" should be singular or plural depends on on the number of contests that you are referring to rather than the numerical value of the score itself.
| "Bananas" can also mean "crazy", so calling it "my bananas score" could mean your score is crazy, or ridiculous.
|
Using "now" with simple past tense "Now" as an adverb of time is commonly used with present tense but can it also be used past tense? Additionally, is the usage of "now" in the following sentence grammatically correct? Why or why not? Our family helped us now . <Q> For example: We found that we had fallen on hard times, but our friends helped us now , and with time things didn't seem so bad. <S> I'm not entirely sure this is correct usage (though it doesn't offend my ears, so to speak); it's quite a creative expression, and to me can be used to express a degree of emphasis ("now" is quite an 'urgent' word). <S> To dissociate from placing oneself in that moment as part of the narrative, you could replace "now" with something like "at this point", and to dissociate further you could say "at that point". <A> Now is used to talk about the present time, thus if you won't use it, in a past sentence, to make some time comparison, it seems not to fit properly. <S> He should have sent the form until now <S> In your phrase, for example, since the family helped (in the past) this can't be happening now. <S> Or they are helping right now or they have already done it . <A> Now can be used as an interjection. <S> See https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/357852/is-now-acting-as-an-interjection-rather-than-a-present-of-time . <S> Often times it's split from the sentence with a comma but this isn't a strict requirement.
| You may hear "now" used in the past tense, for example, if the person is telling a story, and they are placing themselves in the past as part of their narrative.
|
via survey or via a survey? Which one is grammatically correct? I've found a similar topic related to "via the Internet", but I'm still wondering if you can use the phrase without a preposition - "via survey." I conducted primary research via survey. vs. I conducted primary research via a survey. <Q> Yes, you are correct: "via survey" refers to the method of research, whereas "via a survey" is a specific instance of that method. <S> Extending your example to highlight that "via survey" refers to the method used, your report might have read as follows. <S> "Primary research on patient preferences was conducted via survey. <S> In addition, statistical analysis was used to assess dose responses, while a literature review assessed comparative death rates after 12 months in a range of countries." <S> There is also another subtle but important difference between "via a survey" and "via survey": the way the two phrases sound when spoken or read aloud. <S> The article "a" is difficult to pronounce nicely after the word "via". <S> Therefore, a sentence referring to a single survey ought to be restructured to avoid the "via a" construct. <A> One can find relevant results for both cases - by survey and by a survey in Corpus of Global Web-Based English <S> Below are usages of both cases starting with conduct research via ... . <S> Conduct research via survey <S> If you search for this phrase in Google, you get several relevant results. <S> For instance, from Annals of Family Medicine <S> It provides infrastructure, researcher consultation, and facilitated collaboration to conduct research via survey Or <S> What Can You Do With a Marketing Degree <S> These professionals conduct research via survey, focus groups and polls, and identify consumer habits and market trends. <S> Conduct research via a survey <S> Here, you also get relevant results. <S> For example, from Chronic cough: An exploration of impact and an evaluation of non-pharmacologicalmanagement in adults <S> There are a number of different strategies to conduct research via a survey including mailed surveys, group-administered surveys, telephone surveys, internet surveys or mixed model surveys (Check and Schutt, 2012). <A> Your comment: <S> So, in my case, I should write: " <S> Next, I conducted primary research via survey. <S> I prepared two types of surveys: one for doctors to determine the necessary features and another one for patients to better understand their needs." <S> instead of "Next, I conducted primary research via a survey." <S> The first one would be the type of research method, then the next sentence would refer to particular surveys. <S> is correct in its analysis, which I emphasised. <S> Both are grammatically correct and easily understood. <S> If there are multiple surveys you can also say "via surveys" or "via three different surveys", etc. <S> None are better than the others, it's your choice which one to use. <S> This n-gram shows that "via survey" and "via a survey" are nearly equal in usage in books.
| "via survey" is a method, and "via a survey" is with a particular instance of a survey. It looks like both are correct.
|
Do we call it "roller skate" or "roller shoe" or "skate shoe" or "skating shoe" or "roller skate"? In the dictionary roller skate [count] : a shoe that has wheels on the bottom and that you wear in order to skate on a flat surface — usually plural a pair of roller skates skate shoe (also Heely™ especially in British English, North American English roller shoe ) a sports shoe that has one or more wheels underneath it Learn to roll on your skate shoes. Youngsters were gliding by on their skate shoes. skate 2 [countable] one of a pair of boots or frames with small wheels on the bottom, for moving quickly on flat smooth surfaces SYN roller skate But when I google "skate shoe" , it does not show the shoes that I expected. But when I google "skating shoe" , it does show the shoes that I expected. See the picture: Do we call it " roller skate " or " roller shoe " or " skate shoe " or " skating shoe " or " roller skate "? Which one is the most common? <Q> In the US, we (at least those of us of certain age) would call the item in your picture "roller blades" or "inline skates". <S> Traditional roller skates have the wheels positioned like a car (two wheels side-by-side in the front and back). <A> Speaking as an American, I have never before heard the term "skate shoe". <S> Note that "skates" can also be short for "ice skates". <S> The phrase is almost always used in the plural, like "I put on my roller skates" or "I put on a pair of roller skates". <S> I suppose if you lost one of the pair, you might say "I lost a roller skate", like you might say "I lost a shoe", etc, in other contexts where you'd talk about just one. <A> This is a roller skate. <S> The wheels pivot together when the skate is leaned, like a skateboard does. <S> Lean right: the front wheel assembly twists clockwise when viewed from above, the rear counter clockwise, like 4 wheel steering on a car. <S> And then there's the strap on roller skates we had as kids in the 1960s, no practical way to stop except for taking a spill, hopefully onto someone's grass lawn!
| I've always heard "roller skates", or "skates" for short.
|
Do we say "Glass Crumb" just as we often say "Food Crumb"? If not, what is the word to say? crumb (n): a very small piece of food, especially of bread or cake, that has fallen off a larger piece She stood up and brushed the crumbs from her sweater. ok, now I want to change the definition a little bit. That is: a very small piece of glass that has fallen off a larger piece do we say " glass crumb " as just as we often say "food crumb"? If not, what is the word to say? also other kinds of materials? "wood crumb" or " stone crumb "? <Q> No, we don't. <S> Pieces of broken glass are often called shards https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/shard <S> For stone or (hard) wood it would be chips or fragments. <A> When glass, porcelaine or stone breaks, it usually shatters . <S> What you get are shards (larger pieces) and splinters (small, often longish pieces). <S> If you talk about crumbles , I imagine very small pieces, typically created not by just dropping the glass, but for example by stepping on the glass or otherwise applying extra force, creating finer particles than simply dropping it would cause. <S> Even finer would be dust , very, very fine particles. <A> As others have said, the general word for a broken piece of glass is "shard". <S> Those words could apply to almost anything solid. " <S> A fragment of glass", "a fragment of wood", "a fragment of bone", "a fragment of copper", etc. <S> (You wouldn't use these words for liquids.) <S> Small pieces of wood, like no more that a few square inches, are often called "wood chips". <S> If you're talking about a bigger piece, like a fallen tree branch, it's generally called simply "a piece of wood". <S> Maybe carpenters of a specific word for it, but I don't know of one. <S> Oh, and very small pieces of wood, like fraction of an inch, are called "sawdust".
| You could also say "fragment", "chip", or "broken piece of glass". We would only use crumb when speaking of a non-food substance if it was something with a soft texture similar to bread, such as rotten wood.
|
Is 'a five years later' gramatically correct? I'm a native Slovakian speaker, and currently, I am at an English competition. I was met with this sentence: "..., and a five years later , he became a professional musician." Is the a in there correct? I have never seen it being used like this anywhere. <Q> I'm Chinese and also an English major. <S> I think there should be no "a" before "five years later". <A> and five years later, he became a professional musician." <S> If, however, you were asked to complete the following sentence: "... and a ____ years later, he became a professional musician." <S> then I would say that the missing word would be "few". <S> If you were asked for just one word then you would not be able to use "couple" since you would need "of" as well. <S> That is, "... <S> and a couple of years later, he became a professional musician." <A> In particular, ' a five years ' doesn't make sense for a logical reason: <S> one is not five - since the 'a' article is technically ' one ' (one of a class, by definition). <S> To prevent both 'a' and 'five' referring to 'years' you can e. g. introduce another noun which would transform those 'five' into a single group: a period of five years . <S> As for your sentence, you could use a single word ( no preposition) to fill the gap: a dozen years later .
| Based on your question as well as other details you provided in comments on the question, the "a" should not be there in "...
|
What is the difference between "relax" and "rest"? Is there any difference between relax and rest ? For example: I have been working really hard late, so I guess I might as well relax for a while. I have been working really hard late, so I guess I might as well rest for a while. They sound the same to me, but I feel there is a different flavor of meaning between the two. If there isn't really any, then which one is more common? <Q> So in your example sentence, I would likely assume if you use relax, that you did something as a hobby, for example, watching TV or reading a book. <S> Using rest there, I would assume you took a nap or just sat there not really doing anything. <A> The verbs rest and relax are so near-synonyms that it takes one of them to explain the other: To rest means to relax, sleep or do nothing after a period of activity or illness; to not use a part of your body for some time <S> The doctor told me to rest. <S> Rest your eyes every half an hour. <S> I awoke feeling rested and refreshed. <S> To relax means to rest by doing something enjoyable, especially after work or effort <S> When I get home from work <S> I like to relax with a glass of wine. <S> I'm going to spend the weekend just relaxing <S> As for the example sentences, it obviously should be "relax" implying the change of activity to something more pleasurable than work. <S> The source: Oxford Lerner's Thesaurus <A> Up first, when searching for definitions on Cambridge Dictionary, we find: to relax ( verb ): to (cause someone to) become less active and more calm and happy, or to (cause a part of the body to) become less stiff. <S> to rest ( verb ): to (cause someone or something to) stop doing a particular activity or stop being active for a period of time in order to relax and get back your strength. <S> Thus, one might conclude that in order to relax, you need to rest first. <S> As to me, it sounds more like relaxing is taking your time to do things that amuse you, like watching a movie or listening to music, whereas resting is about recovering the energy you spent during certain activities, like when you go to sleep after a hard day at work.
| Relax is more of a "slow down and take it easy" mode while rest is usually used to mean to literally stop whatever you are doing at the moment.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.