source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Why is there no article after "no" in "I have no car" Examples. "I have no car", "I have no TV". BUT "I have not a car" There was a thread on it, but the answers were pretty superficial to say the least and only based on someone's opinion. I read a whole book (by Seonaid Beckwith) about articles and there is not a single word about that, which is amazing to me. Does anybody actually know the rule? Please, no opinions :) <Q> Articles belong to a group of words called " determiners ". <S> Besides articles, there are other determiners in the English language, and "no" is a determiner too. <S> Let me quote from BBC: <S> No is a determiner expressing quantity like 'all', 'every', 'many', 'some', 'any', 'each', 'either', 'one', 'another' and is used before singular and plural nouns. <S> It is similar in meaning to ' not a ' or 'not any' and is often our preferred choice if we want to give emphasis to what we are saying. <S> A singular countable noun like car should have some determiner before it, and no suits the purpose. <S> No additional determiner is required. <S> Indeed, in some cases we do combine not with a <S> , I'm not sure what the grammar says about this. <S> "I have not a car" sound quaint and wrong in modern English. <S> Maybe several hundred years ago it was more acceptable? <S> In certain constructions <S> not a + singular count noun certainly remains in use: Not a shirt on my back, Not a penny to my name, <S> Lord, I can't go back home this way. <S> (" 500 miles ", a song) <S> I don't recall the rule explaining this. <A> "A" is like saying "one": <S> I have a car <S> I have one car <S> Logically then, saying "no" is like saying "zero": <S> I have no car <S> I have zero cars. <S> Therefore, there is no need for an article. <S> "Not" is neither a determiner nor an article, so saying "I haven't a car" is fine as it is (although one is more likely to say "I don't have a car" or, for Americans, "I haven't got a car"). <A> The indefinite article a/an historically originates simply as an unstressed version of the numeral one. <S> Some linguists have even argued that semantically, what is called the "indefinite article" is still just a specialized numeral. <S> And the "negative quantifiers" none and <S> no historically originate from fusion of a negative adverb <S> ne <S> (not used anymore as an independent word) and <S> the numeral one (or indefinite article a/an ). <S> The n sound at the end was lost when a following noun was present, as with the word mine <S> /my. <S> There is no article after <S> no in <S> I have no car <S> because in syntax, no behaves like it contains the indefinite article already. <A> In British English, "I haven't got a car" is common usage <S> (Americans would be more likely to say "I don't have a car"). <S> "I have no car" is also quite acceptable. <S> Why doesn't "I have not a car" work? <S> It's confused by the fact that "have" is used as both as an auxiliary verb <S> ("I have seen her") and to mean "own" or "possess" ("I have a car"). <S> But the negative "have not", is only ever used as an auxiliary. <S> In any case, we don't normally negate a verb by adding "not". <S> We don't say "I walk not to work": it's clear what it means, but it's not idiomatic; we say instead "I don't walk to work". <S> I have a car". <S> "a" means one, "no" means zero <S> , you don't want to say "one" and "zero" because they contradict each other. <S> But perhaps I'm appealing too much to logic; idioms often defy logic. <S> Afterthought : what about " I haven't a clue. "? <S> Not to mention " I haven't the faintest idea. "? <S> I think we just have to dismiss those as irregular. <A> I have no car. <S> [no --- <S> > <S> adjective] <S> I have no a car. <S> ✖ <S> [Two determiners : 'no' & 'a' cannot be used together.] <S> I have not a car. <S> I don't have a car. <S> I haven't got a car.[not ---> adverb] <A> "I have no car" is more likely to be used to negate an unjustified assumption, such as "Do you drive a 4x4?", or "Would you drive me to the airport?".
| As for the absence of an article, in the sentence "I have no car", the word "no" is essentially performing the same grammatical function as "a" in "
|
"I wouldn't want to around the amount of people at that pool party even before the pandemic." First of all, I would like to know what differences do the use of won't and wouldn't make in any sentences, and what kind of meanings (wouldn’t) would conveys in the following sentence. I wouldn't want to around the amount of people at that pool party even before the pandemic. <Q> "I won't do that" refers to denying a particular task. <S> In some instances "wouldn't" and "won't" can be interchangeable, such as, "wouldn't/won't you do something" is simply asking somebody to do something, it doesn't matter. <S> Directly in the definition of the words, "won't" is conjoined from " <S> will not" and "wouldn't' is conjoined from "would not". <S> In these instances, "would" is indefinite while "will" is definite. <A> Wouldn't is would not , its past tense. <S> Won't is <S> will not , its future tense. <S> Like I won't do it tomorrow, and I wouldn't have read it anyways as examples. <S> They are considered to be informal as well. <A> I wouldn't want to ??? <S> around the amount of people at that pool party even before the pandemic. <S> As others pointed out, there's a missing verb (which would go where I've placed the ???). <S> It's ungrammatical without it, but it would be said in real English, if the missing infinitive verb were already understood. <S> I'm guessing it's just a typo <S> and the word be is missing; but <S> the sentence would be okay if the preceding sentence had been something like "I don't want to hang out around a lot of people with the pandemic going on." <S> The provided sentence would then sound fairly natural (even though it'd still be technically an incomplete sentence), and would be an explanation of the fact that the pandemic isn't even the only problem (which it is in any case). <S> While it's true that would is technically the past tense form of will , it is not being used here to express a past tense. <S> It is being used here to express a hypothetical - that is, the speaker(/writer) is expressing what their desires would be (heh, there it is again) if you change the situation to something other than the situation that actually exists. <S> When would is used in this sense, it's indicating a future or present activity (but not our actual present: some hypothetical, alternative present). <S> If we then want to talk about a hypothetical past event, we use "would not have" ( <S> that is, we add a present perfect tense for the primary verb). <S> "I would not have come if I had known Sam was here."
| Wouldn't normally means that something is habitual, saying, "I wouldn't do that" implies that you are viewing a situation from the other person's perspective, and advising that of you were in the same situation, you wouldn't make a particular choice.
|
Sound made by a cellphone during dialing What’s the sound made by a cellphone during ‘dialing’ called? When a cellphone makes a notification sound, we say “chiming of the cellphone” like that how would we describe ‘dialing’? <Q> I think one of the possible answers is keypad tone . <S> That is if you are typing. <S> If you are referring to what you hear while you are waiting for the call to be answered, it's caller ringback tone . <S> In North America, a standard caller RBT is repeated as a two-second tone with a four-second pause between tones. <S> In other countries, like the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, it is a double ring. <S> As mobile technology has advanced, the caller RBT term has become more synonymous with a customized RBT that replaces a standard caller RBT. <A> "Beep" (as a noun or a verb) There are technical terms like "keypad tone", but I doubt many people who are not telephone engineers would use them. <S> I knew she was calling someone, because I could hear the beeps coming from her phone. <S> While I'd understand "chiming of a cellphone", it's not typical. <S> You'd normally say "The phone is ringing". <S> "Cellphone" seems very dated to me, "phone" or "mobile" is much more common. <A> We may say phone line trilling .
| Casually you would say the phone was beeping.
|
The word "patient" can be used for the people who are cared for by caregivers? Is it possible to use the word "patient" for the people who are cared for by caregivers or the people who are in need of nursing care? If not, what do you call those people? <Q> "Patient" is derived ultimately from "patior," a Latin verb meaning to "suffer." <S> Through a convoluted process, it has come to mean a person who is being treated for illness or injury. <S> As such, it is certainly used for people who are being cared for by a nurse. <S> It is not typically used for someone young and healthy. <S> No one says that a child is a patient of its nanny. <S> It can be ambiguous when used with respect to the old who are merely frail. " <S> Patient" usually implies disease or injury, and old age is not typically considered a disease. <S> I at least would find it odd to hear a mentally competent, physically healthy old person called a "patient" in most contexts . <S> But context can never be ignored. <S> In the context of a nursing home that cares both for those who are merely frail and for those with serious physical or mental deficiencies, it may be idiomatic to refer to both classes as patients. <S> Personally, I would tend to reserve "patient" for those who are being cared for due to illness or injury rather than for old age, but I will not say that that preference represents general usage. <A> Patient can be used to describe somebody who is not actually ill: <S> [Merriam-Webster] 1 b : the recipient of any of various personal services 2 : one that is acted upon // are agents as well as patients and observers in the world — <S> C. H. Whiteley <S> Another common word is client : <S> [Merriam-Webster] 2 a : a person who engages the professional advice or services of another // <S> a lawyer's clients // <S> a personal trainer … enjoyed the challenges of helping clients buff up their bodies. <S> — S. K. Parks <S> 2 b : CUSTOMER // hotel clients // a restaurant's clients <S> 2 c : a person served by or utilizing the services of a social agency // a welfare <S> client Which word to use is a matter of context. <S> In terms of what's more common, you can refer to Google Ngram Viewer results for various situations, which indicates the word more often used in print. <S> Nursing home <S> patient is much more common than nursing home client : <S> On the other hand, massage patient is used so infrequently that it doesn't even register at Google Ngram Viewer , which shows only massage client : <S> Finally, welfare client has an edge over welfare patient : <A>
| "Patients" normally refers to someone ill and receiving treatment for the sickness. I think the normal term for such people would be their "charges."
|
the meaning of "hits primetime" From a tutorial "February 9th, 1964. Beatlemania hits primetime in the United States." I understand every single word in the sentence. Beatlemania means a group of enthusiastic fans of Beatles. primetime refers to the time when television audience is expected to be at its highest, such as 8 o'clock PM, when most people are watching TV at home. I also know the Beatles made first U.S. TV appearance on 'Ed Sullivan Show' On Feb. 9, 1964. what is the meaning of "Beatlemania hits primetime"? How about this explanation, the enthusiasm for the Beatles arrived at a stage where there are more influential people recognize them? <Q> Here "Beatlemania" doesn't mean a group of fans, but the phenomenon of their existence, "a mania": American Heritage Dictionary "-mania" (suffix) <S> An exaggerated desire or enthusiasm for e.g. "balletomania" American Heritage Dictionary "hit" a. Informal To go to or arrive at: We hit the beach early. <S> So it means, roughly, the enthusiasm for the Beatles arrived <S> I think "primetime" can be read as a noun meaning the destination of the arrival. <S> It might also be an adverb, meaning the time of arrival, but it doesn't make any difference to the import of the sentence. <A> I would interpret it as "the phenomenon of intense enthusiasm for the Beatles was exposed to a mass audience". <S> Beatlemania was not "a group of fans", but the astonishing behaviour of those fans: intense screaming, fainting, crying etc. <S> Primetime is literally that timeslot, but by extension, the widest possible television audience. <S> Hence: this was the moment when millions of people watching TV saw for the first time how young people (particularly women) behaved as a response to watching the Beatles. <A> Artistically, calling something "ready for primetime" denotes something that was polished and ready for a general audience, as opposed to a special audience that would overlook flaws because of special interest in it.
| It means that the passionate enthusiasm for the Beatles was regarded as of such importance that the Beatles were deemed a worthy subject for primetime TV, which, because of the number of viewers, tended to be time for matters of broad and serious interest.
|
How do you pronounce 2×4 (board) Recently, I found "2x4" as a weapon in a game I played. I found that it's a common standard for lumber board . I tried to pronounce it as "two multiplies four" but it feels really weird. How should I pronounce this word? <Q> 2x4 would be said: "Two by Four" https://www.thespruce.com/dimensional-lumber-definition-1821735 <A> To add to bhundven's excellent and correct answer, the word "by" is spoken in English in other contexts when the "x" is written. <S> For instance, you may hear of a 6x6 maze ("six by six maze"), or a 4x4 magic square ("four by four magic square"), or a room measuring 12 feet x 10 feet ("twelve feet by ten feet"). <S> (There's also a class of sport utility vehicle called a 4x4 <S> ["four by four"] because it has four wheels and four-wheel drive.) <A> x , Symbol. <S> 5 <S> : (used between figures indicating dimensions) by : 3″ × 4″ (read: “three by four inches”); 3″ × <S> 4″ <S> × 5″ <S> (read: “three by four by five inches”). – <S> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/x <S> See also, display resolution (e.g. 1920 × 1080) Geometric dimension of an object, such as noting that a room is 10 feet × 12 feet in area, where it is usually read as "by" (for example: "10 feet by 12 feet") <S> The lower-case Latin letter x is sometimes used in place of the multiplication sign. <S> This is considered incorrect in mathematical writing {because you're supposed to use a Unicode glyph }. <S> – Multiplication sign <A> I am a carpenter by trade <S> and you would say 2 by 4 - in the old days the 2x4 would actually be 2" <S> x 4" because they did not plane anything - now they plane the wood to 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 so basically they still hang onto the original size <A> @Mazura is correct about the actual size which probably results from the line upon which the saw blade centers, two inches in one direction and four inches in the other. <S> The blade obviously is wider than the line, which means the actual dimension is less than what is stated. <S> I agree that is somewhat annoying. <S> Also, we Americans still surprisingly cling to the English system of measurement, which they have abandoned. <S> Personally, I prefer metric.
| It is pronounced "two by four" or "tuba four" as supercat suggested; I think I say it both ways myself.
|
"Who" in this sentence In this song of Hunger Games [The hanging tree], there's this part that seems odd to me: Are you coming to the tree, where they strung up a man they say who murdered three. Why is "Who" used here? Is it a relative pronoun, or something similar? I believe "who" is used to substitute "a man". However, it sounds very odd to me, since I haven't ever heard something likewise. However, if "who" is really substituting the noun "man", does that mean I could say: They didn't like Maria. They said who was not such forthcoming person. Thank you in advance. <Q> They say in parenthetical: <S> This is a man who murdered three. <S> This is a man, they say, who murdered three. <A> Yes, who is a relative pronoun. <S> By the way, the word-order here is a little confusing: . <S> . . <S> they strung up a man they say who murdered three. <S> It suggests they may not have strung him up: it's just a rumour. <S> If it we change it to: . <S> . . <S> they strung up a man who they say murdered three. <S> it means they <S> did string him up. <S> He was rumoured to have killed three. <S> In your second example: They didn't like Maria. <S> They said who was not such forthcoming person. <S> you are trying to use the relative pronoun to link to the previous sentence. <S> Relative pronouns link one clause to another. <S> Maria is out of reach! <S> You need to say: They didn't like Maria, who they said was not such a forthcoming person. <A> In the sentence: Are you coming to the tree, where they strung up a man they say who murdered three. <S> who has the same meaning of a which or a that .
| However, in general when we are talking about people we use the relative pronoun: who .
|
Meaning of "by fall" What is the meaning of by fall in the following sentence The once-unthinkable toll appears to be just the beginning of untold misery in the months ahead as Las Vegas casinos and Walt Disney World make plans to reopen, crowds of unmasked Americans swarm beaches and public health officials predict a resurgence by fall . <Q> In North American English, the fall is another way to say autumn , which is one of the four seasons of the year that comes after summer and ends before winter. <S> You might now ask why is there no definite article in front of fall in by fall . <S> That might be the reason why the definite article is missing there, but I can't be entirely sure. <S> Anyway, by fall is correct and idiomatic. <S> So, what public health officials are trying to say is that by the time it's autumn, we're going to have a resurgence in the number of covid-19 cases, meaning, the curve that represents the number of people who have contracted the virus is going to go up again. <A> Here "by" means "before". <S> From Merriam-Webster : <S> 3b: <S> not later than be there by 2 p.m. So to paraphrase, public health officials are predicting a resurgence before the fall. <A> Fall is one of the four seasons (astronomically, and meteorologically in temperate climates): spring, summer, fall, winter: https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/aboutseasons.html <S> So what this is saying is that public health officials expect the incidence of COVID-19 cases to show a considerable increase by September.
| Well, it's often the case in English that articles are omitted when they follow the preposition by when it is used to indicate a deadline or the end of a particular time period.
|
How do you pronounce 2'' x 9/2" x 8' (board)? I called Home Depot to reserve some wood. This is my exact requirement: 2" x 9/2" x 8ft. I told them over the phone many times "I am calling to make sure if you have four 2 inch times 9 inch divided by 2 inch times 8 feet board." and yet they don't seem to understand, and they want me to go there and talk to them. What am I doing wrong? How am I supposed to pronounce this so it is easy for the workers to understand? <Q> See also How do you pronounce 2×4 (board) <S> As in linked question you say × as "by" The fraction 9/2 in this context is never read as "nine divided by two" but as "four point five" or "four and a half" <S> So the 2" x 9/2" x 8ft is "two-inch by four-and-a-half-inch by eight-foot" <S> This is not a board, its a post, or a length of timber. <S> I want to buy some timber, <S> Do you have two inch by four point five inch posts. <S> 8 feet long. <S> It doesn't need to be treated or planed. <S> In fact it is best to take this step by step engaging in conversation <S> I want to buy some timber. <S> Ok, are you looking for treated wood for the garden <S> No, it is to replace some interior studwork. <S> Okay <S> what size do you need? <S> two inch by four point five inch. <S> Yes we have that, how long? <S> eight foot. <S> By breaking it down you get time for the other person to process, to ask the questions that they think are important, to check at each stage. <A> After reading all the excellent answers, I was able to clearly communicate what I wanted with the Home Depot sales person. <S> I had to go there though (they were not picking up my phone call). <S> I told them I wanted some board to build a heavy-bag stand. <S> Jake: I'll take you to where we keep our dimensional lumber. <S> What did you have in mind? <S> Me: Well, I need four posts ( as James K said in his answer ). <S> I was hoping to get two inches by four point five inches and eight feet long. <S> (Yes, I couldn't say this the right way.) <S> Jake: Four point five?? <S> You will have to take four two-by-sixes and then plane them down. <S> Me: <S> Okay wait, can you first tell me the most accurate way to say this, like the measurement? <S> Jake: <S> Oh, yes, was it you who called in, <S> yeah sorry about that. <S> So you would say "two-by-six" first and then the length which is the actual size. <S> So a "two-by-six" is actually "one-and-a-half-inches by five-and-a-half-inches" . <S> Me: <S> Right. <S> But how would you say the decimal if you had to for the nominal size? <S> Jake: We don't usually use decimals like that <S> but if I had to say it, I would probably say "two by four-and-a-half-inches" . <S> To summarize, the correct way to say this is to break the measurement down. <S> First say the nominal size of the width and the depth, and then say the actual length. <S> I am wondering if you guys have two by four-and-a-half inches dimensional lumbers (or posts or studs). <S> They need to be 8 feet long. <S> And I need four of them. <A> <A> The clerk was right to point out that if you need 4.5" you'll need to get a nominal 2x6, which is really only 5.5" wide, and cut an inch off it. <S> (A lengthwise cut like this is called a "rip", so you could ask the shop if they could "rip" it down to exactly 4 and a half. <S> I don't think you'd use a planer take a full inch off, planers are for removing smaller amounts. <S> Many lumberyards can rip boards for you; I've seen them rip 2x4's to make up an order for 2x2's.) <S> But the other dimension is actually harder. <S> That 2x6 is only 1-1/2" thick, so if your project needs a full 2" in that dimension, you're half an inch shy. <S> And the average big-box store may not have anything in stock thicker than the nominal 2". <S> In modern construction, posts, beams, sills and other thick components are likely to be made up of several "two-by" boards glued and nailed together--or special-ordered "engineered lumber" which is a composite of wood and glue. <S> Even if you're matching the size of studs in older homes, which may have been exactly 2" by 4", it's only the 4" direction that's important, because it's thickness of the wall. <S> Nobody cares if the stud is a little thinner in the other direction. <S> This may be why the clerk only paid attention to the 4-1/2" direction, and ignored the 2". <S> Specialty lumberyards might have 4x6s. <S> You could phone some and say "Do you have 8-foot lumber that you could rip for me down to finish size exactly 2 inches by 4 and a half" and see what they say. <S> ("Finish size" is a common way to say the actual measured size of a finished product.) <S> You're definitely getting into a specialty market. <S> At risk of re-framing the question, what most folks would do is design their project from the beginning using the standard dimensions that will be in stock: 2x4's, 2x6's, 4x4's, and so forth, all of which being slightly smaller than what the numbers will suggest. <A> Nobody in the building trade says '9/2' or 'nine halves', and saying 'board' can also be confusing, but a 'plank' indicates it is a length of timber. <S> A thinner plank might sometimes be called a board (e.g. floor boards, skirting boards), but a board can also be a sheet such as fibreboard or chipboard. <S> It's a good idea to separate the quantity (a length here) from the dimensions too: <S> I want an 8 foot length of 2 by 4-and-a-half.
| You would pronounce it as 2 inches by 4 and a half inches by 8 feet . So you wanna say the nominal size first which is basically the nominal width and the depth of the lumber.
|
Can I omit the subject directly in informal writing? Can I just omit the subject directly in informal sentence,or I should omit it and start with ing? For example: (I) Sing in the middle of storms/ Singing in the middle of storms. <Q> An English sentence with a root verb but without an explicit subject is an order to someone unspecified who is not the person speaking. <S> So Sing in the middle of storms is grammatical and means that someone <S> other then the speaker must sing during storms. <S> If that is what you want to say, then the sentence is perfect. <S> But it does NOT, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. <S> mean <S> I sing in the middle of storms. <S> When an explicit subject is missing, the implied subject is "you." <S> Singing in the middle of storms lacks a verb. <S> Without a verb, it is not a grammatically valid sentence. <S> It is what is called a sentence fragment. <S> Such fragments do occur, e.g. <S> "Hi there," but they basically convey a very simple emotion rather than a thought. <S> Most fragments are unintelligibly ambiguous, as indeed this one is. <S> There are hundred of ways to complete this fragmentary thought. <S> Singing in storms is what my mother says she did when she was a small child <S> Singing in storms causes cancer Singing in storms is a sure sign of lunacy. <S> Which one is meant? <S> No one listening or reading can tell. <S> You have introduced a subject but then said nothing about it. <S> EDIT : <S> The comments to this answer are correct that sometimes context provides sufficient information to render a sentence fragment unambiguous. <S> Knowing when there is sufficient context can be difficult even for a native speaker. <S> I'd avoid sentence fragments when you have the slightest doubt. <S> In the following video, it is quite clear who is singing and dancing in the rain. https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=signing+in+the+rain#id=1&vid=89f2538b0ea04000a4a9f5512078a8a9&action=click <A> In short isolated sentences in informal conversation, we often omit an initial subject pronoun and a following auxiliary: <S> Going out? <S> Got some! <S> Don't know. <S> See any? <S> Spoken to him? <S> Heard it. <S> So if you were writing down a conversation like this (which can happen on text or Whatsapp etc) you would probably write just as above. <S> But even in informal conversation, if an utterance consists of more than one sentence, we don't generally omit the subject or auxiliary. <S> So your example is not idiomatic, spoken or written. <A> Without the subject, it becomes imperative. <S> It will be understood as an order “(you must) sing in the middle of the storms”.
| Unlike some other languges, in English you can’t omit the subject in the sentence “I sing in the middle of the storms” without changing the meaning.
|
What is the difference between a compound noun and a collocation? Compound nouns are usually two or more words put together to create a new noun.examples sunflower, blackboard etc. Where as collocations are words or phrases which are commonly used together. examples heavy rainfall, deep sleep, to make bed etc.Could you update me a little more about the same? <Q> For example, you make the bed , but you do your homework . <S> Example : 1) <S> collocations with make : make breakfast , <S> make a mistake , make a decision , make love , make room , <S> make a noise , etc. <S> 2) collocations with <S> do : do the shopping , do the dishes , do your homework , do your hair , <S> do a course , do a favour , etc. <S> But compound nouns or nominal compounds are different things. <S> More than one simple word or primary word or base word or root word combine together to form a compound word. <S> For example, (I) ready + made = <S> readymade (compound adjective). <S> (ii) <S> full + fill = <S> fulfil <S> (compound verb). <S> (iii) moon + light = moonlight <S> ( compound noun or nominal compound ) <S> Compound nouns are also formed by simple words of different parts of speech : He (pronoun) + goat (noun) = <S> he-goat (compound noun) <S> Pick (verb) + pocket (noun) = <S> pickpocket (compound noun) Over (adverb) + production (noun) = over-production (compound noun). <S> Up (preposition) + keep (verb) = <S> upkeep (compound noun). <S> In (preposition) + come (verb) = <S> income (compound noun). <S> Draw (verb) <S> + back (adverb) = <S> drawback (compound noun). <S> Hear (verb) <S> + say (verb) = <S> hearsay (compound noun). <S> Sometimes a compound noun consists of three words. <S> Such compound nouns usually have the following structure: Noun + V-ing <S> / V - p.p. <S> + Noun. <S> e.g., God-fearing person <S> ( = Person who fears God). <S> Machine-made clothes <S> ( = <S> Clothes made by machine). <S> Compound nouns can be written in different ways : 1) with no space between two words : footpath . <S> 2) with hyphen : tea-set . <S> 3) with space between the words : mango tree . <S> 4) with hyphen between the first & the second words : Tea-growing area . <S> 5) without any hyphen : Calcutta bus routes . <A> Mr BillJ, even Micheal Swan, in his Practical English Usage, called: cmpounds are two nouns put one to another (Noun + Noun) compounds. <S> So, he didn't mention "syntactic constructions." <A> Mr Sandip, could you please confirm thses three points?To sum everything up: <S> You say any wordings order consisting of "nou + noun" " like in "exam paper," "ticket office," "office ticket," "mango tree," "physics exam," "room key," "cat son (kitten) is a compound noun. <S> You say any wordings order consisting of "adjective + noun" like in "young cat" is a collection. <S> But, I know "exam paper," "ticket office," "office ticket," "mango tree," "physics exam," "room key," "cat son," etc can be rephrased with using this pattern structure the "head" word + the "of" possession + the modifier(modifying word):"the paper of the/an exam""the office of ticket(s)""the ticket(s) of office(s)"the tree of the/a mango""the exam of phyiscs""the keey of the/a room"the son of the/a cat"
| The collocation is a sequence or juxtaposition of words or terms that usually co-occur / go together in a sentence.
|
I'll think of something / I'll make something up My brother's sneaking out to a party and before leaving he asks me what I'm going to tell our parents when they ask where he is. I say: I'll make something up. I'll think of something. Do both the expressions mean the same thing? <Q> "I'll make something up" places greater emphasis on the fact that you are lying. <S> "I'll think of something" does not necessarily mean you are lying (although in this case, the context makes it clear that you are): it can mean <S> "I will choose a truthful reason that makes a good excuse." <A> Out of that context ( with the example above) 'I'll think of something'means to come up with an idea that is factual eg. <S> What shall we do on Sunday? <S> I don't know, I'll think of something. <S> Whereas to make something up would not work there. <S> To make something up always means to pretend, or create fiction, like making up a funny story. <S> And yes it can mean to lie. <A> The two phrases are not quite interchangeable. <S> "I'll think of something" could mean either something factual (tell the truth) or that you might still come up with a lie. <S> It's a bit vague. <S> "I'll come up with something" is very similar. <S> Given the context (sneaking out to a party without parental permission), it might be very hard to come up with a completely truthful explanation that will get your brother off the hook. <S> Given such difficulties (particularly if you are facing punishment if you lie), the implication is that you are acknowledging that you will have to lie to cover up for your brother, even though (with the "think of something" phrase) you aren't yet committing to a lie.
| "I'll make something up" suggests that you plan to come up with a fabrication (lie), and are not planning to tell the truth. In this context, they are interchangeable.
|
Why do native speakers use the present continuous tense when talking about people in a picture? Why not the past continuous tense? This is some sentences in a flyer test. I took this photo by the lake last Saturday, Grandma. It looks lovely. Do you know any of these people? Yes, I do. The man who’s reading the newspaper is William. He’s wearing a nice hat. He is, isn’t he? Grandpa knows him, I think! Why don't they say " he was wearing a nice hat " because that was happening in the past? Can we use the present tense to describe people in a video ? For example, " Look at you in this video! You are smiling and swimming in a bathtub ". <Q> But normally, when you look at a picture you describe the things in the picture in the present tense. <S> The picture doesn't change, it's always the same. <S> It's the same type of thing as describing what's depicted in a painting. <S> Especially if the painting doesn't represent anybody in reality, there is no past for the people shown. <S> Within the context of the painting itself, it's always the present. <S> As such, both past and present are possible: <S> "What was he doing just before you took this picture?" <S> "What is he looking at [in the picture]?" The same also holds true of video: <S> "I remember when we shot that. <S> We were all having a good time." <S> "This is when I couldn't figure out what was going on. <S> Just wait until you see what happens next." <S> The context determines if you're asking about the present content of the picture or video, or about the past experience of the person who was captured in the picture or video. <A> When describing what is present in the picture we tend to use present tense: That is granddad. <S> He is wearing a hat. <S> The continuous form is used, although it might not be "logical", at any rate we treat the picture as if it were happening now. <S> It's not required, and if you use a past time you'd also use past tense <S> That was granddad in 1951. <S> He was wearing a hat. <S> When we describe facts that are not present in the picture, we will tend to move to a past tense. <S> That is granddad. <S> That was the trip he took to Rome in 1951. <S> You can do the same with videos: If you need to describe what is present in the video you can use the present continuous (but its not wrong to use a past tense) if you are making inferences from the picture the use past tense <S> You are smiling and swimming in the bathtub. <S> You were such a happy baby. <A> It's a narrative trick. <S> The speaker is trying to engage the listener, probably emotionally, and using the present tense can make the story seem more immediate and relevant. <S> "He is wearing a hat" induces further questions, like ' <S> Why? <S> Where did he get it? <S> Does he wear it a lot?' <S> The past tense makes such details seem distant and unimportant. <S> It's a subtle effect. <S> You may also encounter that in the absence of pictures; somebody telling about an experience they had last week will use the past tense when simply conveying information, but the present tense when attempting to engage or inspire. <A> For example, in discussing the play Hamlet we would generally use the present tense: Hamlet investigates the sightings of the ghost of his father. <S> Later, he finds a skull in a graveyard <S> that he grimly jokes is of a court jester that he knew when he was younger. <S> That is, before the actions of the play begin. <S> Hamlet does not realize that the grave that is being dug is likely for Ophelia. <S> Generally, the present tense is correct for discussing fiction such as in the example from Study.com where the story of the tortoise and the hare is explicated: ' <S> The fast hare challenges other animals to a race. <S> The slow and steady tortoise accepts the challenge. <S> The hare, who is confident in his abilities, decides to take a nap on the course. <S> As a result, he loses .' <S> Since the present tense is used to discuss poems, stories, novels, plays, it follows that the present tense should also be used for film and video, and also for photographs and paintings.
| You can use the past tense, if you are talking about what the person who was photographed was doing. It's not necessary, and a lot of people use it without really knowing why. The reason we use the present tense to describe a person in a photo or a video, is similar to the reason that we use the present tense when we are discussing or criticizing the actions in a novel or a play, but sometimes the past continuous is correct as in the example that follows.
|
What are the grammar rules when making questions using auxiliary verbs combining all the three tenses or either of them in a single sentence? Should I repeat the main verb after every auxiliary verb or can I simply skip it after the first or second auxiliary verb and use it after the last auxiliary verb in a sentence? For example, can I say ”Have you ever(I've skipped the main verb ”fall” here) or would you ever fall in love with someone you met on the internet?” <Q> [ Have you ever ] or [ would you ever ] fall in love with someone you met on the internet? <S> Strictly speaking this is unacceptable because "fall in love ..." cannot satisfy the complement requirements of both bracketed coordinates. <S> "Have you ever" requires a past participle complement ("Have you ever fallen in love ...? <S> "), whereas "would you ever" requires an infinitival one ("Would you ever fall in love ...? <S> "). <S> Nevertheless, you are likely to hear this kind of sentence spoken, and many people wouldn't even notice the error. <S> What this teaches us is that ungrammaticality is gradient, and humans are amazingly tolerant of slight departures from full grammaticality. <A> You need not repeat the main verb after every auxiliary verb, you can skip it after the first or second auxiliary verb and use it after the last auxiliary verb in a sentence only when the main verbs have the same forms. <S> ” <S> Have you ever fallen or would you ever fall in love with someone you met on the internet?” <S> Here, we can't skip the first main verb because the two main verbs have different forms : 'fallen ' & 'fall' . <A> Information you can use Same tense of a verb: Have you ever traveled or been to Hungary? <S> [OK, have traveled, have been: no need to repeat have, the auxiliary] Two different tenses: Have you ever traveled or would you ever travel to Hungary? <S> [OK, have travel ed BUT would travel, two different helping verbs. <S> have traveled and would travel must be used] <S> Two different present tenses: <S> Am I making myself clear and do I make myself clear in general around here? <S> [two different tenses taking two different forms] <S> Rule: <S> Do you ever speak or write English? <S> [same form: present perfect, no repetition <S> Have you ever spoken English or <S> would you ever speak it? <S> [different forms: present perfect and conditional, you have to use the forms.]
| Follow the verb form: if the forms are different, you need to show that.
|
Is the expression "very worth" proper English, and if not, what are some alternatives? Is the expression "very worth" proper English, and if not, what are some alternatives? Example: This presentation is very worth watching in its entirety. <Q> It's <S> well worth watching <S> would be my preference From Lexico <S> A short train journey to the north, Blair Atholl and Atholl Castle are well worth a visit. <S> ‘The book is well worth reading <S> and you can make up your own minds.’ <A> I find "very worth watching" to be acceptable English. <S> This is a link to an ngram comparison of the two expressions, "very much worth", and "very worth". <S> Ngram "very worth <S> , very much worth" <S> Examples of the use of the phrases in books are linked at the bottom of the page. <S> As usual, some of the examples don't fit, but many of the examples of "very worth X" are apt. <A> Not in this context (see other answers); but the phrase "very worth" can be used, albeit from old English, in a different context: <S> Losing my fish took my very worth from me <S> very here emphasises the completeness and importance of the <S> worth that has been lost <A> Adjectives can be modified by adverbs. <S> The adjective "worth" can be modified by the adverb "very". <S> Its use as an adjective in "This presentation is very worth watching in its enterity." is recognized by definition 9.c.(b) in the Oxford English Dictionary: <S> Sufficiently valuable or important to be treated or regarded in the way specified; deserving of the time or effort spent. <S> This is divided into three sections, depending on whether its complement is a) a noun or a pronoun, b) an infinitive, or c) a verbal noun or gerund. <S> c. <S> With verbal noun or gerund as complement. <S> "Watching" here is such a verbal noun. <S> Further, the verbal noun can be (a) preceded by a determiner, or <S> (b) not. <S> (b) With unmodified verbal noun or gerund, as worth trying . <A> My common casual usage if I were speaking extemporaneously would most likely be to use "really" for emphasis. <S> It's "really worth watching". <S> If I was suggesting it had particular value and wanted a more formal nuance I would would say "well worth watching". <S> If I were writing E.G. email I would probably use "well". <S> I am a native American English speaker with a BA. <S> I would probably never say "very worth watching". <S> Don't ask me why. <S> In my social circle that would sound awkward. <S> Just my typical usage. <A> "Very worth" is technically good grammar, but nobody ever says it. <A> You could also use This presentation is very worthwhile watching in its entirety. <S> For me this is a much closer / smaller change, and reasonably natural usage.
| The intensifier "very" applies to the entire adjective expression "worth watching". "Very much worth" is a good choice.
|
What's the natural way to ask about the current degrees of the weather? What's the natural way to ask about degrees of the weather? Can I ask: "What's the temperature?" or "What's the weather like now?" and people will understand I'm asking the degrees? Asking "How many degrees of Celsius are now?" or "How many degrees are now?" are natural? Or maybe another way to ask appropriately what I want. <Q> Weather doesn't have degrees, it has states and conditions. <S> If you ask what the weather is like, you'll likely get a response similar to the following: <S> It's (windy, raining, sunny, snowing, hot, cold). <S> It would be unusual to get a response with the actual temperature unless it's something particularly noteworthy: <S> "You wouldn't believe how hot it is! <S> It's up to 35° <S> C / 95 <S> °F!" <S> "What's the temperature?" <A> "What's the temperature outside?" would be a totally natural way to ask this. <S> You can shorten this to just "What's the temperature?" if you think it's clear that you're talking about the temperature outside. <S> You can also add "now" or "right now" if you want. <S> If you know that it's cold outside, it would also sound totally natural to ask "How cold is it outside?"; and likewise, if it's hot, you can ask "How hot is it outside?" <S> "How many degrees are now? <S> " sounds ungrammatical. <S> On the other hand, the question "How many degrees are there now?" would be grammatical—but it's still incorrect! <S> After all, we don't say "There are 30 degrees outside"; we say "It's 30 degrees outside". <S> So you can't ask about "how many degrees there are". <S> You could ask "How many degrees is it now?", and that wouldn't be incorrect—but it's just not something people say. <S> If you ask the question that way, people will think that maybe you don't know the word "temperature". <S> In summary: What's the temperature outside? <S> – good <S> How cold is it outside? <S> – good if it's cold outside <S> How hot is it outside? <S> – good if it's hot outside <S> How many degrees are now? – <S> ungrammatical <S> How many degrees are there now? <S> – incorrect (but not ungrammatical) <S> How many degrees is it now? <S> – sounds strange (but not incorrect) <A> Asking "what's the temperature?" or "what's the temperature outside? <S> are both perfectly normal. <S> However, your response will almost certainly be in Fahrenheit if you are in the U.S. <S> If you are in the U.S. <S> and you need to ask specifically for the temperature in Celsius, the best way would be to ask, "what's the temperature in Celsius?" <S> This would be a shortened and casual way of asking "what is the current local temperature measured in Celsius?" <S> However, it can be assumed in casual conversation that you are asking for the temperate here and now and that Celsius is a unit of measurement. <S> Therefore, you can simply ask: "what's the temperature in Celsius?" <A> Cambridge Dictionary defines temperature as: the measured amount of heat in a place or in the body. <S> When you are asking about the temperature outside, it simply means that you are asking for the degree of the heat outside. <S> Whereas Cambridge Dictionary defines weather as: the conditions in the air above the earth such as wind, rain, or temperature, especially at a particular time over a particular area. <S> When someone asks for the weather outside, that person is generally asking if it’s hazy, windy or rainy. <S> Weather is a broader term which includes temperature and other units such as humidity, precipitation, cloudiness and visibility.
| If the temperature is specifically what you want to know, then you should ask about it specifically:
|
What is the term for a text box where users can type anything they want What is the term for a text box on a webpage/form/etc. like a comment box where a user can type anything they want? The term I'm thinking of doesn't sound right. I want to call this a free form text box but that doesn't sound correct. Thanks for any terms you suggest. <Q> "Free-form" is exactly what I would call it. <S> Then I would be using it in a technical conversation. <S> There's no non-technical equivalent. <S> If you want to not use "free-form" you probably have to spell out what you mean in a longer phrase. <A> Why not just use the simple term "text box" ? <S> That seems to be the most appropriate term and is quite likely to be understood by everyone. <S> I don't think "free-form" is a commonly used term. <S> On its own, it sounds strange to me: <S> Please enter your comment in the free-form below. <S> You can also use "text field" , which sounds more natural than "free-form", at least to me. <S> But what is natural really? <S> Who is your audience? <S> "Free-form text box" or "free-form text field" would be fine, but they just add more words that are not necessary to say what you are referring to. <A> In technical terms, we use “ text area ”. <S> It’s commonly used to enter comments and suggestions. <S> Definition of Text Area : <S> According to w3schools.com : A text area is often used in a form, to collect user inputs like comments or reviews.
| A text area is a large box that allows you to enter multiple lines of text.
|
What does "worry" mean in "The old farmer would stroke his whiskers and worry"? The old farmer would stroke his whiskers and worry ... What does "worry" mean here? Does it simply mean worry beads ? The fuller text: Friends from the country would send an invitation: Come see us! We want to feed you. We have plenty of everything! The survivor would arrive at the village, unable to believe his eyes. The farmhouse would be twice its prewar size. A refrigerator would be standing in the kitchen, a washing machine in the hall. There would be Oriental carpets on the floor and original paintings on the walls. The sausage would be served on silver platters and the beer in cut glass. The old farmer would stroke his whiskers and worry , “No sense denying it – we did very well during the war. People had to eat, you know, and with a little thinking... But now things are different... Just as long as the Communists don’t take over...” Under a Cruel Star , A Life in Prague 1941-1968 by Heda Margolius Kovály Translated by Helen Epstein. <Q> I think you have misparsed this. <S> It seems you treat "worry" as a noun and an object of stroke "to stroke his whiskers" and "to stroke his worry". <S> That's not correct. <S> Worry is being used as a quotative verb like "say" or "ask". <S> It introduces the direct speech. <S> He says "No sense denying..." in a worried voice. <S> The old farmer is worrying about his new wealth and the possibility of losing it "if the communists take over". <S> As he thinks he strokes his facial hair (a common mannerism) "Worry beads", κομπολόι, are Greek and this is from "Under a Cruel Star: <S> A life in Prague" in Czechoslovakia. <A> Stroking his whiskers appears to be a mannerism of the farmer when he is worried. <S> So, he worries that things are different -- and at the same time, through habit, he strokes his whiskers. <A> "Would" is a modal verb. <S> Modal verbs are all auxiliary verbs, also known, as helping verbs. <S> In this construction: subject (farmer) + helping verb (would) + verb (stroke) + object (his beard) + conjunction (and) + verb (worry) Since there is no comma before the conjunction (and), the subject stays the same, but the helping verb works for both verbs. <S> It is the same as: <S> The old man would stroke his beard, and the old man would worry. <S> If one wanted to say worry beads, to avoid ambiguity, one would say:The old man would stroke his beard and some worry beads. <A> Since you mentioned worry beads,... <S> Think of what your fingers do to those beads when you are worrying them. <S> Now, imagine your mind, doing the same thing to a thought that causes you distress. <S> That's the most common usage of "worry" in my country ( <S> U.S.A.) <S> It's a kind of torment that you inflict on yourself by thinking the same disturbing thought, over and over again.
| "Worry" is a verb, and so there is a list of two actions: "to stroke his whiskers" and "to worry".
|
Are "concur" and "agree" exact synonyms? I was talking to a friend and he said something I agreed with so much I said the common phrase: I couldn't agree more except, I said "concur" instead of agree because we were using Skype, and back when Cortana was a thing, the suggested phrase was always "I concur" instead of "I agree". My question is, do I couldn't agree more and I couldn't concur more mean the same thing, or is concur badly used here? <Q> While they technically mean the same thing, replacing agree with concur in that phrase sounds a little peculiar. <S> Concur is highly formal, commonly found in legislative or judicial settings. <S> Agree is a more frequent and common word. <S> "I couldn't agree more" is somewhat colloquial, so rephrasing with concur sticks out as a weird word choice. <A> Agree and concur are synonyms, but the English usage of them corresponds to their etymology. <S> "Concur" derives from Latin concurrere, which literally means "to run (currere) together with (con) something or someone", and was also used for people gathering together in a crowd. <S> "Agree" derives from Latin "ad gratus" meaning "to be pleasing to (someone)". <S> "Concur" is a binary situation - either you concur with something <S> or you don't. <S> "Agree" can express different levels of agreement. <S> You can "partly agree with" something, but you can't "partly concur with" it. <S> "Since "I couldn't agree more " expresses an amount of agreement, you can't replace "agree" with "concur" in that phrase. <A> According to the dictionary, the primary meaning of "concur" is to "express agreement" or to "approve." <S> Thus, if you want be super fussy, "concur" may not be a perfect synonym for "agree" because one can "agree tacitly. <S> " <S> Of course, if you express agreement as you did, you are concurring by definition. <S> So, yes, the two alternatives would have had identical meanings in the situation described. <S> BUT, and now I am moving into opinion, my experience with usage is that "concur" seems to have connotations of formal and public agreement on an important matter. <S> I'm tired. <S> Pizza for dinner? <S> I agree. <S> To my ear, substitute "concur" for "agree" in that exchange, and it sounds off. <S> To support what is a personal impression, here is a link to Ngram https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=agree%2Cconcur&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cagree%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cconcur%3B%2Cc0 <S> Clearly, published writers find "agree" appropriate to almost 10 times the number of contexts than those where they find "concur" appropriate. <S> I'd prefer the actual practice of writers who found publishers over the advice of any software app. <A> You can agree to do something, but you can't concur to do something, so they're not absolute synonyms, thesauruses notwithstanding. <A> As the other answers say, they are mostly synonyms, but there is one important difference. <S> "Agree" can be transitive ("the two people agreed the contract") but "concur" cannot be used in that way (i.e. you cannot say "the two people concurred the contract"). <A> A few people have pointed out cases where "concur" and "agree" aren't actually synonyms (at least in the opinion of the author). <S> I'm going to add another case with which I believe others are likely to concur/agree. :-) <S> This would be related to something like a meal. <S> You might indicate that some food made you feel slightly sick by saying something like: "my lunch didn't agree with me". <S> I can't think of any way to use "concur" to mean the same thing as "agree" in this case.
| Concur and agree are synonyms, but "I couldn't agree more" is a set phrase .
|
Is there any difference between the nouns "raise" and "rise"? I know the difference between the verbs to raise and to rise, but is there any difference between their corresponding nouns raise and rise ? For example, are the two sentences There was a gradual raise in the employment rate as the economy began to recover. There was a gradual rise in the employment rate as the economy began to recover. both correct and do they have the same meaning? The sentence is from an exercise where given a sentence and a word you have to complete another sentence so that it has similar meaning. The original sentence is: The employment rate rose gradually as the economy began to recover. The word to use is gradual and the sentence to complete is: There ........... the employment rate as the economy began to recover. So technically the solution with rise is the correct solution, but I was wondering if using raise changes the meaning. <Q> A "rise" is an increase in number, size, amount, or degree. <S> Rises can happen naturally, or incrementally, such as a rise in temperature or a rise in unemployment. <S> Raises are deliberate increases, such as raising someone's salary or raising an imposed limit. <S> If you look at the dictionary definition for raise as a noun <S> you will see the definitions are all deliberate things: an increase in salary <S> an increased stake in poker the action of lifting a weight over one's head <S> In your example of unemployment rates, "rise" would be the correct noun. <S> The rates of unemployment have not been deliberately raised - the rise has just been observed. <S> It should be added that "rise" is sometimes used to describe an increase in pay, which as an intentional act by an employer does seem to be something of an exception to what I've just said. <S> This ngram shows that "pay raise" is used at least twice as much as "pay rise", still it is idiomatic. <S> Still, as verbs the distinction is very clear and the link between usage of the verbs and the nouns is undeniable. <A> Personally, I think OP's first example is non-standard (particularly for Brits), because we usually use rise rather than raise as the noun form in such contexts (and here's the proof of that, in an NGram chart). <S> Offhand the only really common noun use <S> I can think of for <S> a raise is when it means a wage increase (that's in American English <S> only - British English favours rise for that sense). <S> The other big difference is that as a verb , raise is usually transitive (you raise something , meaning you make it higher) 1 , whereas rise is usually intransitive (so we can just say The tide is rising <S> - it's going up itself ; it doesn't necessarily lift anything else). <S> For OP's final example text, we can include either term. <S> For example,... 1: There was a rise in the employment rate as the economy began to recover. <S> 2: <S> There was a raised employment rate as the economy began to recover. <S> ... <S> where #1 reflects my initial assertion (prefer rise for the noun sense), and the somewhat less natural (but still syntactically valid) <S> #2 is a "passive" Past Participle of the transitive verb, used adjectivally (some unspecified agent raised the rate). <S> 1 <S> As pointed out by @Colin Fine above, and at greater length by dictionary.com ,... <S> Raise is the causative of rise ; to raise something is to cause it to rise . <S> Raise is almost always used transitively. <A> Raise requires an agent. <S> Rise <S> does not (unless you're a magician or god). <S> What this means is that someone or something has to raise X, but X can rise by itself. <S> Also often there is the implication that X is being held by something or someone, if it is being raised . <S> With rise , the implication could be that it might be on a surface that is also moving up. <S> There was a gradual RAISE in the employment rate as the economy began to recover. <S> Someone or something made it raise. <S> However since we can't identify that someone or something--the sentence is in the agentless passive voice-- rise should be preferred. <A> Raise is US English for "increase in wages or salary" <S> like in <S> The boss gave me a raise . <S> Rise <S> is the noun derived from the verb to rise with all of the corresponding meanings, plus the UK English analog of the US raise . <S> Exercise is usually accompanied by a temporary rise in blood pressure. <S> Anyway, irrespective of which variety of English your exercise is aimed at, it is rise which is needed there.
| A "raise" is an act of increasing something.
|
"You can sleep while I drive" vs. "you can sleep while I am driving" Could you tell me what is the slight difference in meaning between the following senences? It'll take us four hours to get to the coast, so you can sleep while I drive . It'll take us four hours to get to the coast, so you can sleep while I am driving . <Q> It'll take us four hours to get to the coast, so you can sleep while I drive. <S> Here, while can (but does not necessarily have to) mean <S> whereas . <S> If said alone without more context, I would interpret it as "I will drive for the full four hours whereas you can sleep." <S> It'll take us four hours to get to the coast, so you can sleep while I am driving. <S> Here, while here can only mean during the time that . <S> The progressive emphasizes the time period when I am driving. <S> For example, it can be used for this scenarios: I will drive for the first two hours, during which time you can sleep, but afterwards, you will drive instead. <S> But there are also scenarios where they both make sense. <A> As has been pointed out, in some contexts, while can mean whereas / on the other hand / contrariwise . <S> But no native speaker would interpret OP's cited example like that without a couple more words to make it obvious exactly where the contrast lies (between what speaker and addressee are able to / must do)... <S> 1 <S> : ... so you can sleep, while I have to / must drive <S> So in practice, while in OP's example only really has the "literal" sense of at the same time / concurrently . <S> I must admit I find it hard to imagine any native speaker using the non-contracted continuous form in this example. <S> But arguably in and of itself the continuous form... <S> 2 <S> : ... so you can sleep while I'm driving ... <S> emphasizes the "duration" and/or "immediacy" of the activity (it's a long drive, either already started or starting very soon ). <S> In short, a speaker might use the continuous form for one or more of the reasons given above (by implication, including the possibility that what speaker actually means is ...while I continue driving ). <S> But most likely the speaker wouldn't be consciously aware of any of these factors - both verb forms are perfectly natural in the context, and I don't think many native speakers would give any particular thought to the choice here. <S> They're effectively equivalent. <A> In most cases there will be no difference in meaning between the two phrases. <S> Identifying subtleties of meaning may be insightful but they cannot interpreted to establish any type of rule. <S> Zhantongz's answer does illustrate one of those subtleties. <S> If you were currently driving and I wanted to indicate that I wanted you to stop driving and allow me take over, I would be more likely to use the active construct, "You can sleep while I drive." <S> However, "while I'm driving" would also work just as well and be completely understood in context. <A> This is really a question about verb tense, and I'm surprised no one has really given an answer that clarifies the difference between the two in general. <S> English has present tense (sleep) but also a "present imperfect" tense (sleeping). <S> They are very similar, but present imperfect is for actions that are continuous, or unfinished. <S> It's probably more common than present tense, honestly, especially when talking about things people do, because they can be changed. <S> If I'm talking whether the plumbing in my house works, I might say "the water runs" because at the current moment, it can, and if I turn it on, it does. <S> But if I'm talking about accidentally leaving the faucet on, I'm more likely to say "the water is running" because it is a present state that is likely to change at some point but has not yet stopped. <S> In the case of "you can sleep while I (drive / am driving)", as others have pointed out, the meaning doesn't really change. <S> I do believe there is a very subtle difference though, which is whose action the tense puts the focus on. <S> So, to me, "you can sleep while I drive" puts the focus on the sleeping person, because to them, the driving happens while they're asleep with no observable time elapsing during the drive; but "you can sleep while I am driving" puts the focus on the driving person, because to them, they have to make a continuous effort that won't be finished for a while. <A> However, I would say "you sleep while I drive" to mean the other person could sleep the whole way, but "you sleep while I'm driving" to perhaps imply that I'll wake you up when I stop for gas/food/whatever. <A> If the conversation has been focussed on the other person's need to catch some zees, the "you can sleep while I drive <S> " construction would be the more natural option. <S> "While I'm driving" emphasises the passenger's freedom to do as they please during the time interval in which the speaker will be focussed on the driving task. <S> But it would be more natural to say something like "OK, I'll be driving, so you can..." <S> Here's a slightly different example: <S> "I need you to be quiet while I drive." <S> "I need you to be quiet while I am driving." <S> The first sentence states a general rule, the second would be uttered when driving is happening right now and the rule is being broken.
| As others have said, there's not really much difference. They both can be used interchangeably to indicate that you may sleep while I sit behind the wheel of the vehicle and pilot it. "While I am driving" is a continuous, unfinished activity, whereas "while I drive" is more of a discrete single-event action.
|
What do you call a person who suggested something? A suggester? Let me give an example for context: If someone posted a question here on the site and I wanted to describe them, I can say "the asker" or "the poster". Now, if someone suggests an edit on that post, how would I describe them in a similar manner (using a single word)? Is the word "suggester" correct? (I couldn't find any usage of it.) If it's not, I'm looking for a word that has this meaning. It doesn't have to be derived from "suggest". A synonym would suffice as long as it fits in the context (e.g., "advisor", etc. wouldn't work). Update: (extra info; feel free to ignore) This post appears to have attracted a lot of people so let me try to clarify more. The example that I used above is very similar to the real-life situation but let me include the exact context that I wanted to use it in anyway. I was trying to come up with a meaningful variable name to use in a software development project that I'm working on. The situation is as follows: A client suggests something (actually, an edit to an existing item or a proposal for a new item) and I need to have two variables to refer to the following: The client that suggested the thing. The id of the client who suggested the thing. I couldn't just use Client and ClientId because it would be ambiguous in this particular situation. I ended up using SuggestedBy and SuggestedByClientId . Although the second one isn't perfect (I think), I believe it reflects the intention pretty well. I might change it later to Proposer and ProposerClientId as suggested by Jason in the answer below or just keep the word "proposer" in mind for future use cases. <Q> I have updated my answer based on several comments I've received. <S> Although it seems that the word suggester does actually exist as a variant of suggest (per Merriam-Webster), I find it so uncommon that, while understandable, it would give most people some pause on reading it. <S> I would say that a more common word is proposer . <S> [Merriam-Webster, propose ] 1 : to form or put forward a plan or intention // <S> man proposes , but God disposes Other Words from propose proposer <S> noun <S> In the right context, such as fields to be filled in on a form, the word would be quite appropriate: <S> Proposal: (____) <S> Proposer: (____) <S> Approved: <S> (Yes / No) <S> Also, I've been informed that proposer is frequently used in formal debates. <S> As for comparing suggester to proposer , <S> Google Ngram Viewer indicates that proposer is far more common, at least in print: <S> As I final note, I will add that while proposer might sound strange to some, so too would asker and poster , as used in the question. <S> Just as it would be more common to say the person who asked or the person who posted , it would also be more common to say the person who proposed (or the person who suggested ). <S> None of these single nouns are as common as a longer phrase; however, proposer is still relatively much more common than suggester . <A> I don't know of any one English word that means "the person who made the suggestion". <S> You have to use several words or a phrase. <S> Like, "the person who made the suggestion". <S> Based on general patterns of building English words, one might think that "suggester" would be appropriate. <S> But that's just not a word in common use. <S> If you used it, I suppose people would easily guess what you mean, but it would definitely sound odd. <S> If you were writing a long discussion about people who make suggestions, to avoid having to repeat a long phrase over and over you could say, "In this paper I will refer to people who make suggestions as 'suggesters'", and most readers would probably accept that. <S> But I wouldn't use it with no explanation. <A> A single, correct, commonly used and unambiguous word exists, and that word (as Jason Bassford states) is "proposer". <S> No-one will suddenly think someone is about to get married. <S> This would have been a comment <S> but I'm not able to comment. <A> A proposal is an act of submitting a structured plan of action for approval. <S> Someone who proposes something is typically waiting for a yes/no response from an approver. <S> This is not quite synonymous with suggest , which means to offer an idea but not stick around to wait for approval. <S> Hence why companies put out suggestion boxes and not proposal boxes . <S> Because a suggestion process doesn't involve waiting for approval, there's usually no need to link back to whoever is suggesting. <S> Now, if someone suggests an edit on that post, how would I describe them in a similar manner (using a single word)? <S> Can the edit be approved or denied? <S> Does the person making the edit receive notice of approval or denail? <S> Then you have a propose situation and not a suggest situation and should use the term propose instead. <A> I would put forward the following variable name ; composed by Suggestion and maker . <S> A maker is a very common noun, it refers to a person who makes something, and to " make a suggestion " is an extremely common collocation. <S> SuggestionMaker IdSuggestionMaker <S> In written English it would probably be “suggestion maker”. <S> Sorry, it's not a single word–although the compound noun suggestion-maker would be acceptable–its meaning remains very clear nevertheless. <S> I Googled, and lo and behold the term is used, with and without the hyphen. <S> The distinction between suggestion-maker and suggestion-receiver that is at work in all couples can be extrapolated to the level of the crowd. <S> If the suggestion-maker is not logged in to your website, they will see an option to log in. <S> Any content in the suggestion text box will not be saved if the suggestion-maker is not already logged in. <S> No, I wasn't aware. <S> I thought that the suggestion maker either didn't get to vote, or his vote was automatically considered a keep. <S> Are you a big thinker? <S> A question asker? <S> A suggestion maker ? <S> A life-long learner? <S> Do you speak up when you need to and grasp opportunities in both hands? <A> First example no one has said Editor <S> They attempted to edit, that became a suggested edit. <S> The editor's work was approved <S> Second example <S> I agree with proposer, just going to add more words into the mix <S> Second example sounds like you have a "Improvement" object and the person who suggested it was the submitter who submitted creator who created author who wrote contributor who contributed requestor who requested a improvement request/change request <A> Surprised not to see "proponent" here <S> : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proponent One who makes a proposal or proposition.
| Jason's answer does not need to be hedged around with the caveats that it is; when something has been put forward, suggested, floated, hypothesised, ventured, then if you refer to "the proposer" the average English speaker will easily understand you to mean the person who has made the suggestion.
|
How to say that I have spent a great time in Dubai? If I want to say that I have spent a great time in Dubai then how can I say it in an idiomatic way?Can I say the following? I have spent a great time in Dubai? Is it idiomatic? <Q> No - "a great time" idiomatically means a nice, or enjoyable time. <S> Some ways you could say that you spent a lot of time there would be: <S> I have spent a great deal of time in Dubai <S> I have spent a long time in Dubai <S> I have spent quite some time in Dubai <S> I have spent a considerable amount of time in Dubai. <A> No. <S> or "I have spent a long time in Dubai.", or, as in your post, "a good amount". <S> If you use "great time", that would mean that you enjoyed your time there, as for example in "I had a great time in Dubai." <S> Note that you must use "in Dubai". <A> I have spent a great time in Dubai? <S> It sounds a bit odd. <S> I would rather say: I have spent a great deal of time in Dubai. <S> I have had a great time in Dubai.
| You might say "I have spent a great deal of time in Dubai."
|
The phrase "to the Right of Attila the Hun" Recently I have come to the phrase "to the Right of Attila the Hun" which allegedly describes the very conservative or reactionary person. Is it possible to construct similar phrases such as: "to the Left of Che Guevara", "to the Fanatic of Savonarola" or "to the Sex of Cassanova"? <Q> Left or Right are a political spectrum, and there are degrees, so, "to the Left of Che Guevara," is a reasonable comparison. <S> " <S> More fanatic than Savonarola," is sensible, but simply "fanatic" itself is not comparing anything. <S> You'd need to use comparative adjectives in the sense you want. <S> "He's faster than a speeding bullet." <S> "She's brighter than Einstein." <S> "His humor is beneath slapstick." <A> "Right" and "left" are positions. <S> Here they are being used metaphorically, but let's look at the literal meaning. <S> You can say "He is standing "to the right of" her" or "in front of" her, or "behind her". <S> The phrase "to the right of" functions as a prepostion. <S> To form a phrase like this you need a word indicating a position: <S> To the north of / To the side of / to the front of "Sex" or "fanatic" aren't like that. <S> So you can't say "to the sex of" <S> In this actual example "right" means politically right wing (ie "conservative" or "authoritarian", "captialist" or "monarchist" depending on which version of right wing you mean) and "left" means politically left wing ("progressive", "liberal" "socialist", "republican" again, there are different versions of the left) <S> So you can say "To the left of Che Guevara". <S> But note that these expressions are hyperbolic. <S> They are deliberate exaggerations for rhetorical or comic effect. <A> It's meaningful to say that person A is "to the right of" person B, either in a literal sense -- they're standing next to each other and A is right of B -- or in a political sense -- A is more politically conservative than <S> B. This works because "right" and "left" denote relative positions. <S> You can't say "to the fanatic of" because "fanatic" does not describe a relative position. <S> A person can be a fanatic, of course. <S> But if you want to describe a relative position, you would have to say "person A is more fanatical than B". <S> Similarly, you could say "person A is more sex-crazed than person B". <S> Just a side note: <S> The phrase "to the right of Attila the Hun" doesn't make a lot of literal sensse. <S> The wording implies that Attilla the Hun was an extreme conservative. <S> But was he? <S> In the context of modern American politics, was Attila in favor of limiting government spending, defending the right to bear arms, opposing abortion, affirming free markets, etc? <S> I don't know what Attila's positions were on any of those issues, or if he had positions on those issues. <S> None of them are what Attila is remembered for. <S> As a joke by a left-winger trying to compare a conservative to someone very out-of-date, maybe it works. <S> But if I was engaging in serious political discussion, even trying to use exageration for humorous effect, I might say "to the right of Ronald Reagan" or "Margaret Thatcher" or "Adam Smith". <S> Likewise I might say someone is "to the left of Karl Marx" or "Franklin Roosevelt". <S> And of course, if I was trying to be literal, I'd pick someone they really were left or right of. <A> I first encountered this phrase in the musical 'Evita' with lyrics by Tim Rice. <S> I don't know if he was the first to use it. <S> I can't find anything online about its origin. <S> Rice later revised the scenario to make the narrator an everyman named Che, but in the original version, he was a fictionalised version of the historical Che Guevara. <S> I would add that Attila wasn't a politician, so <S> was wasn't 'right' or 'left', but militaristic empires are usually seen as right-wing. <A> Lots and none at all. <S> My daddy always said he stood "15 steps to the right of Genghis Khan", meaning exactly the same as your "to the Right of Attila…" except that the "15 steps" is stonger. <S> Either happens to describe a strong right-winger - by no means anything like your "… conservative or reactionary person…" though that matters not at all. <S> What matters is the process of comparison, not the content of the things being compared. <S> As with "… to the Left of Che Guevara", the phrase is a simple comparison… "… more than Attila…" or "… more than Che…". <S> Please note, there can be no question of one being more or the other less because they happen to be left-and-right "opposites". <S> The phrases are purely about strength or quantity, not subject or quality. <S> For those ideas, you would first drop the capitals and then use "… the fanaticism of Savonarola" or "… the sexiness of Cassanova". <S> Do the differences between "fanatic" and "fanaticism" or "sex" and "sexiness" make sense to you?
| As others have pointed out, "to the right of" and "to the left of" refer to relative positions. Quite separately, neither "to the Fanatic of Savonarola" or "to the Sex of Cassanova" could ever work, nor even be comparable.
|
'On the border' v. 'at the border' Longman cites an example with 'on' but it probably has a different meaning (part of the town lies on the one side of the border, the other part on the other). a market town on the border of England and Wales Here's a sentence from the Guardian, 'at' is used. This is a completely different context, though. The establishment of supervisory mechanisms to ensure the humane treatment of migrants at the border [...]. Here's my example I need advice on. South Ossetia is a small partially recognized country on the Russian South-Western border. I think 'at' should be used (because it adjoins the border, not lies on it), but I'm not entirely sure. <Q> At least for physical borders, 'On the border' is generally used for things which are relatively stationary and unlikely to change; towns, countries, houses. <S> You are identifying their fixed location. <S> 'There is a fence on the border between my yard and the neighbor's.' <S> 'At the border' is generally used for things which are mobile and likely to change; migrants, travelers, weather. <S> You are identifying their temporary location. <S> 'The cat is sunning herself at the border between the garden and lawn'. <S> If I want to use 'on' in a situation that could change, I can emphasize that it is temporary. <S> 'My customs job has me currently working on the border, but I expect a transfer soon.' <S> If I use 'at', I don't need any such qualifications to imply that it is temporary. <S> 'I work at the border.' <S> Or, I can use 'on' to show that a situation lasted a while, but has since changed. <S> 'I grew up on the border with Canada, but moved away after high school.' <S> Even when I want to emphasize that something lasted far longer than it should have, using 'at' shows that it was always considered temporary. <S> 'I was at the border for three hours before they let me cross.' <S> So - do you want to emphasize the nature of the location as being fixed or changing? <S> "South Ossetia is a small partially recognized country on the Russian South-Western border, and has been since 1991. <S> " <S> "South Ossetia is at the Russian border, but negotiations between Russia and Georgia could soon change this." <A> On is used if something straddles the border. <S> Like a house (such a thing does exist) or a town. <S> Niagara Falls is an example of a city that has part of it in one country (the US) and the other part in another country (Canada). <S> Niagara Falls is on the border. <S> I believe there are actual places where there is a visible line that demarks the two sides. <S> In such locations, if a person were to have one leg one side of the line, and their other leg on the other side, then the person would be considered to be on the border. <S> In most places, however, no such physical border line exists. <S> So, for most people in most places, the entirety of a person is either in one country or the other. <S> As such they are at the border. <S> This is the used in the same way as when you say that somebody is at the door, or at the gate. <S> That person is standing somewhere with something visibly in front of them. <S> Alternative prepositions to at are near , nearby , next to , and close to , all of which are actually more appropriate if two things are some distance away from each other. <S> I have no idea where South Ossetia is, but it sounds to me from the description that it's located entirely within a single country. <S> As such, it should not technically be on the border, but at the border—or, depending on how far away it actually is, one of the alternative prepositions could be more appropriate. <S> But while that's a literal interpretation of the prepositions, people do still say that a place is on the border, even though that's not literally the case. <S> Figuratively speaking, it's "close enough." <S> So, you wouldn't be faulted for using either on or at —even if South Ossetia belongs entirely to a single country. <A> Either is acceptable. <S> On the border is probably more idiomatic for a region or town. <S> I would tend to reserve at the border for something that doesn't have an appreciable area, such as a vehicle, building, or person. <S> The dividing line is not very clear, though, and the preference for one over the other is weak in most cases if not all.
| If one part of the entity is in one country, and the other part of the entity is in another country, then it's on the border.
|
What is the difference between "Write it down" and "Write down it"? Oh hi! thanks for reading this question. I'm an English learner and I just want to know what's the difference between "Write it down" and "Write down it"?. Can you elaborate? Thanks! <Q> The difference is that the latter is ungrammatical. <S> In a prepositional verb, an unstressed pronoun such as "it" must directly follow the verb. <S> This is explained in Huddleston & Pullum (2005: 144): <S> One general constraint on the order 'particle + object' is that it is inadmissible if the object has the form of an unstressed personal pronoun (italic mine). <S> For example, we can replace the suitcase by unstressed it in [36ia] but not in [iia]: a. <S> She took it off b. <S> * <S> She took off it <A> Some verbs in English are phrasal verbs, these are formed of a verb and a particle. <S> Usually, the particle can also function as a preposition. <S> Examples of phrasal verbs are "Turn on" and "get off" Phrasal verbs can be "separable" or "inseparable". <S> When a phrasal verb is separable, and the object of the verb is a pronoun, the pronoun is moved between the verb and preposition. <S> "Turn on" is separable, but "look after" is inseparable. <S> Examples: <S> Turn on the light <S> Turn it on Look after the child Look after her <S> "Write down" is a separable phrasal verb, so you say Write down the sentence. <S> Write it down. <S> There is no rule for telling if a verb is separable or inseparable. <S> In inseparable verbs the meaning of the preposition is often closer to its usual meaning but this only a rough guide, and doesn't explain every verb. <A> I think 'write down it' is wrong; we should say ‘write it down’. <S> When a phrasal verb follows the pronoun, it should not be separable but if it follows a noun it may or not be separable.
| You can say ‘write the article down’ or ‘write down the article’.
|
What's meaning "would" in this sentence? What's the usage and meaning of "would" in this sentence: He (Sherlock Holmes) would undoubtedly have been baffled by the way the crime wascommitted. In this sentence, why is “have” used instead of “has”? What are the differences between the above sentence and the ones below? Can I remove would and replace “have” with “has”? Do these adjustments change the meaning of the sentence? He undoubtedly has been baffled by the way the crime wascommitted. Is this sentence a passive voice of the Present Perfect tense? I appreciate so much and It's be great if you offer an equivalentstructure and give more common examples of daily routine conversation. I read this sentence in "504 absolutely essential word" book lesson 21, word 12, sentence 3/C, Due to it I'm sure the sentence is correct grammatically and it's written by a professional author. <Q> So here, the “he” in question is not “baffled by the way the crime was committed,” but he “would” be (“undoubtedly”). <S> I strongly suspect that “he” is not “baffled” primarily because “he” doesn’t know about the crime or how it was committed in the first place. <S> If he later learns about it, for example, then the speaker expects him to be baffled by it. <S> This is one of the most common things “would” is for—to describe something that isn’t (known to be) true, but only because of some necessary condition is missing (or not known to be present). <S> We use “would” often in conditional statements, for example: “If he were here, he would be baffled.” <S> He isn’t baffled, but only because he isn’t here. <S> And in cases where the necessary condition is obviously absent—in this case, “he” is absent—then the condition is often dropped, so just “he would be baffled.” <S> Another very common, closely related usage is any kind of “would...but” construction, which are extremely common. <S> “I would go, but I have a prior commitment,” indicates that the prior commitment is the only reason I am not going, that without that you could count on me going. <A> 1) <S> The best match in <S> Merriam-Webster's listing is definition 4 — used in [an] auxiliary function to express probability or presumption in past or present time. <S> Here, it seems to be a presumption about a hypothetical past. <S> He hadn't been baffled, but he would have been. <S> 2) <S> Only the first verb in a predicating phrase has tense and attaches to a subject. <S> In "would ... have been baffled", that one verb is "would". <S> The rest of these verbs are in non-finite forms. <S> "Have" is a bare infinitive. <S> "Been" and "baffled" are both participles. <S> 3 & 4) <S> The phrase "has been baffled" expresses the present tense, perfect aspect, passive voice and indicative mode. <S> Your proposed change replaces a hypothetical past with an actual present. <S> Without further context, we can assume that he hadn't been baffled only because he wasn't aware of the crime. <S> If he had been aware, he would undoubtedly have been baffled by the way the crime was committed. <A> You are asking for more examples for the usage of the word "would." <S> The word "would" is also used as the past tense of the word "will." <S> For example: I will say that is true based on what I know. <S> [All the verbs are present tense: will say, is, know.] <S> VERSUS: <S> I would say that is true if I knew for sure what time the other incident occurred. <S> Except for "say," all the verbs are past tense: would, knew, occurred. <S> This is how we say it for things that would have been , but are not so . <S> Note the switch in tense before and after the word "but. <S> " <S> That is how we speak in English. <S> I don't know why. <S> Another example: <S> Someone asks: Will you do that? <S> Another replies: <S> Yes, I will. <S> [That is a promise for the future, either immediate or another time.] <S> VERSUS <S> No, sorry, I would <S> but I can't. <S> [Again, this is like above, where "I would if I could <S> but I can't. <S> " <S> The tense changes after the word "but." <S> Maybe the silly tongue-twister about woodchucks chucking wood is helpful. <S> Woodchucks are little animals, like the picture below from Wikipedia , and they cannot chuck (chew) wood. <S> Here's the tongue-twister: <S> How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?He would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck <S> would, if a woodchuck couldchuck wood.
| The phrase "would have been baffled" expresses the past tense, perfect aspect, passive voice and subjunctive mode.
|
What's the meaning of "Boidmachine"? resource: https://moapyr.fandom.com/wiki/Boidmachine I know what's "machine", but what's "boid"? I found nearly nothing it in quite a few dictionaries. According to "Webster's Third New International Dictionary", "boid"'s etymology is "Boidae" (New Latin), the latter of which is a large nonvenomous snake. According to https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boid , "boid" has three definitions: to take the mik out of somone really bad Slang for "Bird", usually used by one who has a horrible, stereotypical New Yorker accent. Boid is an anagram for the phrase "blacked out in a ditch."The last two letters can be substituted for any number of different things, such as boib or boor (blacked out in a bush and blacked out on a roof, respectively). <Q> Okay, this is not standard English at all - it's a chain of jargon and in-jokes from the field of artificial intelligence (and computer graphics) that dates back a few decades. <S> First of all, the word "bird" in some New York City dialects is pronounced similarly to "boid" <S> - linguists would say that those accents are non-rhotic (that is, they drop the /r/ sound). <S> Second, when a computer scientist named Craig Reynolds in the 1980's started developing algorithms that mimicked flocks of birds, he called the individual particles boids , which both imitates the New York City pronunciation of "bird" and is an abbreviation of "bird-oid object," using the suffix -oid , which means "something that resembles a specified object." <S> Reynolds' flocking algorithm has been enormously influential in the field of artificial intelligence (generally, this sub-field is called swarm intelligence ) and computer graphics (in the field of particle systems ). <S> Anyone who has done serious programming in this area would be familiar with Reynolds' boids (personally, I've implemented variations on his algorithm two or three times over the years). <S> Your link says that the "Boidmachine" fires a "massive particle blast. <S> " I don't know how those particles act (never having played the game), but if they are at all self-directed and interact with each other in a swarm-like manner, then they are almost certainly using some particle system algorithm that is a distant relative of Craig Reynolds' original Boids algorithm. <S> That would explain why it's a "Boidmachine" <S> - it's a machine that fires <S> boids <S> (algorithmically swarming particles). <A> The names of things in works of fiction (books, movies, tv or (as here) video games) aren't necessarily based on or related to anything in real life. ' <S> Boid' may have some meaning in the world of the game, but it (probably) doesn't in real life. <A> As I was told, "boid" here stands for "boidae snake", and there are two reasons for that: first, most units of this faction are named after extinct animals, reptiles and so on, it's kind of a theme, and second, the projectile this machine shoots makes an arch that resembles a giant snake. <S> In general, Mental Omega is not the best starting point for learning English given the weird made-up unit names it has. <S> But it's a good game though :P
| "Boidmachine" is a made-up word, obviously.
|
Is there anything wrong with this question? "What mark have you got for your English?" Is there anything wrong with this question? "What grade/mark have you got for your English?"And the answer: "I've got an A". I would like to know a none American point of view as well because, as far as I know, the constructions with "have got" are more popular in other kinds of English. Here's two almost identical stories found in one old Soviet textbook. An earlier and a later editions respectively. A small remark: kids in Russia receive their grades ranging from 2 to 5. Following this text there are phrases related to it and one of them is "What mark have you got for your English? I've got a four " <Q> More likely are What grade did you get in English? <S> or What grade do you have in English? <S> Notice that one is in the past tense and focuses on the past effort. <S> The other is in the present tense and focuses on the present result. <S> The answers then would follow suit. <S> So a natural answer to the first question is <S> I got an A. <S> A natural answer to the second question is I have an A. <S> The first answer responds about the past effort. <S> The second responds about present result. <S> Notice that "in" is more idiomatic for a course and "on" for a test than "for." <S> Warning : <S> This question in basic vocabulary and usage is exactly where British and American English are likely to have minor differences. <S> For example, "mark" seems to be more common in the U.K. whereas "grade" is more common in the U.S. <S> My answer may need to be supplemented by someone whose native version of English is not American. <A> Following from points raised by the OP in comments here is a specifically British perspective. <S> Scenario 1. <S> Young people gather outside the place of their education in the summer to receive the results of the public examinations and open the envelopes containing them. <S> They might ask: <S> What did you get in French? <S> What grade did you get in French? <S> What have you got in French? <S> What grade have you got in French? <S> This is because these examination results are on a letter scale from A-G or a short numerical scale 1-9 or similar. <S> I would have thought the forms omitting the word grade would be more common and the did form more common than the have you got form. <S> Scenario 2. <S> An employment interview later in life. <S> What did you get in French? <S> What grade did you get in French? <S> Here in a slightly more formal setting I would expect the interviewer to use grade. <S> The forms with have got would be wrong here as it happened a long time ago. <S> Scenario 3. <S> An internal examination with marks on a scale from 0-100. <S> Here we would use mark instead of grade. <S> Scenario 4. <S> University bachelor's degree. <S> What degree did you get? <S> What class of degree did you get in French? <S> The second seems more formal and the first, although technically ambiguous, would be more usual. <S> Scenario 5. <S> An examination with some other system. <S> Perhaps the most common of these is the examinations of the Associated Boards of the Royal Schools of Music which assess musical ability. <S> Students get either Pass, Merit or Distinction. <S> Here a complication is that the examinations can be taken at different grades from 1 (easiest) to 8 (hardest) <S> so you would just ask <S> What did you get? <S> What did you get at Grade 5? <S> Note that I use the dialect common in south east England. <S> I believe the same to be true for the UK in general but note that the Scottish educational system is different. <A> To the OP: thanks for providing an image of the textbooks in question; it helps make things clearer. <S> As others have pointed out, the use of the word "mark" instead of "grade" implies British English. <S> As an American, I can't really comment on idiomatic British (even though I am familiar with it). <S> So what follows applies to American English. <S> To me, the different wordings imply slightly different things. <S> Because the wording on the left ("I got a five") is past tense, it implies the student received a grade (or mark) of 5 on an English dictation assignment, although the idiomatic American expression would be "I got a 5 on [an assignment or test]" or "I got a 5 in [a class or subject]", rather than "I got a 5 for [something]". <S> Either way, the implication is that the assignment has been graded and the student's grade was 5. <S> The wording on the right ("I've got a five") is equivalent to present tense ("I have a five"), so <S> the way I would interpret that is: the student is taking a French class that is still ongoing, the teacher of that class assigns different grades in different subject areas, one of those subject areas is "French dictation", the student's current grade in French dictation is a 5; however, that may change based on how the student performs on future assignments. <S> To complicate matters a bit, the subsequent paragraph implies that there are also dictation assignments as well as a dictation subject area. <S> So the sentence <S> "I think that Sam will get a two" refers to a specific assignment, rather than the subject area. <S> However, any native speaker would look at the sentence structure and conclude that this is an elementary textbook, and that such subtleties are probably not intentional and one should not read too much into it.
| Neither your question nor answer are idiomatic in US English.
|
What is the meaning of "floating through"? I couldn't understand what is the meaning of floating through in this sentence. Please someone explain to me the meaning. Before it was the self-proclaimed largest bookstore on Earth or the Web’s dominant superstore, Amazon.com was an idea floating through the New York City offices of one of the most unusual firms on Wall Street: D. E. Shaw & Co. <Q> I think it means that idea had very little NY offices' awareness and attention before its booming development. <A> <A> an idea was floating through the offices of x. <S> The image is one of a cloud. <S> As in: float through the air. <S> Air is replaced by office. <S> And it not "float through"; it is "float <S> **through the offices of x" the word float and idea are often coupled: He floated the idea to this colleagues. <S> It means that someone had mentioned the idea at the office and several people heard it. <S> If something floats through some place, people will see it. <S> Here, they will hear the idea.
| In other words the sentence you quoted says the idea behind Amazon was thought of and discussed in this NY firm at a very broad/nebulous/high level/early stage. It means an idea that was discussed but not yet acted upon as the floating part implies something that is not concrete.
|
Is it common to say "it's not your call"? I’m pretty sure that the following expression is quite common to have someone else make the decision in everyday speaking. It's your call. Ngram Viewer justifies it. The graph also indicates that the negative version of it is much less common than its positive version. It's not your call. However, the statistic is based upon written English. In real life, is it common to say "it's not your call" in speaking? <Q> In fact you should find it is more common in speech. <S> Note that "It's your call" means " <S> It is your decision to make". <S> So "It's not your call" means " <S> So it is a slightly argumentative phrase. <S> You are exerting authority over someone. <S> I'm think we should use server-side javascript. <S> Well I'm sorry <S> but it's not your call. <S> I'm the senior engineer and I get to make this kind of decision. <A> It's more common in US English, less so in British English. <S> The use of "call" to mean "decide" tends to be limited in BrEng to deciding on events (eg "call a meeting", "call an election" etc) and has wider use in AmEng (eg "call time", "call BS" etc) In British English, we instead usually say " it is up to you ", although US expressions are widely recognised and understood among BrEng speakers due to their use in television and film. <A> People tend to avoid saying it, instead they choose more tactful wording. <S> Just the same reason <S> I love you <S> should be more common than <S> I don't love you .
| Yes, it is fine in spoken English. It is not your decision to make". It's not your call is less common not because of a linguistic reason, but simply because of its negativity (same as you saying "You're not the boss, don't tell us what to do!").
|
What do you call this nearby position? Let's say you are in a classroom. You are the red square. What to call the position of the yellow seats in relation to you? I thought of using "next," but I think that doesn't apply to the seats in front and behind the red square. I also thought of "encircling," but that would include the green squares on the corners. Example sentence: The classmate who's bullying Mark must be sitting __ <Q> The yellow squared are "adjacent" to the red square. <S> From: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent Definition of adjacent1a: <S> not distant : <S> NEARBY the city and adjacent suburbsb: <S> having a common endpoint or border adjacent lots adjacent sides of a trianglec: immediately preceding or following <S> In this case "b" is the relevant definition, "having a common endpoint or border". <A> Saying "the four adjacent seats" makes the sentence unambiguous, and it avoids using the word "orthogonally", which is a technical term that I wouldn't expect every native speaker to know. <A> The green squares at the corners of the red square are diagonally adjacent . <S> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/164704/is-there-one-word-for-both-horizontal-or-vertical-but-not-diagonal-adjacency/164759 <S> If you want to be very general and elicit a subsequent barrage of clarifying questions from your intended audience about the inclusion of the diagonally adjacent squares, you could say they border or are adjacent to the red square. <A> You could use a number of words including: adjacent surrounding <S> Adjacent would be my preference - note that the word has a more specific meaning in mathematics, but in English grammar can mean "next to" in any direction , including to the sides, in front or behind. <S> On its own, "next to" does tend to mean to the left or right sides. <S> Your suggestion of "encircling" doesn't sound quite right as the pattern of the chairs in your image is not a circle, which is is what it specifically means - to form a circle around. <A> "One seat away from Mark" also identifies the seats on each side, and in front and back. <S> It does not exclude the diagonally adjacent seats. <A> Nobody has come out and said it yet, so I will. <S> There's nothing whatsoever wrong with "next". <S> The classmate who's bullying Mark must be sitting next to him. <S> This is perfectly normal, acceptable, every-day English that will be perfectly understood and will not seem awkward or weird at all. <S> It applies perfectly well to the seats ahead and behind as much as it does to the ones to the sides. <S> Without the drawing, a speaker may also consider the four corner desks also to be "next" to the central one, but this is not really important. <S> I think the rest of the answers here are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. <A> Immediate <S> You could say that those positions are immediately surrounding the central point <S> If we look at the definitions for " Immediate ", we can see: Having no object or space intervening; nearest or next and <S> Having a direct bearing <S> This becomes more clear if we remove the space from between the objects in the image. <S> The green objects are obstructing the yellow objects. <S> In other words, there is no direct, unobstructed path from the red square to any of the yellow ones. <A> Another term would be " contiguous ": <S> Definition of contiguous 1: being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point <S> "the 48 contiguous states"
| They are orthogonally adjacent to the red square. "Surrounding" is synonymous with "encircling", but does not specifically mean the shape of a circle. In this particular case, I would probably say, "The classmate who's bullying Mark must be sitting in one of the four adjacent seats."
|
"I joined a dance class" vs "I signed up for a dance class" Which one of these sentences is correct when I want to mean I registered for a class? Or can either of them be used interchangeably? I joined a dance class. I signed up for a dance class. <Q> This really depends on whether there is an acceptance process or not. <S> To join means to actually start attending lessons. <S> If acceptance is automatic, then you can probably use these terms interchangeably. <S> However, acceptance may not be automatic. <S> Maybe it's an advanced class that requires an audition. <S> Maybe the class is oversubscribed and the organizer will be picking people randomly from the sign-up list. <S> Maybe the class hasn't actually been scheduled yet and there's a chance that it will be scheduled at time when you are not available. <S> In all those cases, there's going to be a time gap between signing up and joining ; and maybe you'll even find out that you can't join the class you signed up for. <A> In your case, if attending the class requires registration or similar enrollment process, then use I signed up for a dance class . <S> I joined a dance class <S> sounds more abstract. <S> It doesn't tell anything about the class, whether it requires registration or enrollment process. <A> to sign up means to put your name on a list to be used by whomever is managing the course . <S> Most courses require some kind of signing up. <S> One can sign up by adding one's name to a list on a bulletin board, or on a clipboard or electronically or by (in an institution) telling the admin person you want to take the class. <S> You sign up for a class that you want to take. <S> You sign up to take it. <S> You might put your name on a list (sign up) for something, and then find out the class was full or you acted too late. <S> Therefore, you will not be able to join the class (become part of the group of people in the class). <S> Once you have signed up. <S> and are taking the class, you can use the verb join to describe being in the class. <S> Patsy: How long have you been taking that ballet class? <S> Annie <S> : I joined the class in January. <S> Patsy: Was it easy to get into that advanced class? <S> Annie: <S> No, I signed up and did not have to audition for it. <S> To join means to become part of something larger than yourself <S> where there are members or participants in a larger entity. <S> In that sense, you can join many things : clubs, organizations, institutions, classes, courses, groups, churches, etc. <S> Teachers often say to distracted students, something like this: "Mr. Smith, would you care to join us?" <S> (pay attention to what is being said) If you run into someone in a restaurant who is with others, that person might say to you: "Would you like to join us?" <S> = become part of our "group" at a table
| To sign up means to formally state your wish to join the class.
|
“as would a calm dog whose yard…” I'm reading the novel "The Circle" these days. However, there is a sentence making me curious. "When she opened her eyes she saw a harbor seal, twenty feet in front of her, staring at her as would a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into." I can't find verb after "as would...", also so far as I know after relative clause ( whose ), there should be subject and verb. However, in this sentence, there is only yard which is a noun functioning as the subject. Is this sentence a kind of exception? <Q> When she opened her eyes she saw a harbor seal, twenty feet in front of her, staring at her as would a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into . <S> There's nothing missing from the basic construction. <S> The basic order would be: When she opened her eyes she saw a harbor seal, twenty feet in front of her, staring at her as a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into would. <S> Incidentally, this is a comparative construction, and like most comparative clauses would a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into is obligatorily reduced. <S> In full, it would be would a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into stare at her . <A> The seal was staring [in the same way] as a calm dog would [stare] when she had just walked into its yard. <S> You are expected to 'understand' the missing words, which have been left out to make the sentence shorter. <A> 1) <S> I can't find the verb after "as would". <S> "Would" is verb enough. <S> What that verb means is dependent on the modificand of the prepositional phrase that "as" creates: staring at her as would a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into [stare at her] - or - staring at her as a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into <S> would [stare at her] <S> We might consider this to be an ellipsis, or we might regard the auxiliary as anaphoric. <S> Either way, the "missing" part is supplied by the phrase to which the entire prepositional phrase starting with "as" is attached. <S> The placement of "would" is flexible. <S> Bringing it to the front of the clause helps to mark the clause as subjunctive . <S> In this context, we have an actual seal and a hypothetical dog. <S> The embedded prepositional phrase "into whose yard <S> she'd walked" isn't relevant to finding the antecedent of "would" (if we're calling it anaphoric) or its potentially redundant argument (if we're calling it elliptical). <S> Rather, it is relevant to the other part of your question. <S> 2) <S> after the relative "whose", there should be a subject and verb. <S> There are. <S> a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into This "yard" isn't the subject of anything. <S> Here, we have the modificand "a calm dog" and the relative clause "whose yard she'd walked into". <S> In the clause, "[had] walked" is the verb, and "she" is the subject. <S> "Into" is a preposition, and "whose yard" is the preposition's object. <S> It is as if she had walked into a calm dog's yard. <A> "I can't find verb after "as would..."," You don't need one. <S> In general, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that the preceding verb is implied. <S> So, if you had a sentence such as, "Having encountered a venomous snake, he turned and ran , just as any reasonable person would run ,", you can say instead, "Having encountered a venomous snake, he turned and ran, just as any reasonable person would". <S> Or, "He did what anyone would in such a situation" is read as " <S> He did what anyone would do in such a situation"
| Your example contains subject-auxiliary inversion, where the subject "a calm dog whose yard she'd walked into" and the auxiliary verb "would" have switched places.
|
"I wish I knew what was (is) wrong with my car" - which is correct? (subjunctive mood) Which one of the two forms of verb will make the following sentence idiomatic? I wish I knew what _____ wrong with my car. Is Was I think it should be is because the sentence is in subjunctive mood, but refers to a present situation, hence use of is is justified. But in my book correct answer is was <Q> The wish is irrelevant. <S> The knew , whether you call it subjunctive or past, is treated as past. <S> Normally, therefore, the verb in the embedded question "What is wrong with my car" would get backshifted to "what was wrong with my car", as others have said. <S> But English speakers don't always backshift, when the situation is still current. <S> So you will hear both was and is here. <S> I think was is more natural, but is occurs too. <A> 2. <S> Since "knew" is past-tense, the same tense should be used. <S> It's understood that the car still isn't working because you're making the wish now. <A> This bit from Wikipedia is relevant to the topic at hand: <S> "For most verbs, the only distinct subjunctive form is found in thethird person singular of the present tense, where the subjunctivelacks the -s ending: It is necessary that he see a doctor (contrastedwith the indicative he sees). <S> The verb be, however, has not only adistinct present subjunctive (be, as in I suggest that he be removed)but also <S> a past subjunctive were (as in If he were rich, …). <S> These two tenses of the subjunctive have no particular connection inmeaning with present and past time. <S> Terminology varies; sometimes whatis called the present subjunctive here is referred to simply as thesubjunctive, and the form were may be treated just as an alternativeirrealis form of was rather than a past subjunctive . <S> " <S> English subjunctive - Wikipedia <S> As further evidence that the tense doesn't necessarily refer to time period in this case, I can imagine a scenario where a speaker would say "I wish I knew what was wrong ..." in reference to a future event (e.g., discussing an upcoming competition like a hackathon or something). <A> The verb of your sentence is not "knew" but "wish", and yes, it is in the subjunctive mood. <S> Since your sentence is referring to the immediate situation, you are correct and the book is wrong. <S> People often slur their pronunciations in situations like this, by using a contraction. <S> I wish I knew what's wrong with the car. <A> PART ONE <S> The verb wish as in I wish [etc.] <S> can never be followed by a present tense. <S> Usage examples: <S> I wish I knew his sister. <S> [simple past] <S> I wish I had known <S> his sister [past perfect] when the accident occurred. <S> I wish I was/were rich. <S> The verb be can be was or were for third person singular. <S> I wish I was/were going with you. <S> I wish I knew what is wrong with you. <S> Here is a simple rule : Never use a present tense after wish when it is expressing a wish. <S> If you follow that rule, you will never make a mistake. <S> The tenses to use are: simple past, past continuous for expressing a wish in the present time past perfect or past perfect continuous for expressing a wish about the past or with <S> I wished [we had gone. <S> There are also some modals that can be but let's leave that for another day. <S> For example:I wish he could have been on time. <S> The verb wish is an oddity. <S> It is the way it is. <S> PART <S> TWO <S> I wish I knew <S> [today] what is wrong [now or today] with my car. <S> ** <S> I wish I knew [today] what was wrong [at some past time] with my car. <S> Conclusion: <S> They are both correct and each means something different. <S> Here are many more examples . <A> This is indeed a case of the weirdness of English subjunctive. <S> Your book is correct that "was" is the correct choice, regardless of whether the problem is in the present, because "was/were" is also the subjunctive form of the verb "to be". <S> The "was" (as well as the "knew") <S> does not refer to past in this case, but the alternate reality where the knowledge is possessed. <S> As Benjamin notes, native speakers likely would shorten to <S> I wish I knew what's wrong with my car. <S> The ambiguity here is that "what's" could be a contraction of either "what is" or "what was" and only context tells you which it is. <A> Your sentence should read: <S> I wish I knew what was wrong with my car. <S> "I wish I knew" goes together. <S> "Knew" is past tense. <S> Because "knew" is past tense, you also have to use the past tense "was" in "what was wrong with my car." <S> To change it to present tense, you can say: I would like to know what is wrong with my car. <S> I'm not quite sure why the English language works this way <S> but it does.
| Was seems more correct to me. "Was" is correct because the sentence the verb "to be" refers here to an alternative reality where the speaker possesses the knowledge of what is wrong with the car (i.e., irrealis mood).
|
Is there any difference between these terms? I'd like to know why we say "Mississipi river" and "New York City" rather than "River Mississipi" and "City New York" . I'm assuming these are the names of the river and the city, respectively.Is there any grammar rule that states it has to be this way? And why do we say "My friend Joe" and not "My Joe friend" , if the names come first? <Q> It is really just a naming convention. <S> In England, for example, you have the River Thames, so there’s no rule about this. <S> Saying “my Joe friend” wouldn’t really make much sense, as the name of the entity is just Joe, and “friend” denotes his relationship to you. <S> “Joe” isn’t really an adjective that describes your friend in any sense, whereas there is a sense in which we could think of “New York” as functioning as an adjective that describes the city in “New York City”. <A> I assume that the Americans say 'New York City ' to distinguish it from New York State. <S> There is no grammar rule involved. <S> In the UK we say 'River Trent', 'River Clyde' etc. <S> You could just as easily say 'My friend Joe.' <A> In the case of a proper name, the proper name is held as one complete name. <S> Like that of a person. <S> Although, you may shorten it. <S> You can not change its order haphazardly. <S> In other words, the Mississippi River is always the Mississippi River. <S> It may be called the Mississippi or the river Mississippi. <S> River is not capitalized when using it as an adjective. <S> New York City is the city’s proper name. <S> It may be called New York. <S> But, it is never called City New York. <S> If you were to use city as an adjective, it would not be capitalized. <S> If city were to be used as a noun instead of a name, it would not be capitalized, the city of New York. <S> The city of Salt Lake is another example of shortening the proper name Salt Lake City. <S> On the other hand, friend is not a proper part of Joe’s name. <S> Friend is used as an adjective to describe Joe.
| There is no consistent naming convention. 'My friend' is just something you add to explain who Joe is, not part of his name.
|
be picking up the phone I'd like to know what "be picking up the phone" means in the following. Does it mean a person is holding the phone, or is about to pick up the phone? John is picking up the phone. <Q> It means 'about to', but the point of the expression includes what John is doing now not just what he will do. <S> John is engaged in 'picking up the phone activity'... <S> ie he has gotten up from his chair, is walking to the phone, etc. <S> This separates it from, "John will pick up the phone" which is purely in the future, and "John picked up the phone" which is in the past. <S> The John that is 'picking up the phone' is moving, he has intention, he said something, etc. <A> In addition to what Vaughn Ohlman says, to "pick up the phone" often means to answer an incoming call. <S> So "John is picking up the phone" could mean "The phone is ringing, and John is on his way to answer it" <A> It's almost a direct match for answering the phone, which can be used to mean any part of the process between (and including) going to the phone and greeting the person who's calling. <S> It can also mean the more general idea of potentially doing so in the future. <S> "Who is working today?""Mary is at the cash register and John is picking up the phone." <S> If the phone rings then it's John's job to answer it, but the phone is not necessarily ringing right now. <S> "What are the responsibilities of this position?""Greeting customers, responding to e-mail, and picking up the phone. <S> " <S> Lexico.com has this definition for answering : <S> [with object] Act in reaction to (a sound such as a telephone ringing or a knock or ring on a door)
| The "pick up the phone" idiom got its meaning in the days of heavy wired telephones with handsets; to "pick up" was to lift the handset, thus accepting the call.
|
Imperative form: Have or Make? I was listening Somebody That I Used Know (Gotye ft. Kimbra), I realize there's a phrase that is in the base form . Have your friends collect your records and then change your number... ... had me believing it always something that I'd done In theses phrases have is not being used as an auxiliary verb or to have .I know there are a lot of uses for "have" in its imperative form, like "Have fun", "Have a happy New Year", "Have a good trip", but it is always about to have something. So, my questions are: Is it right to use have or make in this phrases? Doesn't make more sense make and made here? <Q> Idiomatic usages : to have someone do something (verb): <S> Have them pick me up at three o'clock. <S> [make it so they do, tell them to do it] <S> [Yes, that is an imperative form] to have someone [believe, think, do, etc.] <S> something (can be a clause or not) <S> They had me thinking <S> you knew how to sew clothes. <S> [lead someone to think] <S> She had you thinking <S> the dog was really barking. <S> [lead you to think] <A> Have is a very overloaded word in English that has a few very unrelated meanings. <S> One of those is to have X Y , it means cause X to do or complete <S> Y <S> how X is caused to do <S> Y is not defined and is up to whoever is doing the "having", but forcing X to Y is typically not implied (if it is, you'd say make X do Y instead of <S> have X do Y ). <S> Have your brother call me. <S> This means to cause "your brother" to "call me." <S> Ways this could be accomplished: you might ask your brother to do that, or you might be in a business setting and assign him this as a task. <S> This sense of have is often used as an imperative. <S> Have X with no Y. used as imperative, typically means "consume, eat, or enjoy X". <S> If X is food, this is common. <S> Have some french fries. <S> Don't use this when X is a person because it could have erotic implications. <S> If you don't know what Y is in have X Y , say something like this: <S> Have Jon do it <S> / this / that / something / anything. <S> Have Jon do whatever is needed. <S> Have X in the sense of <S> I possess <S> X isn't usually used imperatively to mean <S> I'm asking you to possess X . <S> You typically need to use get X or take <S> X <S> instead. <S> I have 3 dollars. <S> Take the 3 dollars / Get the 3 dollars. <S> Though someone who has a bunch of dollar bills in their hand and is waving them around and giving them away might say Have 3 dollars. <A> "Have" in this context means "cause to happen". <S> "Have" is less imperative than "make" when used like this. <S> "Make your friends collect your records" has connotations of forcing them to do it. <S> "... had me believing" again means your belief is a personal response to something you may have passively absorbed, while "made me believe" would tend to be used if someone had made a specific effort to convince you that piece of information is true.
| "Have your friends collect your records" would be more like "Arrange for it to be convenient for your friends to collect your records as a favour to you".
|
What does the word "just" mean in this context? It was written on a T-shirt: "Do not disturb. Just don't." What does "just" mean here? Does it mean that all I want is that you don't disturb? There is a difference of opinion between the respondents. What is the opinion of someone whose mother tongue is English? <Q> I think the word "just" here means something like "simply". <S> The shirt is saying something like, "This is a simple situation and you must follow this simple instruction: do not disturb me. <S> There are no exceptions to this rule. <S> Don't ask me why. <S> Simply do not disturb me." <A> "Just don't" is often used as a response to the question (or some variation of) "Why not?" <S> : <S> Dad: Don't touch that Kid: Why not? <S> Dad: Just don't. <S> In your example, they're shutting down the question "Why can't I disturb you?", "What are you doing?", etc.. before you have the chance to ask it, implying they are expecting you to ask it. <S> Dad: Don't touch that Kid: - Dad: Just don't. <S> It's quite common, so much so that it has made it's way into one-way conversation for comedic effect, hence the t-shirt print. <A> Just , in this context, is more of an indication that there may be repercussions if you do not heed the previous warning. <S> It is almost like saying “Don’t disturb me. <S> Or, else!” <S> It is almost, but not quite, a veiled threat. <A> I vaguely suspect this is a pun of sorts on the Nike slogan "Just do it". <S> Since in the context of Nike's advertising "just do it" means "do it without even thinking about it", the opposite phrase "just don't" would mean "don't even think about doing it". <A> However, the context is important. <S> Here is a typical case where an imperative sentence is used with "just": <S> Dad: <S> Jimmy, mow the lawn. <S> Jimmy: <S> But daaaaaaaaaaad, I don't want to mow the lawn! <S> Dad: I'll get ice cream if you mow the lawn. <S> Jimmy: <S> But I'm playing a game! <S> Dad: Mow the lawn now or I'll give you time out! <S> Jimmy: <S> No! <S> Please don't! <S> Dad: <S> Stop complaining and just mow the lawn! <S> In this argument, it means: The only thing you should do is mow the lawn. <S> You should not complain, or argue, or do anything else. <S> Obviously, it also conveys anger or frustration. <S> Compare with a more common use of "just": <S> Do you want ketchup or mayo or garlic yoghurt? <S> Just ketchup, thanks. <S> Here it means: The only thing I want is ketchup. <S> I do not want mayo, or garlic yoghurt, or anything else. <S> In the argument context, it can also be seen as "simply". <S> " <S> Simply mow the lawn, without extra complications like complaining or arguing. <S> " <S> The shirt is similar to the argument, except much shorter, and perhaps with less anger and more frustration. <S> Dad: Don't open the door. <S> Jimmy: <S> But daaaad, I want to play outside! <S> Dad: Just don't open it! <S> Mad scientist: <S> Don't press the button. <S> Jimmy: <S> But it's shiny and red! <S> I want to press it! <S> Mad scientist: Just don't press it! <S> In this case, nobody is complaining about being told "do not disturb" - obviously, since it's a T-shirt and not a two-way conversation. <S> The writer is acting as if someone did, anyway. <S> It's like a pre-emptive answer, because the writer is feeling especially frustrated and is expecting someone to complain: <S> Mom: Don't eat the cookies. <S> Just don't! <S> Jimmy: <S> But - Mom: <S> I said, "just don't!" <S> Last time you ate all the cookies and we had to cancel the family picnic! <A> Like @tanner-swett's answer, I believe "just" should be interpreted to mean "simply". <S> But here's a bit more of an unpack: "Do not disturb. <S> Just don't." <S> I want you to refrain from disturbing me. <S> I want this very very much. <S> No matter what the situation may be, no matter who is in peril or what has happened, do not disturb me. <S> You do not need to think about anything else. <S> The order is simple. <S> It is three words. <S> You do not need to make it more complicated than that by trying to think of an exception. <S> Simply this: do not disturb. <A> Without Further Explanation Aside from the other answers suggesting "Simply" and "Only" as possible synonyms. <S> In this sort of context, the word Just is being used to emphasise that there will be no justification or explanation. <S> An authority figure saying "Just do it" is allowing no argument. <S> In the context of the T-shirt, they're saying not to bother them, and that they don't want to explain what will happen if you do. <S> In sentences like this, the phrase is usually fully functional without the word "Just"It's similar to spelling out the word "Period" on the end of a sentence to emphasise it and indicate that there's nothing more to say. <S> "I will not stand for this nonsense! <S> you're wrong. <S> Period!" <S> "Do not Disturb. <S> Don't" It short-circuits the following question <S> , someone asking why they shouldn't disturb you, by preemptively answering it. <A> "Just" here has the meaning "only". <S> As the previous statement was an order it is saying that that the requirement is to obey the order without doing anything else (like discussion, delay, etc). <A> It can simply mean no reasons for not disturbing will be given, and you are expected to take the imperative utterance to be sufficient with no further justification.
| It means "only" or "simply".
|
"Speak a British accent" vs. "speak in a British accent" Is there any difference in meaning between speak an accent and speak in an accent ? For example: You put on your resume that you can speak a British accent . Could you demonstrate it? You put on your resume that you can speak in a British accent . Could you demonstrate it? <Q> “Speak” means to say something, and you say words, not accents. <A> You speak a language , you don't speak an ‘accent’: <S> “Jorge is from Barcelona, he speaks Spanish and English. <S> Although his English is very good, he speaks it with a strong Spanish accent ” . <S> From Longman Dictionary accent collocations <S> have an accent <S> The man had a Spanish accent. <S> speak with an accent <S> She spoke with an accent that I couldn’t understand. <S> a strong/broad/thick/pronounced accent (=very noticeable) <S> She spoke with a strong Scottish accent. <S> a broad Australian accent an upper-class/middle-class/working-class accent Sebastian spoke with an upper-class accent. <S> You can also say “speak in a(n) adjective (language)” From YouTube, a tutorial entitled: How To Speak In An American Accent Funnily enough, the presenter is British and has a posh English accent. <A> We say that we speak a language as in <S> I speak Spanish <S> but we speak in an accent or with an accent <S> He speaks in a Geordie accent She speaks in a Scouse accent <S> Where the first speaker comes from the north east of England and the second from Liverpool. <S> There is not really a common British accent although people would probably understand you to mean you speak with an accent of educated people within the area immediately around London.
| The correct way to say this is: speak in a British accent
|
Asking 'why are you asking this to me?' Someone asks me a question in very formal conversation. And I want to know why he/she is asking me this question. Basically, I want to know the reason and purpose behind this question. How can I ask this formally and politely? Can I say, what is the purpose of inquiry? Thanks <Q> The answer probably depends on where you are. <S> Where I live "why do you ask" would be considered polite, "why do you want to know" a little less polite, "why are you asking me" considerably less polite. <S> It would probably sound old-fashioned in most places, but one could say "If I may, why do you ask?" <A> Saying what is the purpose of # inquiry is really formal and would only be used in writing in answer to an authority or in a special case like dealing with, say, HR in an unclear situation (I doubt you would even use it in talking to the police) - and you would want to replace the # with "this" our "your" or "the" because otherwise there's just something missing here. <S> You asked specifically about a very formal conversation but in the parts of the world I know, even a very formal (spoken) conversation does not always mean to use intensely formal wording. <S> In many situations, using that phrase in a conversation , however formal, would just come across as awkwardly stilted language. <S> Too little information in your question to be more specific, though. <S> Added in reaction to a comment of yours, although stretching the scope of the question <S> but I think it is warranted here: Wanting to sound "cold and formal" seems socially off in most situations in most parts of the world where English is used as a first language. <S> If you really need to get somebody off your back unambigously, omitting all expression of courtesy should be quite more than enough (and could be seen as a sign of weakness or lesser education, depending on the situation and other things). <S> Where it does not suffice, and you need or really want to tell a person to stop or go away, you will need to directly tell them so (if the situation is such that you can legally and acceptably do that). <S> In the latter case, you may again be better off using a basic amount of politeness in some situations (the directness of the statement doing the work here) unless a rude tone is required and may be being used already. <S> But as others have already mentioned, that would depend on context (specifically situation, social class - not necessarily low here in all thinkable situations - etc). <A> I’m not sure I understand what’s behind the question. <S> Asking me because...? <S> Actually, what‘s the question? <S> Is it for me? <S> Happy to answer, but not clear about the question or why for me, exactly. <S> Eliminating the 'you' removes the attack ( You talkin' to me? ) or hint of threat that you might have introduced. <S> If I feel my seat kicked in a movie theater, instead of <S> You're kicking me , I find more success with Sorry, I feel some kicking on my seat. <S> Also, each example asks What? <S> and Why for me? <S> but contains a softener such as <S> I am not sure, actually, exactly . <S> They serve as padding to emphasize polite intent.
| One basic technique in delicate situations is to avoid the word ‘you‘ in your own reply and emphasize the ‘I’ and 'me' instead.
|
present simple in future Clash of Kings by George R. R. Martin "A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you’ll know the debt is paid ." I understand the context but I don't quite understand the grammar rule here. These examples are not clauses (like If you call, I will come ), but the author used present simple in both cases after future tense. Can anyone post some previous threads or links to grammar sites so I can learn more about it? Thanks in advance <Q> In the sentence you quote from George Martin, the verbs are stative verbs rather than action or dynamic verbs. <S> Stative verbs use simple present forms where dynamic or action verbs would use future continuous forms. <S> The verb 'think' can be either a stative verb, expressing a state of mind like an opinion, or an dynamic verb, describing a cognitive process. <S> Martin uses the stative form. <S> In the second clause, the relevant verb is 'be', used as a linking verb which makes it stative. <S> ('Paid' is an adjective. <S> If 'paid' were being used as a verb form, as a past participle, the clause would be "you'll know the debt has been paid," in future continuous perfect tense.) <S> References: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/future-continuous-tense/ <S> https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/stative-verbs.html <S> This one says that there actually are no future tenses in English, so that the question is really whether we use present simple or present progressive (=continuous) forms to express the future. <S> The relevant section is "The Present Progressive Tense for Future Events" and the subsection on "Verbs Not Used in the Progressive." <S> https://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/410-expressing-the-future.htm <A> A day will come. <S> Today, that day lies in the future. <S> On that day, that day will be your present. <S> When that day is the present , then you think yourself safe and happy, in the present tense. <S> A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy. <S> Your comment suggests that this isn't a conditional relationship. <S> However, it is. <S> We typically mark conditions with the words "if" and "unless", but "when" also has the same function. <S> I will come if you call A day will come when you think those things <S> In the context of the original, thinking that way doesn't seem to be a sufficient cause, but it does work as a necessary condition. <S> Unless you think that way, such a day will never come. <S> From the perspective of that day, thinking that way is a present-tense state. <S> you'll know [that] the debt is paid <S> We're not talking about some time in the future when you will know that the payment of the debt still lies even further in the future. <S> By the time you reach the future of "you'll know", by the time that knowing is a present-tense state, then the payment of the debt is a present-tense fact. <S> It is, in fact, that fact which is known. <S> From the perspective of that knowledge, the payment has been made. <A> Examples: <S> Correct: " <S> When you receive the email, let me know. <S> " <S> Wrong: "When you will receive the email, let me know. <S> " <S> Correct: <S> "As soon as you get home, do the dishes. <S> " <S> Wrong: "As soon as you will get home, do the dishes." <S> Correct: After it stops raining, I will go. <S> Incorrect: After it will stop raining, I will go. <S> https://www.learn-english-today.com/lessons/lesson_contents/verbs/future-time-clauses.html
| In English, Present Simple is used inside of a future time clause.
|
cheap rations or rations cheap Which one of the two sentences is correct He went to the wholesale market and bought the cheap rations. He went to the wholesale market and bought the rations cheap. I think first one is correct, but in my book second one is correct. No further context is provided. <Q> They are both correct but have slightly different meanings. <S> Bought the rations cheap suggests he bought the rations at a price he knew to be low relative to their real value. <A> He bought the cheap food means that he chose the less expensive types of food. <S> He bought the food <S> cheap (or cheaply) means that he got what he wanted for a low price. <A> The other answers have tried to explain the meaning, but not the grammar. <S> In he bought the cheap rations , <S> the cheap rations is a noun phrase, with the adjective preceding the noun, as usual. <S> In he bought the rations cheap , the object noun phrase is the rations . <S> Cheap is not part of this noun phrase, but a complement of the verb bought . <S> Consider another pair of sentences: He painted the red door <S> He painted the door red. <S> The first is identifying the door as a red one - it is not clear whether it is the door that is red because he painted it, or it was red before he painted it. <S> In the second, the door is not specified beyond "the door", but red was the colour he painted it. <S> In the same way he bought the cheap rations <S> means that of all the rations available at the market, he bought the ones that were cheap (an unlikely thing to say, but possible). <S> He bought the rations cheap <S> means that he bought the (otherwise unidentified) rations for a low price.
| Bought the cheap rations means he bought those rations that were offered at a low price (relative to some other higher priced rations).
|
Parsing “have a limited release the product” We'll have a limited release the product and let this region serve as a guinea pig. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/guinea I saw this sentence on thefreedictionary and i'm stuck in interpreting it. Is the verb have acting as causative verb and a limited as noun? <Q> The smallest change to something that makes sense is to insert "of" giving <S> We'll have a limited release of the product and let this region serve as a guinea pig. <S> In this case "limited" is an adjective applying to the noun "release". <S> Presumably a particular region is specified by the context, and will be used as a test site. <A> We'll have a limited release the product and let this region serve asa guinea pig. <S> This is an error . <S> Notice that examples such as this are usually discovered by computer search of thousands of documents and not checked by humans unless someone complains. <S> The program used for the search has no real-world knowledge and so does not routinely make corrections or sift out errors. <S> Some online dictionaries make the above advice explicit. <A> The phrase "limited release the product" is such bad construction that the reader has to guess at the meaning. <S> It would work as "We'll have a limited release product" -- that is a little too concise, but is correct English, and would mean that the product is being released in a limited way. <S> A similar sentence to this meaning would be "We are making a limited release of this product." and could also be "We are making a limited release of this product [at this time]". <S> As for " <S> ... and let this region serve as a guinea pig", this is incomplete unless the region being referred to is clear to the reader. <S> One could interpret it to mean "the region in which you're reading this", but in this age of World Wide Web context, it is much more difficult than it used to be to restrict your readers to one region. <S> Perhaps it was written before that was an issue. <A> Although there is already an accepted answer, I will try to give what I think is a more complete account. <S> First of all, the sentence is definitely wrong as written. <S> Although there are several ways to correct it, I agree with another answer that it is probably missing the word "of", and should be: <S> "We'll have a limited release of the product and let this region serve as a guinea pig. <S> " <S> (The following sentence in the original is helpful in interpreting it: "If it is received well, we can expand production and distribution to the rest of the county.") <S> In the original context, the sentence is being used to illustrate the idiom "guinea pig", referring to a small animal which is often used in scientific research: <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig#In_scientific_research . <S> Idiomatically, "guinea pig" here means a test subject, on whom research is being performed. <S> The sentence as a whole is in the jargon of product marketing or sales. <S> A "release" is the event of making a new product available to customers. <S> (This is also used in related contexts, like programmers releasing software.) <S> A "limited release" means that a new product (or a new version of an existing product) is being made available only to some customers -- in this example, to people in a certain geographical area, but it could also mean only for a certain time period. <S> From the next sentence, we can guess what kind of area. <S> (A "county" is a United States geographic subdivision smaller than a state/province, but larger than a city. <S> Although this could be another error, for "country"; that error is common.) <S> The verb "to have" is serving a generic purpose here, "to have [some event]", meaning to make some event happen. <S> You could also say "to do a limited release" or "to hold a limited release" (the same way you might say "to hold a party".) <A> Another choice would be to remove "the product" We'll have a limited release and let this region serve as a guinea pig. <S> In this construction both what is being released and the region would have to be inferred from context.
| So, "to have a limited release" means the same thing here as "to release in a limited way".
|
What is this keyboard called in English? I need to know what this non-QWERTY keyboard is called in English,i.e. the one with the grouped [ABC] and grouped [DEF] etc. EDIT I have asked this question just to know how do I enable this[ABC] keyboard on my smartphone (if this is possible at all). <Q> It's a telephone keypad . <S> There is a standard, E.161 which defines which letters correspond to which number keys. <S> By derivative work: Marnanel - Image: <S> Telephone-keypad.svg: Silsor, CC BY-SA 3.0 , Link <A> T9 is a predictive text algorithm <S> that lets people use the nine numeric keys to efficiently "type” words, but any phone that uses that algorithm can be said to have a "T9 keyboard". <A> As other answers have said, the 3-by-4 grid of numeric keys is a telephone keypad . <S> But that doesn't usually include the surrounding keys. <S> There's no single word for that exact arrangement, as there were umpteen variations of that sort of feature-phone keypad. <S> (All had an ‘answer’ button and a ‘hang up’ button, and most had at least one ‘soft’ key, but some had many soft keys, in various arrangements; some had two arrow buttons, or four, with or without a centre button, while some had a mini-joystick in its place; some even had dedicated buttons for calendar, contacts, email, &c.) <S> So I'd call it a phone keypad . <S> (To me, that's less specific than telephone keypad , and could include all the varieties above.) <S> Or, even more generally, just keypad . <S> (Which would also include door-entry keypads, lift/elevator buttons, ATM keypads, and the like.) <A> @Glorfindel's answer is technically correct, and @CanadianYankee's answer would be good for someone who remembers what texting with T9 input is. <S> However, both of those run the risk of not being easily or immediately understood by people these days. <S> Most people have smart phones, and direct manipulation of contacts without entering phone numbers is becoming widespread. <S> For example, you might call someone on your smartphone through a contact that was provided by a website, an app, or forwarded to you through email or a text message. <S> The concept of dialing itself outside of certain business settings is less and less of a given anymore. <S> So this type of phone keypad as well as the old-school notion of having to actually dial numbers to make a phone call is becoming sufficiently away from being a shared experience that the onus is on you to create a context where this is easily understood. <S> I would refer to it using phrases like the below, for the first time: Old-school numbers-only keypad for dialing phone numbers or T9-style text messaging. <S> Thereafter you can refer to it as a keypad, numeric keypard or number keys. <A> If you want to Google how to enable/disable this keypad, you might want to Google "3 x 4 keyboard" or "3 x 4 keypad". <S> It's certainly called by this name in some of the online documentation.
| As others have said, this is a "numeric keypad", but as a mechanism for typing words, you will sometimes see it referred to as a "T9 keyboard".
|
I'm out of my mind - I'm out of mind - Are both correct? Is it correct to say "I'm out of mind" or does it have to be "I'm out of my mind"? Online translators like Google Translate or DeepL say that both work and both have the same meaning (I'm crazy). I make music as a hobby and I used the line "I'm out of mind" in one of my songs. I was just wondering if it's correct. <Q> They are both idioms, and, generally speaking, they mean completely different things. <S> Out of my mind out of one's mind [Merriam-Webster] : not sane : <S> crazy // <S> What a ridiculous idea! <S> You must be out of your mind to believe that. <S> This is often used more figuratively than literally. <S> People are often said to be out of their minds with grief or worry. <S> Out of mind out of sight, out of mind <S> [Merriam-Webster] —used to mean that a person stops thinking about something or someone if he or she does not see that thing or person for a period of time <S> Saying just I'm out of mind would be unusual, but it would mean that you're not in the thoughts of anybody. <S> Which one to use in a song would depend on the meaning being conveyed. <A> Out of mind: Forgotten about or ignored, not important. <A> Do not rely on online translators. <S> They are very bad language guides. <S> I am out of my mind, she is out of he r mind, etc. ' <S> Out of mind' is an old fashioned phrase meaning 'forgotten, overlooked, insignificant, not readily remembered'.
| To use 'out of' and 'mind' to say that someone is insane or 'crazy', you need a possessive pronoun such as my, your, his, her, etc. Out of my mind: A state of confusion where all your faculties are taken by a single thought process
|
What does "the proverbial middle finger" mean? I read the following line on a certain book: We've given the proverbial middle finger to the society I know that proverbial means something to do with a proverb. But, how the middle finger has anything to do with proverbs? Isn't it more suitable to say: We've given the figurative/metaphoric middle finger to the society? Is there any famous proverb that involves giving the middle finger to the society in English. Sorry about the language, but I really need to know. <Q> proverbial = goes beyond its first meaning Merriam Webster: <S> Definition of proverbial1: of, relating to, or resembling a proverb2: <S> that has become a proverb or byword : commonly spoken of the proverbial smoking gun aka well-known or familiar, too. <S> No, there is no specific "proverb" associated with the middle finger. <S> However, the middle finger gesture as an insult is well known. <S> This is expressed as: to give someone the finger. <A> Isn't it more suitable to say: We've given the figurative/metaphoric middle finger to the society? <S> That's exactly the meaning of the phrase, yes. <S> Typically 'proverbial' in this sense is used to refer to an actual well-known proverb or idiom. <S> The M-W definition 1: of, relating to, or resembling a proverb2: that has become a proverb or byword : commonly spoken of Gives a great example: 'the proverbial smoking gun'. <S> This doesn't refer to any actual proverb, rather, the well-known idiom 'smoking gun'. <S> The usage in your example is odd in that they use 'proverbial' to refer neither to a specific proverb nor to a common idiomatic expression. <S> I'd almost go so far as to call it wrong. <A> You could certainly replace proverbial in the original sentence with metaphorical or figurative and preserve most of the meaning. <S> Use of "proverbial" here does two things though - as well as signifying the sentence isn't meant literally, it's also calling out the fact that "giving someone the (middle) finger" is a colloquial phrase that is often used non-literally like this. <A> A proverb is an idiom, metaphor, or witty saying that is well known and in general use. <S> On the other hand, The Book of Proverbs is a collection of common sense wisdom and advice located in the Bible. <S> It is synonymous to placing the thumb between the middle and the ring finger in some countries. <S> Or, giving the peace sign (index and middle finger extended only) with the back of the hand facing the intended recipient. <S> Or, thrusting the fist upward and stopping the motion with the opposite hand against the inside of the elbow. <S> Since the middle finger is well known and in general use, it is proverbial. <A> In this example, the choice of "proverbial" seems to employ irony - there are no proverbs (to my knowledge) that refer to the rude hand gesture in question, and it gives the quote a dark humor. <S> "Figurative" or "metaphorical" would be a more literal choice, but would remove the ironic flavor. <S> Per M-W , "proverbial" doesn't necessarily need to be used to refer to a term's use in a proverb; it can also be used to refer to use in an idiom. <A> It is to be dramatic One way to say it would be: After careful analysis and consideration of all the various factors involved we have agreed to come to the general conclusion that we do not think there is reasonable merit to the idea. <S> eh <S> It reads better ( to some ) and has more effect (again to some ) as We gave it the proverbial middle finger !!! <S> because of the terseness and also the image and subsequent thoughts it brings up - ('f' you, 'screw you' is the language behind middle finger often. <S> The appropriateness of it will depend on the social scene and settings. <S> Maybe ok for a night out party. <S> less so for a work meeting ;) <A> The speaker wants to indicate that they are conscious that "giving the middle finger to the society" is a somewhat cliched figure of speech. <S> Adding "proverbial" to "middle finger" is just an arch way to acknowledge that it's a somewhat shopworn expression. <S> " <S> Proverbial" here means something closer to "hackneyed", rather than that there is a literal proverb about giving people the middle finger. <S> The association comes from the fact that many proverbs become trite through overuse.
| The middle finger in the US and some other countries is a well known and commonly used (amongst some) obscene gesture meant as a pro-verb meant to silently replace the verb-like, action phrase, “GO FORNICATE YOURSELF!!”
|
Difference in meaning between "I provide her with a TV" and "I provide her a TV"? What is the exact difference in meaning between "I provide her with a TV" and "I provide her a TV" ? Does "I provide her with a TV" mean "I own a TV. And I give her my own tv." ?Does "I provide her a TV" mean "I do not own a TV. Nevertheless, I give her a tv in any way." ? What does "with" mean in the sentence?If we don't use with in the sentence, is there a difference in nuance? <Q> The expression is provide [someone] with [something]. <S> It says nothing about whether that thing is the provider's own, though if that were so, I give her my TV would be a more natural way of saying it. <S> I provide her a TV <S> is not idiomatic English. <S> We can say I provide a TV for her. <A> Let's examine the sentence structure of both: I [noun] provide [verb] her [direct object] with a TV [prepositional adverb] . <S> I [noun] provide [verb] her [direct object] a TV <S> [indirect object] . <S> Both of these sentences convey the EXACT same information. <S> The noun , verb , direct object are the same, and it is up to the speaker on how to convey the remainder - as either a prepositional adverb or a indirect object , which is just a difference in grammar and has no underlying importance in this example. <S> Neither sentence delivers any information about who owns the TV. <A> It all depends on how much of a robot do you want to sound like. <S> Or it can also depend on how much like a robot you want to sound. <A> I provide her with a TV, because a TV is a tangible object. <S> I provide for her - no tangible object; support is real but not an objectI provide perspective - same as above, nothing tangible
| You can also say:"I provide TV for her" or:"TV, her I provide"
|
Can we call Mathematics a kind of Art? The dictionary says Art can refer to 'skill in conducting any human activity' , and it also has an archaic usage 'science, learning, or scholarship'. So can we call Mathematics a kind of art or is it appropriate to call it a kind of art nowadays? <Q> Math has proofs, eventually math can be proven to be correct or incorrect. <S> As much as I think modern art is incorrect, and the Dutch Masters were correct, that is a matter of taste. <A> A search for "mathematics art or science" finds this interesting article: The intrepid mathematician <S> My view is that mathematics is neither an art nor a science. <S> A third path exists, nestled between the two, and intertwined with both. <S> Mathematics is inherently different from other disciplines. <S> While it is wildly creative, it is not art. <S> While it can be used to model natural phenomena, it is not science. <S> There are elements of both art and science in the field, but it isn’t a subset of either. <S> On the other hand, a search for "the art of mathematics" finds many books, so the question "Can we call mathematics a kind of art" must be answered yes, because many do call it that. <S> It just isn't merely that. <S> A painter can create any kind of imaginary world they want; a mathematician must create proofs that others have to agree with. <A> In one sense, anything humans do skillfully is art (or artful ). <S> However, art (or “the arts”) is often contrasted with science, with the general division based on whether correctness is subjective or objective. <S> In this sense, math is definitely not an art (or artistic ).
| Mathematicians may wish to think of themselves as artists, bit in general we do not refer to it as an “art”.
|
how to say that I can't see from the fog I am trying to express that when someone is smoking I can't see the things that are behind the fog because the fog is full. I am trying to say that the fog is not like a window but it is more like a wall so when someone is smoking he/she is preventing I from seeing to behind. I searched and I found the following: pellucid but I think this is more like a mirror thin but this is more like the against of fat glassy but obvious for glass hyaline maybe that is the word? diaphanous maybe that is the word? <Q> Smoking produces smoke , or possibly a cloud of smoke. <S> We don't call it fog. <S> To describe smoke that you can't see through, you could call it: thick 6. <S> adjective Thick smoke, fog, or cloud is difficult to see through. <S> The smoke was bluish-black and thick. <S> (Collins Dictionary) heavy adjective 2 Of great density; thick or substantial. <S> ‘heavy gray clouds’ ‘The thick heavy grey smoke lingered among the branches and prevented the flowers and buds from being burned by frost.’ <S> ‘They could see an immense mountain that stretched up into heavy thick clouds.’ <S> ‘The sun was shrouded by heavy clouds that grayed the bright colors of the earth.’ <S> (Lexico) <S> dense 2. <S> adjective Dense fog or smoke is difficult to see through because it is very heavy and dark. <S> A dense column of smoke rose several miles into the air. <S> (Collins Dictionary) <S> Example sentence: <S> There are so many people smoking here that I can't see past the heavy smoke! <S> You wouldn't typically use any of your suggested words to describe smoke, except possibly thin . <S> Thin seems like a possible antonym for thick (see Lexico: adj. <S> 3.1 Not dense ). <A> The word for things like a wall, and not like a window is "opaque". <S> In this case I would write: <S> John was hidden in a cloud of smoke. <S> It is easier to say this than to say "The cloud of smoke was opaque" <A> The words you have listed, all mean transparent. <S> Words you could use are: dense, thick, heavy, opaque, solid, impenetrable, cloudy, murky, turbid, or nubilous.
| If something is opaque, you can't see through it.
|
How do I say “±” in English? From here I thought: mathematical equation: 1 ± 1 - We can say "plus or minus one". Could I omit "or" to say "plus minus one"? a signed mathematical number: ± 1 - We say "positive or negative one". Could I say "plus minus one" here? Because "±1" only uses three syllables in Chinese, "positive or negative one" has 8 syllables which make it feel too long to me. "Plus minus one" is much shorter and more comfortable to me. I also know "positive/negative" stands for status, "plus/minus" stands for actions, if "positive or negative one" is the correct one, I would accept. <Q> I work as an engineer, and we talk about margins of error quite a bit. <S> We all refer to it as plus minus one . <S> Seems the wikipedia article also calls it the plus-minus sign <S> Example : Q : " <S> Hey what's the length of this side?" <S> A : " <S> The drawing says it's fifteen millimeters, plus <S> minus point five." <S> (15 <S> ± 0.5mm) <S> Edit <S> : For regional/dialect clarification, I was born, raised, and worked in central USA (state of Indiana) <A> Basic Answer <S> Generally, you should not say "plus minus". <S> You do not need to know other details. <S> Detailed Answer Specific Contexts <S> In some places, you may find that others say simply "plus minus". <S> In other places, those who work with you may find it strange to hear this pronunciation. <S> There is no universal rule. <S> Generally, you should say "plus or minus", unless you discover that others in some place say "plus minus". <S> Then, you might say either, as long as you remain in the same place. <S> In American English, the way to pronounce a plus-minus sign depends on where the sign appears in a mathematical expression or numerical quantity. <S> If the sign appears between two terms in an expression,then the meaning is the plus operation (addition) or minus operation (subtraction). <S> In this case, the pronunciation is the same as in British English, "plus or minus". <S> If the symbol appears before a confidence interval in the numeral part of a quantity, then too the pronunciation is "plus or minus". <S> If the symbol appears before the first term in an expression, then the meaning is that the term is positive or negative. <S> In this case, the pronunciation is "positive or negative". <S> Canadians also follow the rule, as may those in other places that are affected more by American standards than by British. <S> Schools in those countries teach this rule to children. <S> In practice, Americans and Canadians working in mathematics, science, and engineering often say "plus or minus", for convenience, the same as British, instead of "positive or negative". <S> Some may choose, at certain times, to follow the rule for saying "positive or negative". <A> People say it as "plus minus" all the time. <S> (I'm a native speaker of AmEng, math guy). <S> The other answers that say this is a bit informal and sometimes can lead to ambiguity are correct, but it is very common. <S> If you're in a job interview you should include the "or", but if you're chatting with people "plus minus" is fine. <A> In English, I have never heard "plus minus one" used to refer to the ± symbol; it would be confused with: x + -1 which could be spoken as "X plus minus one" and have a different meaning than x ± 1. <A> mathematical equation : 1 ± 1 <S> , we can say plus or minus one , could I omit or to say plus <S> minus one? <S> a signed mathematical number: ± 1, we say positive or negtive one , but could I say plus minus one here? <S> No . <S> If you omit the or , it will become ambiguous. <S> No . <S> Correct: <S> plus or minus . <S> Incorrect: plus minus. <A> The Google Ngram for plus or minus,plus-minus,plus and minus,plus minus is interesting <S> You will see that “plus or minus” dominates the written use frequency. <A> In physics: both are acceptable Native speaker here. <S> In my field, physics, I believe both pronunciations are common and accepted. <S> "Plus or minus" may be slightly more clear and formal, but even in a thesis defense, I doubt anyone would take issue with "plus minus", since the meaning would always be clear from context <S> and they sound similar when spoken aloud anyways. <S> (My pronunciation of ± is closer to "plusserminus" in practice). <A> What does the "plus/minus" sign mean when used mathematically? <S> The symbol itself is called typically called a "plus minus sign," but no one will be confused or upset if you say "plus or minus sign." <S> x = <S> (plus/minus sign) <S> 3 means mathematically <S> (x = +3) <S> V (x = -3), where V stands for the non-exclusive or. <S> In U.S. schools, it is often taught that the preferred translation into English is " <S> x is equal to positive three or negative three. <S> " The reason for that is two fold. <S> First, it closely matches the mathematical definition. <S> Second, it distinguishes between the use of + and - as symbols signifying sign and the use of + and - as symbols signifying the operations of addition and subtraction. <S> Nevertheless, it is very common to hear " <S> x is equal to plus or minus 3." <S> y = <S> x (plus/minus sign) 1 means ( <S> x = <S> x + 1) V (y = <S> x - 1).It is formally translated in the U.S. as "y equals x plus one or x minus one. <S> Again, this conforms to the mathematical definition. <S> Of course as epi points out, this kind of formal translation is often abbreviated to y = <S> x plus or minus 1. <S> The word "or" is never dropped. <A> Exception: sports statistic <S> In ice hockey, there is a statistic derived from subtracting the goals scored against while a player is on the ice from the goals scored by the team while the player was on the ice (with some extra complications). <S> This is a rare exception, but in this situation it is pronounced plus-minus. <S> See the wikipedia page . <S> It is also more often written as "+/- <S> " than ±, but still pronounced the same. <A> Assuming you're asking what people say in conversation, most people say "give or take". <S> It's just a casual way to express a tolerance range. <S> It's a common idiom.
| Generally, in English, you may pronounce the plus-minus sign ( ± )by saying "plus or minus". American English American English has a rule that British English does not have. But the "or" word is never dropped because that corresponds to part of the mathematical definition.
|
What is the meaning of "let freedom ring"? I have found this phrase on New York Times recently. And I couldn't figure out the meaning of let freedom ring . I tried searching the meaning on the dictionary too. Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring. <Q> This is the final line from the first verse of the patriotic song America (My Country, 'Tis of Thee) . <S> This song is extremely well known in the US and is sung nearly as often as the actual national anthem, so in part, the author is using this phrase to evoke a feeling of patriotism and love of country simply by referencing a patriotic song that all Americans would know. <S> The phrase is using the meaning of the verb to ring : "to make or cause to make a clear vibrating sound" metaphorically. <S> Freedom itself is not a sound, but "letting freedom ring" means to exercise your freedom clearly and openly, in this case by standing up for a just cause in a nonviolent way. <A> When reading “let freedom ring” just now, I imagined not the iconic song America (My Country, 'Tis of Thee) <S> but rather the voice of Martin Luther King Jr. with what is perhaps his most famous speech: <S> I Have a Dream (which itself is referencing the song). <S> You can read (or watch) <S> the full speech online to see what you think, but the way I interpret the speech is that “freedom” is not available to all Americans as “the life of the colored American is still sadly crippled by the manacle of segregation and the chains of discrimination” (he later lists specific examples). <S> King wants to see all of the great freedoms of America available for everyone: “ring out” evokes images of a bell ringing for everyone to hear. <S> There’s a bit of important context here that makes me certain that this is the correct interpretation: John Lewis was a “civil rights leader”, the essay is about black rights, and he even mentioned King by name later in the essay. <A> freedom is a bell that rings (a big one like in a church tower or public building tower with a bell). <S> When bells ring, they are often associated with positive things. <S> The metaphor is from the song America, My Country 'Tis of Thee <S> Song Lyrics <S> My country, 'tis of Thee,Sweet Land of LibertyOf thee <S> I <S> sing;Land where my fathers died,Land of the pilgrims' pride,From every mountain sideLet Freedom ring.
| It is a metaphor for a bell.
|
A loud crash sounded Imagine a shed crammed with junk. Suddenly a chair leg breaks maybe and everything comes crashing down. Can I describe the sound of that as a crash or is there a better word? From a dictionary - a sudden loud noise as of something breaking or hitting another object. This is the context: Jenny was enjoying a quiet time when suddenly a loud crash sounded. She immediately looked towards the shed. Also, the sound would probably be more than just one crash, maybe several over a few seconds, in that case is there a word I could add before crash that might tell that? <Q> While "crash" is a perfectly suitable word, it is an awkward use of the word "sounded" to say "a loud crash sounded". <S> We usually don't end sentences with verbs; sentences are stronger and more direct when the verb is near the beginning, and before the verb's "object" or the word the verb refers to (in this case the word "crash" is the object of the verb "sounded"). <S> Thus it would be more direct to simply say "when she heard <S> (verb) a loud crash", or, to answer your other question, "when she heard a loud series of crashes ". <S> Notice how the verb comes before the word it is referring to ("heard" before "crash"). <S> Additionally, you can drop the words "suddenly" and "immediately"; the timing of the events is clear because you're using present tense, making these words unnecessary. <S> My version of your sentence would read like this: Jenny was enjoying a moment of quiet when she heard a loud crash. <S> She looked towards the shed. <A> "Crash" is an acceptable word to describe the sound; if you wanted to specify the multiple impacts, you could also say "a series of crashes", but it would be acceptable to use the singular form, considering them as part of a single auditory event; E.g. "She heard the sound of footsteps outside." or "He could hear the sound of several voices." <A> "Crash" is a good choice to describe the sound Jenny heard. <S> Because "crash" describes a sound that is sudden and loud, it is an excellent word to follow a sentence describing Jenny's quiet time. <S> I would phrase the sentence like this "Jenny was enjoying some quiet time when she suddenly heard a loud crash. <S> Immediately, she looked towards the shed. <S> " If you want to describe a series of several crashes, you could say something like "Jenny was enjoying some quiet time when she suddenly heard a series of loud crashes. <S> Immediately, she looked towards the shed." <A> "Crash" works because in this case: "Jenny went to the shed", meaning she was shocked or the noise was loud. <S> But other words work too. <S> You can use "thud" and "bang" too. <S> A word that you could add before crash would probably be "deafening". <S> "deafening" is an adjective, so in this case, it is describing the noun "crash". <S> You can also use deafening for "thud" and "bang" too.
| "Deafening crash" would be able to describe the intensity of the sound.
|
Does "leaving school at young" imply "uneducated"? From Cambridge Dictionary Even though he left school at 16 , he still managed to become prime minister. Usually, "even though" indicates two opposite parts in meaning, "left school at 16" and "become prime minister" in this case. Therefore, the first part should be some kind of the opposite of well-educated. According to Cambridge Dictionary , "uneducated" means "having received little or no education". Is it appropriate to say "leaving school at young implies uneducated"? <Q> Normally, secondary education ends at the age of eighteen, when the twelfth grade is completed. <S> Sometimes gifted students can graduate early, but the idiom "left school" generally means "without completing the course of studies." <S> (And no college.) <S> Now, sixteen is tenth grade, so he did receive a far amount of education. <S> It implies a limited education. <A> Young and uneducated are adjectives, but you need nouns or noun phrases in both those locations. <A> In the UK context, the law requires you to go to school until you are 16. <S> Moreover the government will pay your education until you are 19. <S> Typically less academic students leave school at 16 (and enter into various forms of training) <S> More academic students continue school until they are 18. <S> The extra year to age 19 is only if you need to retake a year for various reasons. <S> So "He left school at 16 <S> " implies that he completed only his compulsory education as a boy, and was not "academic". <S> In the past, this was very common in the UK, and only a minority of people would continue school until 18. <S> So it doesn't imply an "incomplete" education. <S> It doesn't mean that the person had no further education as an adult. <S> This sentence particular applies to John Major, who left school at 16 with 3 O-levels, and didn't attend university (but did train as a professional banker) <S> Most Prime Minsters before and all Prime Ministers since John Major left school at 18 and went to university.
| You can say Leaving school at a young age implies an incomplete education.
|
Can "will" be used with "if"? In a book I read a line if you will forgive us, our lunch is growing cold I know that in 1st condition of English, we use present simple. Then why "will" is being used here. <Q> [ Lexico ] <S> The applicable part of this definition is "inviting a listener or reader to do something." <S> We aren't talking about the first conditional. <S> Instead, we are using an idiomatic phrase. <S> Essentially, this sentence means: <S> Please excuse us. <S> We need to leave because our lunch is becoming cold. <S> If you want to read about the non-idiomatic uses of "will" in "if" clauses, please read THIS or THIS . <A> Note that "If you will come over here I will tie your shoe for you" is perfectly legitimate English. <S> It's not (necessarily) and "idiom". <A> When will is used in an if -clause , it is restricted to its Deontic sense , which means 'be willing to'. <S> So common politeness formulas with <S> if , like If you will forgive us, ... , If you would allow us to ... , <S> If you will give me a moment ... , <S> mean <S> If you are willing to forgive us, ... <S> etc. <S> That makes more sense in expressing politeness; asking for permission saves face. <S> Every modal verb (and will and <S> would are modal verbs, not future tenses or conditional moods) <S> has at least two kinds of meaning. <S> One kind of modal verb meaning (called the Epistemic sense of the modal) is intransitive and has to do with the speaker's judgements about likelihood and probability. <S> The epistemic sense of will is the speaker's judgement about the most likely future. <S> She will arrive around four. <S> I'll get some bread on my way home. <S> Nobody will notice it. <S> That's why the modal auxiliary verb will is often mistakenly called the English "future tense", even though it's not the most common way to refer to the future. <S> The epistemic sense of will is not allowed in if clauses, however. <S> This is just an arbitrary rule of English, but it highlights the other sense of will . <S> The other kind of meaning that modals have is called the Deontic sense , and it's transitive, in the sense that it has to do not with logical possibilities but with social obligations and permissions. <S> There is a relation between the agent subject and some other social force, which may be a person, a law, or a habit. <S> The root of the verb will is the same as the noun will , and the adjective willing . <S> A will is a written record of what you want done with your property when you die. <S> God's will refers to what God wants . <S> Will means want , and that's the only meaning allowed in if clauses. <S> It's also common in negatives. <S> He won't unlock the door <S> is not a prediction of the future, but a statement about his refusal. <S> And it's also present as an unspoken presumption about any prediction involving humans -- someone <S> will do something only if they're willing to do it. <A> This is idiomatic in (formally polite) <S> spoken language. <S> You can think of it as short for "If you will forgive us, we will take our leave, since our lunch is growing cold". <S> The "we will take our leave" part is implied. <S> The "if" is a way of saying -- in theory -- that we will only take our leave if you agree to forgive us for doing so. <S> The future tense ("will") is used because they haven't yet agreed to give their forgiveness. <S> Again, this is very formally polite language.
| "If you will" is an idiomatic phrase in this case : Said when politely inviting a listener or reader to do something or when using an unusual or fanciful term.
|
"did a bit of googling" vs. "googled a few times" According to Cambridge Dictionary , the verb "google" means to search for something on the internet using the Google search engine (= computer program that finds information) From a post I did a bit of Googling and I seemed to find the kind of articles you are looking for by using the word "tips". I guess it means the author googled a few times, such as, writing tips , writing articles tips , writing post tips , etc. Consider the following two sentences. the author did a bit of googling and ... the author googled a few times and ... I guess both of them pretty much mean the same thing and the former sounds more colloquial. Is my understanding correct? <Q> "Googling" refers to the act of using Google and does not reference discrete searches. <S> "Google <S> " to refer to discrete searches is unnecessarily unweildy unless you're saying "I googled [search term]". <A> No. <S> "The author googled a few times" sounds both incomplete and slightly incorrect to my ear. <S> You Google [something specific] , and it doesn't make sense to do it multiple times. <A> googled his subject a few times over several days versus do a bit of googling to find some information he needed = <S> that's like <S> : do a bit of swimming if you use google as an active verb, it requires a direct object. <S> I did a bit of cooking today. <S> I cooked my favorite dish today. <S> Are those the exact same thing? <S> No, they are not. <S> To do a bit of [some activity] is idiomatic usage in English. <S> He did a bit of cooking in his younger years but gave it up in his forties. <S> It usually refers to doing some activity casually and is a typical spoken idiom. <S> People do a bit of this or that in speech at lot. <S> It is not usually written as it sounds conversational and, indeed, is used in conversations unless one is telling a story.
| But to "do a bit of Googling" implies that you're going through the process with a few different search terms, or clicking through several results to gather information. They don't these sentences necessarily mean the same thing at all.
|
Can fat change into muscle, or not? What does "Fat cannot change into muscle any more than muscle can change into fat." mean? I have a problem with the interpretation of this sentence. Fat cannot change into muscle any more than muscle can change intofat. I guess that it would mean either 1 or 2 below. The change from muscle to fat is more likely to happen than the change from fat to muscle. (This implies that fat can change into muscle even a little.) Fat cannot change into muscle, and muscle cannot change into fat either Is either one of these correct? If so, which one? If not, what is the right interpretation? <Q> It means something close to your option (2): Fat can’t change into muscle, just like (as you may already know) <S> muscle can’t change into fat. <S> Regardless of its scientific correctness, this is the meaning that the phrasing implies. <S> Generally, phrases like “Eagles cannot swim any more than sharks can fly” <S> are an idiomatic construction. <S> They essentially always mean Eagles can’t swim, just like (as you may already know) sharks can’t fly — or in more detail: it’s impossible, or very unlikely, for sharks to fly (and this is usually assumed as likely background knowledge for the writer and reader); <S> and it is similarly unlikely for eagles to swim ( <S> and this is the main new information the writer is giving the reader). <S> This phrasing is always used to express impossibility/unlikeliness like this — it does <S> not just mean “ability of eagles to swim ≤ ability of sharks to fly”, as a literal logical reading would entail. <S> For instance, one would never naturally say or write the following, even though strictly logically they’re true: <S> * Eagles cannot swim any more than dogs can walk. <S> * Eagles cannot fly any more than dogs can walk. <S> And slightly more subtly, the first impossibility is the main new information being asserted, while the second one is typically presumed as background knowledge; so one would not say <S> * Pigs cannot fly any more than elephants can jump. <S> because although both of these are impossible, readers can be assumed to know the first impossibility more than the second. <A> There are two possibilities stated here: (A) <S> An event where fat changes into muscle (B) <S> An event where muscle changes into fat <S> That's all you can derive from analyzing the grammar, so both option 1. <S> and 2. could be the truth. <S> However, assuming that you know from biology class that (B) isn't possible at all, we can conclude that (A) isn't possible either. <S> So in this case, option 2. is intended. <A> “A can’t B any more than C can D” means the same thing as “A can’t B just like C can’t D.” For either idiom to work, the audience must already know that C can’t D. <S> With the “any more than” version, there is an added sense that thinking C can D is ridiculous, and therefore it is just as ridiculous to think that A can B, whereas the “just like” version is more factual. <S> Note that you should check that the things you are comparing with this idiom are both, in fact, impossible. <S> For instance, if you said “birds can’t swim any more than fish can fly,” your statement would be undermined by swimming birds and flying fish . <S> Advanced speakers might do this (or other strange things) ironically to subvert the idiom, but it’s more likely to be an error.
| The construction here ('not any more than') means the probability of (A) is lower than or equal to (B).
|
Can I refer to someone as "elder member" in internet forums? Questions: Can I refer to a person who has been using SE for a longer period of time than me as an elder member ? Is the usage of senior member correct? Note: Thanks for the good answers. I asked this assuming the word elder is applicable in terms of seniority as well, not necessarily physically older as written in The Free Dictionary . elder adj. Greater than another in age or seniority. Archaic Superior to another or others, as in rank. <Q> "Senior member" is the better choice, unless you're deliberately using it in a joking way. <S> Although it's technically true that the user's account is older than yours, "elder" is generally used in a more narrow sense to describe someone's actual, real-life age, while "senior" is much more commonly used in this context and doesn't necessarily indicate an age difference. <S> "Experienced user" or "veteran user" might also be good choices, depending on the exact tone you're going for. <S> Edit: As others have pointed out, "senior" is often used to indicate not only a longer period of membership, but a higher rank and greater perceived authority within the community. <S> If you simply want to express that someone's been a registered user of the site for a long time, then "long-standing" or "long-time member" might be a better option. <A> Given that a young member could have been here for longer than an older person, or someone might have been here for a long time but not achieved many privileges, I suggest long-standing member. <S> This has no implications of age, superiority or of anything else except purely the time they have been on the site. <A> A person might be in their twenties but be a member of a Stack exchange site for as many as 8 years. <S> In that case, elder or senior member sounds a bit of a misnomer. <S> I prefer veteran user ( a person who has had long experience in a particular field. ) <S> hi-rep user <S> (only applicable if the user does indeed have <S> >5K or if the site is large >10K in reputation) <S> See also @pinkfrosty's answer <A> (See Edit section at the bottom as well.) <S> For your situation, senior member is correct and is much better than elder member . <S> This includes someone who has been using SE longer than you. <S> However senior can also be a noun. <S> It is a polite way to say old person . <S> Elder is usually also a noun. <S> It often means one of the oldest people in the group . <S> At other times though, it sometimes means an older member of the group, <S> whose specific job/role is to advise and/or to lead . <S> You can also say elder ly member , which is a polite way to say old member . <S> Old member means the same thing as member who is old . <S> Elder member , however, typically means member who is an elder - which is similar to, but slightly different than member who is old . <S> senior (adjective) : having a higher rank, being with the site/company longer, or something similar old senior member (noun phrase) : member who has a higher rank, has been with the site/company longer, or something similar senior (noun) : old person elder (noun) : one of the oldest people in the group an older member of the group, <S> whose specific job/role is to advise and/or to lead elder member (noun phrase) : a member who is an elder elderly (adjective) : old elderly member (noun phrase) : a member who is old EDIT: As was stated in the comments at one point in time, something closer to chasley - reinstate Monica's answer would be much better for Stack Exchange. <S> Senior member technically works, but Stack Exchange doesn't usually call it that. <S> Think of a job. <S> Different people have different titles, and the same job might have different titles at different companies. <S> For example, one company might use the word teacher , while another uses the word instructor . <S> Both are technically correct, but each organization has its own preferences. <S> The same applies for things like senior member . <S> It technically works for Stack Exchange, but it's a little ambiguous; and long-standing member , as @chasly-reinstateMonica suggested, is fairly unambigous and is much more appropriate for this group. <A> Realistically, both elder and senior are going to bother someone, eventually, as ageism. <S> Even "long-time" has that feel to it. <S> I try to pick something that's inherently a compliment to them instead. <S> I personally like more tongue in cheek descriptions like superior , ranking , eminent , ascendent , or tenured . <S> Tenured Member is hard for an experienced forum resident to take the wrong way, since its meaning is inherently respectful of high skill rather than being an age related reward. <S> There are many such complimentary words people use for sovereignty that can work. <S> Those only come off as demeaning if someone thinks you're being sarcastic, which is at least easy to correct when it happens. <S> (There's a reason Can't tell if serious or joking <S> is a popular meme )) <A> Personally, I'd assume "elder member" was meant in the same context as "elder statesman" Collins : <S> An experienced and respected member of an organization or professionis sometimes referred to as an elder statesman <S> I certainly wouldn't take it as referring to somebody as elderly, or in any way offensively. <S> That said, I can see how some people might not make that distinction. <S> As per other answers, senior or long-standing might be safer.
| If senior is used like an adjective, in situations like this, it usually means that someone has been with the company/site longer, that they have a higher rank, or something else like that.
|
much to one's despair - meaning? I know the meaning of despair but I can't understand what the phrase much to his despair means in the following sentence. His friend went back on his word much to his despair . Could anybody please help me understand the meaning of this phrase in a way that I will be able to use it in my own writing in future. <Q> The phrase "much to his despair" is a variation of the phrase "be the despair of" . <S> This sentence is saying that because this person's friend went back on his word (going back on your word is when you break a promise or you fail to uphold a commitment you made), it caused this person's friend despair . <S> In this sentence, "despair" is referring to unhappiness or sadness that this person's friend is experiencing because he broke a promise or failed on an important commitment he made to his friend. <S> Thus, "much to his despair" is saying that because the person's friend broke his promise, the friend now feels despair, presumably because of the disappointment he caused by breaking his promise. <A> "In a way that caused him to feel despair." The friend's going back on his word is the reason for his despair, and so (by definition) it contributes much to that feeling. <S> Much to his surprise and much to his dismay are also common variations on the same formula, as well as their plainer versions without "much": to his surprise and to his dismay . <S> Edit: There should be a comma after "word", which could be the reason for your confusion: <S> His friend went back on his word, much to his despair . <A> Regarding the usage of to : to preposition 2 b —used as a function word to indicate the result of an action or a process // broken all to pieces // <S> go to seed // to their surprise, the train left on time (M-W) to preposition 2.2 Governing a phrase expressing someone's reaction to something. <S> ‘to her astonishment, he smiled’ ‘Much to his surprise, this small film has turned out to have wide appeal. <S> (Lexico) <S> Regarding the usage of much : much determiner a large amount or to a large degree: • Much to our surprise, <S> (= we were very surprised that) they accepted our offer. <S> (Cambridge Dictionary) <S> I personally don't believe it is clear who "he/his" is (who suffered the despair), but presumably it is the first friend (not the one who went back on his word). <S> Notice that this is not an isolated usage of much to . <S> A common usage is much to someone's surprise : <S> much to someone's surprise idiom Definition of much to someone's surprise —used to say that someone is very surprised by something // <S> Much to our surprise, she refused. <S> (M-W)
| So much to his despair means that "he" suffered despair to a great extent ( much despair ) due to the friend's going back on his word.
|
what do you call the small changing room in front of the bathroom? So I have this small changing room (4m²) in front of my bathroom that is closed with a sliding door. Im trying to find out a word to describe it for decoration purposes. I tried my best searching online. <Q> I would call it a dressing room a room for use in getting dressed, especially one for performers backstage in a theater, television studio, etc. . <S> I have also seen it referred to as a "dressing area" in a home, especially if it doesn't have a door to separate it from the rest of a room. <S> A "changing room" has an association with a public place like a gym or swimming pool <S> and I wouldn't use it for a home. <S> Dressing rooms typically have a closet, a mirror and sometimes a place to sit. <S> The name is more about the function of the room than its location by the bathroom. <S> Here is a floor plan that show this usage - although dressing rooms usually tend to be large, the term can also be used for smaller rooms. <S> An article in Home & Garden about dressing rooms shows a small dressing room between a bedroom and a bathroom: <A> In the UK, such a room isn't particularly common. <S> Some large houses have a "dressing room", but these are normally very large, containing wardrobes, and not usually connected to the bathroom. <S> You could say "changing room", which is what we call communal rooms for changing at gyms, swimming pools etc. <S> It isn't common to have one in a house, but if you stated that you did then it would be understood. <S> If it is particularly small, just big enough for one person to stand and change in, maybe the word " cubicle ", or specifically " changing cubicle " might best convey the meaning? <S> This is what we call the individual, private rooms within a larger changing room. <S> I believe that in American English they might use the word "stall" in place of "cubicle". <A> Changing room inside a sports hallA changing room, locker room, dressing room (usually in a sports, theater or staff context) or changeroom (regional use) is a room or area designated for changing one's clothes. <S> Changing rooms are provided in a semi-public situation to enable people to change clothes with varying degrees of privacy. <S> Separate changing rooms may be provided for men and women, or there may be a non-gender-specific open space with individual cubicles or stalls,[1] as with unisex public toilets. <S> Many changing rooms include toilets, sinks and showers. <S> Sometimes a changing room exists as a small portion of a restroom/washroom. <S> For example, the men's and women's washrooms in Toronto's Dundas Square (which includes a water play area) each include a change area which is a blank counter space at the end of a row of sinks. <S> In this case, the facility is primarily a washroom, and its use as a changing room is minimal, since only a small percentage of users change into bathing suits. <S> Larger changing rooms are usually found at public beaches, or other bathing areas, where most of the space is for changing, and minimal washroom space is included. <S> Beach-style changing rooms are often large open rooms with benches against the walls. <S> Some do not have a roof, providing just the barrier necessary to prevent people outside from seeing in. <S> That was from Wikipedia. <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_room <S> That is the link. <S> Basically,I think it is just while you change your clothes .For <S> some privacy,there should be a door.
| Sometimes a person may change his or her clothes in a toilet cubicle of a washroom.
|
What is the difference between two sentences and which one is grammatically correct? 1).This town isn’t very well known and there isn’t much to see so a few tourists come here. 2). This town isn’t very well known and there isn’t much to see so few tourists come here. <Q> Both sentences are grammatically correct. <S> "few" means "not many", a negative statement. <S> The last clause in both sentences starts with "so". <S> That means that the last clause should be the result of what comes before. <S> It doesn't make sense to make a positive statement ("a few") about tourists coming, as a result of the town not being known and having no attractions, <S> so sentence 1), <S> while it is grammatical, doesn't make sense semantically. <S> Sentence 2) does make sense, since "few" = "not many" makes sense as the result of the first part of the sentence. <A> @Ram Pillai I agree that before 'so', there should be a punctuation. <S> I, however, think a more appropriate one for connecting an independent clause preceded by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so) to another is a comma. <S> If we prefer a semicolon, then it would be without the coordinating conjunction. <S> I agree that 'few' is consistent with the negative feel in this context. <S> My suggestion is:This town isn’t very well known and there isn’t much to see, so few tourists come here. <A> The difference between the two sentences is the word "a": in (1) "so a few" versus (2) "so few". <S> In (1) <S> the conclusion seems to contradict the two facts. <S> Sentence (1) appears to say that because the "town isn’t very well known and there isn’t much to see" that encourages a few tourists to visit. <S> You could argue that some tourists deliberately choose places like that, but to me the phrasing in (1) does not have that interpretation. <S> If (1) is change to say "so only a few" then it makes sense again and is just a slightly more wordy version of the other. <A> //This town isn’t very well known and there isn’t much to see so few tourists come here.// "Few" = practically no"A few" = <S> a small number <S> This difference is valid. <S> Before the word 'so', there should be a semicolon. <S> Thus, it can beThis town isn’t very well known and there isn’t much to see; so (a) few tourists come here.
| "a few" means "some small number" (more than none), a positive statement. Sentence (2) is my preference, it has two facts and a conclusion that makes sense given the facts.
|
How often do native speakers use the word "to scathe"? Is it OK if I use it instead of "to injure"? The word "to scathe" is the synonym of the word "to harm" or "to injure". However, I have never noticed how somebody uses it. Is it OK to occasionally use it instead of "to injure" during speaking and writing? <Q> The verb itself is almost never used in every day English, but there are two adjectives formed from it which are common: "scathing" means extremely harsh, biting, critical; e.g. "he launched into a scathing attack on his opponent's policies"; "the review was scathing in its criticism" "unscathed" means "unharmed"; e.g. "despite the dramatic accident, he escaped unscathed <S> " I would classify both of these as a kind of "fossil" - although clearly derived from the present and past participles of "to scathe", they are used only as distinct adjectives. <S> "Unscathed" has the additional distinction of being an "unpaired word" - although it should logically be the opposite of "scathed", that word is rarely used except in deliberate word play. <S> It would be more natural to say "was almost unscathed" or "was not unscathed" than "was barely scathed" or "was scathed". <A> It has limited used, it isn't used as a general verb, it is mostly seen in participle form, and often in negative sentences. <S> So don't say "Ronaldo was scathed in the second half" or "I scathed my ankle playing tennis". <S> You can say: The match turned nasty in the second half, with two red cards, but Ronaldo was unscathed. <S> I slipped and fell, but was barely scathed. <S> And there is a related adjective "scathing" which means bitterly critical. <S> The Prime Minister led a scathing attack on the oppositions policies. <A> As the other answers explain, it is not usually used. <S> However it is likely to be understood if used in humor, especially if "unscathed" is spoken by someone first. <S> What's funny about the scene below is that "scathed" is an unusual word, but understood to be the opposite of "unscathed" which is much more commonly used. <S> Sometimes it's helpful to see it used in context. <S> In the American TV show <S> The Sopranos <S> a truck driver being robbed was afraid that if he looked unharmed, his boss might think he was part of the crime, and not a victim. <S> You can read about it in the episode summary in Wikipedia <S> 46 <S> Long : <S> Christopher and Brendan Filone, who has a meth habit, hijack a shipment of DVD players and are pleased to "scathe" the truck driver , at his request, so that he cannot be suspected. <S> And I've transcribed the bit of the dialoge from the video <S> The Sopranos - <S> "You wanna be scathed" <S> Driver: <S> Look I don’t know who in the company gave up the route, <S> but there’s no way I could walk away <S> unscathed without being fired. <S> Christopher: You want to be scathed ? <S> Driver: <S> Yeah, so it looks like I didn’t give up without a struggle. <S> Driver is punched and kicked Christopher: Scathed? <S> Brendon: <S> Scathed. <A> The answers with the meaning are great, but to give specific answers: "never" and "no". <S> Despite being in the dictionary, scathe is dead. <S> It's not even in old movies or historical legal documents. <S> It's so dead that it's considered a made-up word playing off of scathing or unscathed . <S> Because of unscathed , scathe is vaguely associated with injury. <S> In "I scathed my hand", scathed jumps out -- "you did what? <S> What's a scathe? <S> No wait <S> , I just had lunch. <S> Don't tell me". <S> In a fantasy book we might assume a scathed hand is a magical injury to be explained later. <S> Also because of unscathed , scathed is a joke word. <S> If you said "2 people were scathed in a car crash", you're making light of their injuries. <S> A listener's thought process might be: " <S> scathed isn't a word -- it's a play on either scathing or unscathed. <S> The opposite of completely unhurt could be killed, or it could be very minor injuries. <S> Or maybe they heard the driver was unscathed and are stupid and think scathed is a word. <S> Or they might have mispronounced unscathed?" <S> The common phrase scathing insult gives another possible guess. <S> "John is going to scathe you" sounds like made-up teen-age dialogue. <S> He's going to humiliate you, but nothing physical. <S> In fact, Merriam Webster's current online example of recent use has "Monday Night Football debates always seem to scathe a few players". <S> It means mock or insult, as a play on scathing comments .
| Using it as a serious synonym for injure would be confusing.
|
What do we call a person who seems to always correctly predict unfortunate things? You know, the friend that everyone in the room will shut his mouth before he finishes his sentence knowing that it will very likely to become true. Tom: I don't think this nice weather will last very long. Everyone: Shut up, it will rain now if you say that. <Q> If the person is specifically predicting doom and disaster (as opposed to just general predictions), they are A <S> Cassandra <S> (From mythology): <S> https://grammarist.com/usage/cassandra/ <S> The original mythology held that as well as being given the gift of foresight, Cassandra was also cursed so that no-one would believe her. <S> Although today's usage is more generalised in that the speaker can merely be unpopular for their predictions, whether or not they are believed. <A> A person who foretells or prophesies future events is called prognosticator . <S> Merriam Webster defines it as: <S> One who predicts future events or developments. <S> I believe soothsayer would also work well in this context. <S> Harbinger: a person or thing that shows that something is going to happen soon, especially something bad. <S> Or harbinger of doom . <A> (because they are literally saying predictions of doom ) <S> If you are implying that something will go wrong because he predicted it, then he is a jinx <A> If the act of prophesy itself is supposed to cause the prophesy to come true, a common reaction would be "don't jinx it!". <S> Which is not a term for the troublemaker themselves, I'll admit, but seems to be matching the described scenario well. <S> However, the same phrase would be used for prematurely declaring success rather than failure and in that manner causing failure to magically take its course. <S> A very unspecific phrase fitting the prediction of failure better than that of success would be " now <S> you've said it!". <A> In the Discworld series, written by Terry Pratchett, there's a group of magic users called witches who are down-to-earth, sensible people who do all the dirty work needed to keep life going, and they take care of the people and issues that fall between the cracks. <S> Anywho, a number of them can see the future, and will tell people their futures for money. <S> However, most of the time people don't like what's actually in their future, and witches are either too blunt or not nice enough to sugar-coat what they see. <S> Pratchett refers to such future-seeing witches as misfortune tellers. <S> Edit: as far as I know, this term is not used outside of Pratchett's writings. <S> However, also as far as I know, there is no word in the English language to describe someone who reliably predicts minor misfortunes. <S> Doomsayer or harbinger <S> both kind of fit, in my opinion, but they suggest predictions of apocalyptic scale.
| Someone who regularly predicts unfortunate events (rightly or wrongly) is a doomsayer . Also consider harbinger .
|
Sentences containing "refused to close his bar because" a. He refused to close his bar because of the pandemic. b. He refused to close his bar because there was a pandemic. Are the above sentences grammatically correct, and do they make sense? The intended meaning is: He had to close his bar because of the pandemic and he refused to do it. and not Because of the pandemic, he refused to close his bar. I think both (a) and (b) are technically ambiguous, but within the given context, the absurd meaning would be immediately rejected. <Q> To make the meaning explicitly clear, use despite instead of because : He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic. <S> Alternatively, it could be said in the following ways:: He refused to let the pandemic close his bar. <S> He refused to close his bar during the pandemic. <A> He refused to close his bar because of the pandemic. <S> He refused to close his bar because there was a pandemic. <S> He gave the pandemic as a reason for refusing to closing his bar. <S> He refused to close his bar [just] because of the pandemic. <S> He refused to close his bar [just] because there was a pandemic. <S> Even though there was a pandemic happening, he refused to close his bar. <S> He explicitly denied that as a good enough reason for closing his bar. <S> He played down the seriousness of the pandemic and decided not to shut his bar. <S> However, the meaning you are after is most likely "despite" <S> He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic. <S> He refused to close his bar despite there being a pandemic. <S> So, yes, both original sentences are grammatical, but their strict literal meaning is not the same as their looser assumed meaning. <S> Some people would reject the "absurd" reason, but others wouldn't. <S> "Before the pandemic happened he was planning on retiring and closing his bar, but then he thought it would be a place of refuge, so he refused to close his bar because of the pandemic." <S> Just because we don't agree with someone else's thinking, doesn't mean we should label it "absurd" and assume they could never think it, and assume that other people wouldn't find it reasonable either. <A> To my ear the first tends to the intended, and the second to the "absurd" meaning. <S> The reason is that structurally they are both ambiguous and admit both meanings. <S> For example: He refused to close his bar because there was a horde of thirsty patrons. <S> Here the contextual hint makes it clear that the "absurd" construction is meant. <S> Similarly: <S> He refused to close his clinic, because of the medical needs caused by the pandemic. <S> (I used a comma here too, as an extra hint.) <S> To disambiguate you have several choices. <S> There is nuance in them though. <S> He refused to close the bar... ...despite the pandemic. <S> - indicates that there is force in the reason, but it is overridden. ... <S> for a mere pandemic. <S> - indicates that he considers pandemics minor. ... <S> just for the pandemic. <S> - more reason would be needed. ... <S> for this pandemic. <S> - maybe for some other pandemic, and so forth. <A> Both your versions are ambiguous since “because” could attach either to “refused” or to “close”. <S> Adding extra words after “because” doesn’t solve that problem. <S> A reader faced with this will likely conclude that “because” attaches to the nearer of the two verbs, which is also (I hope) <S> the intended meaning. <S> We see how this works when we move “because” nearer to “refused” and the absurd meaning now seems more likely: He refused because of the pandemic to close his bar. <S> Because of the pandemic, he refused to close his bar. <S> Because the writer didn’t do this, we can assume the non-absurd meaning was intended. <S> If you change “because” to “despite”, all of the interpretations have the same meaning, so this would be preferred: <S> He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic. <S> He refused despite the pandemic to close his bar. <S> Despite the pandemic, he refused to close his bar. <A> A) is perfect idiomatic English and means what you think it does. <S> His course of action is to stay open, the pandemic was a negative in that decision, but not negative enough. <S> The idiom is a negated negative-sounding word (examples below) followed by "because of". <S> Whatever comes next is a reason against, but not strong enough. <S> I did a search for some examples using: [don't "because of a"]. <S> You can see they follow the pattern: "Don't miss out because of a first impression", "Don't ruin a good today because of a bad yesterday", "Don't punish all who need help because of a few who cheat", "Don't turn away business because of a pet!" <S> , "Don't quit because of a vindictive person". <S> I also found "I'm not going to lose him because of money". <S> Losing is bad, not losing is a double-negative, so it's understood to be a lack of money, not that they will use their vast wealth to keep him. <S> Over to B). <S> That's not as good since it's nothing special. <S> They avoided using the well-understood "because of". <S> Maybe they avoided it since that's not what they meant to say. <S> So now we have to decide whether the pandemic was a a positive tipping factor, or a not-good-enough reason against. <S> For a contrasting examples, suppose some music started playing, after which we decided to stay where where we are. <S> "I'll stay because of the music" is easy -- it's the reason we're staying. <S> "I won't leave because of the music" means we're staying in spite of it. <S> "I won't leave because that music is playing" is less clear and probably only makes sense in a larger context.
| Both of the sentences are grammatical, but you're right that they are either ambiguous or don't mean what you want them to mean.
|
Pronunciation of past participles of words that end with 'thed' (e.g. bathed) How does one pronounce past participles in -thed, such as "clothed" and "bathed" in British English? Are there more than one correct pronunciation? A Cambridge dictionary said [-ðd], but would it also be correct to omit the final "d"? I find it rather hard to include it. <Q> The standard pronuncation of 'bathed' in both British English and American English is /beɪðd/. <S> The voiced 'th' [ð] is a remnant of Old English. <S> And in Old English, it was a result of Intervocalic Fricative Voicing . <S> It's not correct to omit the final d <S> but you'll hear the pronunciation without d a lot. <S> Most speakers pronounce the d but it's unreleased. <S> The reason you don't hear the d is that it's usually unreleased (i.e. [beɪðd̚]) at the end. <S> But when it's followed by a vowel, then the d can be released and you'll often hear it. <S> (Context will tell you which form of verb is used.) <S> How to articulate [ðd]: <S> You can articulate the [ð] in two ways: dentally and Interdentally . <S> For dental [ð], you put the tip of your tongue against the back of the top teeth. <S> For interdental [ð], you stick out the tongue between the top and bottom teeth. <S> It depends on how much the tongue sticks out between the teeth. <S> For [ðd] in 'bathed', you articulate the [ð] (either dentally or Interdentally) and then move the tip of your tongue to the alveolar ridge and build a pressure for articulating the [d] <S> but the air is usually not released (i.e. no puff of air). <S> Note: Some people might release the d at the end of 'bathed' and you'll hear a clear d. <S> ( Fricative Voicing handouts - PDF ). <A> Question:How does one pronounce past participles in -thed, such as "clothed" and "bathed" in British English? <S> Are there more than one correct pronunciation? <S> A Cambridge dictionary said "-ðd", but would it also be correct to omit the final "d"? <S> [I want the question to appear in my answer.] <S> Answer: <S> The Cambridge Dictionary is right. <S> However, leaving off the d will give you present simple. <S> If used as a simple past verb, the form is bathed or clothed. <S> We bathed in the river as the summer house has no shower or bathtub. <S> The church members fed and clothed the poor in the neighborhood. <S> If you don't pronounce the d, you get the present simple of the verbs bathe and clothe: <S> We bathe in the river as the summer house has no shower or bathtub. <S> The church members feed and clothe the poor. <A> The past participle ends in /ðd/ <S> so we have approximately /beiðd/ <S> The infinitive and basic form of the verb is "bathe" /beið/ <S> I have /beiðd/ in the river. <S> I /beið/ in the river every evening. <S> Note that the running to gether of words means that you get /beiðdin/.
| In Southern British English, 'bath' (noun) is pronounced [bɑːθ] while the verb 'bathe' is pronounced [beɪð]. The answer is no, you cannot omit the final d in writing and in speaking, it can be heard but not always super clearly. It depends on how you pronounce it.
|
Usage of "If vs whether" Test questions (Source: “Quiz your English” - an app by Cambridge): “When we have been overwhelmed with emails, we wonder ________ we might have missed something important by dealing with them quickly.” a.weather b. whether c.wether d.if “A librarian can help you if you are wondering _____ a source has the information you need.” a. if or whether b.if or not c. whether d. whether or not Answers: b – whether d – whether or not My question:Why can't we also use the answer “d” in the first question and the answers “a, c” in the second question (by the answer “a” I mean either if or whether)? P.S. I've heard about the rules governing the usage of “if vs. whether” ( https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/if-or-whether ), but I'm not sure which one applies here. <Q> “When we have been overwhelmed with emails, we wonder whether we might have missed something important by dealing with them quickly.” <S> In both cases, there are two possible outcomes implied - either we missed something important, or we didn't. <S> “When we have been overwhelmed with emails, we wonder whether or not we might have missed something important by dealing with them quickly.” <S> Using whether or not is viable here too. <S> It is equivalent to saying <S> "When we have been overwhelmed with emails, we wonder whether we might have missed something important by dealing with them quickly or not ." <S> Instead of implying the two outcomes, they are being explicitly stated. <S> “A librarian can help you if you are wondering whether a source has the information you need.” <S> This is actually the same principle as the prior examples. <S> There are two outcomes implied - <S> a source has the information you need, or it doesn't. <S> You can use whether or whether or not interchangeably. <S> The only reason not to use if here is because it was already used earlier in the sentence and would sound unnatural. <S> An Additional Note <S> Neither of these examples have both outcomes explicitly stated in the sentence. <S> Take this sentence for example <S> : We don't know whether Julie will arrive on Monday or Tuesday. <S> The sentence explicitly states two possibilities, one of which will occur. <S> Julie will either arrive on Monday or Tuesday. <S> We don't know if Julie will arrive on Monday or Tuesday. <S> Depending on how this is read, there is now a third option - maybe Julie won't arrive at all. <S> In this case whether more clearly conveys the intent. <A> The answer to (1) is incorrect in casual American English. <S> Both whether and if would work there, and if is probably more common. <S> Similarly in the second question, both 'whether' and 'whether or not' would be acceptable in casual speech. <A> b and d c, d or just " <S> if"
| In this case, whether and if are interchangeable.
|
Can I add an “s” after a specific/non-ten year like 2015s? Can I say something like, The movie became famous in the 2015s I want to use it as an approximation; it's not really 2015 but somewhere around that period. <Q> No, you can’t say “the 2015s”. <S> You could instead say “around 2015”. <S> Ronald Sole’s comment is talking about the unrelated “possessive” or “genitive” construction, which coincidentally also involves the letter S. “2015’s ___” roughly equivalent to “the __ of 2015” (e.g. “this was 2015’s most memorable movie”). <S> It isn’t that common to use the possessive/genitive -’s construction with a year, but it is possible. <S> The plural “the 1960s” construction can be written with or without an apostrophe. <S> Many current style guides recommend not using an apostrophe, but the apostrophe convention with plural years written as numerals (like “90’s” or “1990’s”) has a significant history of usage and so should not be treated as a “mistake” along the lines of writing “blueberry’s” instead of “blueberries” for the plural of “blueberry”. <S> Unlike with blueberry, there is not a single universally accepted standard for writing the plurals of years. <S> See Sven Yargs' answer to the ELU question Is an apostrophe with a decade (e.g. 1920’s) generally considered “incorrect”? <A> Absolutely not. <S> The phrase "the nineties" refers to a number of years without specifying exactly which ones. <S> It clearly refers, however, to more than one of up to ten years <S> and so is a plural concept, which justifies the terminal "s. <S> " The year 2015 is not a plural concept. <S> The thought you mean to convey can be expressed as approximately during 2015 around 2015 about 2015 during 2015 or thereabouts <S> There are probably others that do not spring to my befuddled mind right away. <S> Furthermore, as R. Sole pointed out, if you want to use numerals to express a vague collection of years, the standard way to do so is to use an apostrophe as in the 90's <S> So your usage is wrong as is your punctuation. <A>
| The proper way to say it is circa 2015 .
|
Does the idiom «to cross the pond» exist? Recently I had a conversation with a native speaker. During it he has mentioned some movie reference. I guess he was not sure whether I have got it so he has also sent me a link to that movie supplying it with a phrase: in case the reference does not cross the pond Is this phrase something that really exists? <Q> The idiom here is "the pond." <S> This phrase means the Atlantic Ocean. <S> It is sometimes jocularly used to refer to differences between usages in Great Britain vs the United States, including allusions to pop culture that are not common. <S> Edit: <S> this is both an American and British usage, and despite referring to a definite body of water, I have never seen it capitalized. <A> A similar idiom exist in Australasia viz "across the ditch"referring to the Tasman Sea. <S> The Pacific Ocean is sometimes referred to as the "big pond"presumably by analogy with the North Atlantic. <S> Interesting that to emphasize a small linguistic or culturaldifference the large physical separation viz an ocean is referred to by a small analogue viz a pond or ditch. <S> The opposite would also appear true eg <S> the physical separationof the UK from continental Europe is very small but most references seem to magnify that distance. <A> Here, "the pond" means the North Atlantic Ocean. <S> For a reference to "cross the pond", it means that it will be understood by both North Americans and British and Irish people. <S> That is, it's something of North American origin that will be understood by the British and Irish, or something of British or Irish origin that will be understood by North Americans. <S> Very likely, either you are in North America and your friend is British; or you are in Europe and your friend is American; and they said something that they are worried may only be understood on their own side of the North Atlantic Ocean. <A> I suspect some version of the "across the pond" meaning Americas or the US exist in many european languages. <S> In Czech, "za velkou louží" (Across the big puddle) is used to poetically refer to either of them.
| There are enough differences between American English and Commonwealth English that it's fairly frequent for an idiom to exist in just one variant, but not the other.
|
What does it mean to say something is only a process not an end in itself? English is not my native language and I came across the sentence "devolution is a process not an end in itself" and I want to know the meaning of this sentence. <Q> this result being what is also called the end . <S> For instance the end of education is not to accumulate knowledge for yourself and do nothing with that knowledge merely relishing in the satisfaction that this work of assimilation provides--if it provides any--but it is to go through such a task of accumulation with the prospect of putting that knowledge to use once the process of getting it has been completed. <S> It is not different for "devolution"; the remark--as it can be but a remark in a special context--is truer than for most activities since in "devolution" what is involved is a transfer of something (rather abstract): power, responsability, property. <S> The sole end can only be the effected transfer, that is the taking up of responsabilities by a new entity, new politician, new governing body, etc. <S> (SOED) Descent by natural, legal, or due succession; the action of passing something on to a successor; the deputing or delegation of work or authority to; especially the transfer of some powers by the British or UK House of Parliament to bodies appointed by and responsible to it, or by central government to a local or regional administration, esp. <S> in Scotland and Wales. <S> (Mid 18th century) <A> Devolution suggests something that causes passing to a relatively worse state or position, but it does not prescribe how much worse the next-in-time position is. <S> The term only suggests the worsening process akin to rolling down a hill, for example. <S> The degree or measure of negative difference over the devolution period describes the end. <S> This term is confusing because it also has a very technical legal meaning. <S> Title to property that passes automatically by rule of law, say upon the death of an individual to that person’s heirs, is said to devolve. <A> The political web site <S> " They Work for you " has a verbatim report from the Scottish Parliament. <S> Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party) gives a speech. <S> In this context, "Devolution" = the political process that will lead to Scotland becoming an independent country. <S> The speech ends: Since 1999, the [Scottish] Parliament has grown in maturity and skill—attributes that have even, on occasion, been displayed in debates. <S> For some members, devolution is a process, not an end in itself. <S> She is saying that devolution is a process (that will lead to independence) - it is not the goal - <S> that is independence itself..
| " Not an end in itself " is used to explain that something is just a means in obtaining a certain result,
|
Using awaited with be Is this sentence grammatically correct? Please be awaited for the results Can you use past participle of verb immediately after be without to ? Sounds ok to me but I haven't heard it elsewhere. <Q> You can use a past participle after be . <S> It is the usual way of expressing the passive. <S> If somebody is awaiting the results, then the results are awaited . <S> Your question suggests that you are confusing three different constructions: A "continuous" tense ( <S> the present continuous is actually the normal present tense for most verbs): <S> I am awaiting the results. <S> The passive: I am awaited. <S> (= <S> somebody is awaiting me) <S> The infinitive of obligation (rather a formal use): <S> I am to await the Director (= <S> My duty/instructions/obligation is to await the Director). <S> As Jim 46 says, await <S> is a formal word: in ordinary speech people would say "wait for" instead of "await" in all the above sentences. <A> “Let us be seen to retreat”, “Let us be done with arguing”, “To be satisfied, I need evidence”. <S> But your example is not in this class. <S> It is not the speaker who is awaited, but the results. <S> It should read “Please await the results”. <A> Please be awaited for the results <S> I think this sentence is grammatically incorrect. <S> I would like to suggest you one of this forms: <S> Please, let us wait for the results! <S> Please, let us await the results! <S> Let us await the results, please! <S> Would you like to let us await the results, please! <S> Would you like to let us wait for the results, please!
| You may use the past participle after be; there are examples where it is desirable to do so.
|
“Sell extremely strong onions to opponent” Asian idiom or mistranslation This anime clip I found on Facebook has the following caption: “Pretending to lose 2 rounds to sell extremely strong onions for opponents”. I’m assuming the “sell extremely strong onions” part is a literal translation of some Asian idiom that means something along the lines of the English “sandbagging”. I’m assuming it’s Japanese in origin, but could be Chinese, Korean, etc. I know this is a slightly odd question for this stack exchange, but I don’t have the “untranslated” version so I don’t know the origin to ask in the proper Asian language exchange, just that someone who is learning English didn’t know what a better English translation would be for this phrase. I myself am curious where this idiom is from and what it means, and what the closest natural English translation/idiom would be. Googling the phrase isn’t helpful, and I can only take a guess at the origin. <Q> From my perspective, I guess this is a rough English translation of a common Vietnamese phrase. <S> It's: "bán hành". <S> I guess the word "extremely" had been added to that phrase to double the level of attack <S> that person (or team) is (are) causing to his (or their) opponent. <S> Since I can't take a look at that anime clip due to an unexpected error, I'm not sure this is correct or not <S> but I hope this will help you a little bit. <S> P/s: <S> Sorry for bad English. <S> Have a nice day. <A> Let us deal generously with the feeling of the quotation rather than with the grammatical quibbles and solecisms. <S> I then get the sense that the quote is about “a sprat to catch a mackerel”, or a “loss leader”. <S> It is about offering a small loss in the hope of a greater gain, although the metaphorical advantages of selling very strong onions for or to anyone are not clear to me! <A> "Sell onions to..." is not an English idiom or proverb, so it would seem it is a literal translation of a Japanese saying. <S> In the context, it would seem that the meaning of "to sell onions" is to deliver a hard-hitting blow. <S> The meme suggests that a fighter has deliberately lost two rounds of a battle so that they can surprise their enemy in the third round. <S> The most obvious quality of onions is that they make people 'cry', so perhaps there is the suggestion that the surprise attack in the third round will have this effect. <S> It may be that the original idiom is just "strong onions", and perhaps "extremely" has been added because of the added impact of holding back the strike to make it a surprise? <S> There are loads of English synonyms for a "surprise attack". <S> The only comparable idiom I can think of is " how do you like them apples ", which is a taunt after delivering an attack or hurtful message. <S> It apparently has its origins in WWI, as anti-tank grenades were called "toffee apples" as they looked like an apple on a stick. <S> True, this isn't an interchangeable phrase, and the only comparison is the use of an item of food to represent an attack, but it is possible that the Japanese idiom has been modified for the context, and it might be possible to do something similar with this English idiom.
| We, Vietnamese, often use this phrase when describe a person (or team) that is beating his (or their) opponent in a hard way.
|
A sentence with listing items: How to remove the ambiguity? There is a store which trades oranges and 3 kinds of apples. And there is a person there to whom I'm giving directions. Which sentence will be the best in such a case? Put green apples in the first box. Put red and yellow apples and oranges in the second box. Put green apples in the first box. Put red and yellow apples, and oranges , in the second box. Put green apples in the first box. Put red and yellow apples, and also oranges , in the second box. Put green apples in the first box. Put red and yellow apples, as well as oranges , in the second box. The 1st sentence looks wrong to me. We don't have red or yellow oranges. The 2nd sentence looks OK to me, but I'm not sure that commas are enough to remove the ambiguity. The 3rd and 4th sentences look somewhat wordy. Edit: It is assumed that I cannot place oranges at the first place. <Q> One way to reduce the ambiguity is to include articles: Put the green apples in the first box. <S> Put the red and yellow apples and the oranges in the second box. <S> With the definite articles in place, we can see that red and yellow applies only to apples and not to oranges . <S> This "red and yellow" is inside the phrase "the red and yellow apples", so it doesn't apply to the phrase "the oranges". <S> Using the definite article does imply that the apples and oranges in question are specified by something in the surrounding context. <S> That works in this context, since we're only talking about apples and oranges that are associated with the store. <S> In some other context, we might have reason to include unknown apples and oranges, or even hypothetical pieces of fruit. <S> If so, we might use a determiner like "any" or "all" to mark the same noun-phrase boundaries. <S> In this example, we know that both colors apply to both kinds of fruit. <A> Simply repeat the use of apples . <S> Rather than using the shortcut of red and yellow apples , use the expanded form of red apples and yellow apples : <S> Put red apples, yellow apples, and oranges in the second box. <S> Alternatively, given that only 4 type of things are under consideration, there is an even simpler method of approaching a concise and clearly understood set of instructions: <S> Put green apples in the first box. <S> Put everything else in the second box. <S> Once mention is made of green apples , there is no need to enumerate the remaining items at all. <A> You have two good answers. <S> I look at this question as probably one where clarity is at premium even at the cost of inelegant language. <S> For instance, you are giving precise packing instructions and don't want any ambiguity. <S> If this be the case, I would make boxes <S> central to the communication, phrasing it as: <S> The first box is only for green apples. <S> In the second box, put apples ( both red and yellow) and oranges <A> Another approach would be to put oranges first: <S> Put green apples in the first box. <S> Put oranges and red and yellow apples in the second box. <S> Or if there are only green, red, and yellow apples, then: Put green apples in the first box. <S> Put oranges and the rest of the apples in the second box. <S> (or "the other apples" ) <A> Put green apples in the first box. <S> Put red apples, yellow apples, and oranges in the second box. <S> Note that there is no comma after "oranges".
| Put green apples in the first box. Using some determiner like the definite article could also resolve the ambiguity in the other direction: ... the red and yellow apples and oranges ...
|
What is this food called in English? I think technically it's a fruit although they strongly resemble a vegetable: What do you call these? Personally, I know them as ‘paprika’. Others say these are ‘bell peppers’, and only when ground into spice it's called paprika. Besides grinding them into spice, you can also make soup of it or sauce. Or put slices of this on a pizza. I would call that paprika soup, or paprika sauce, or paprika slices. Is this perhaps a difference between British vs American vs 'international' English? P.S. regarding the fruit vs vegetable issue: not really related to the question here but I think from a botanical point of view it's a fruit, and from a culinary point of view it's a vegetable. <Q> They are generally considered to be vegetables rather than fruit, regardless of how they have been classified by the botanical community. <S> As for the name, in the UK they are most commonly called simply "red peppers", "green peppers", "yellow peppers" or "orange peppers" (or "mixed peppers" for a bag of varying colours) and sometimes "sweet peppers" (though that is usually reserved for the long, pointed variety). <S> For example, searching "peppers" on Sainsbury's website produced: 183 results for ‘peppers’ In the USA they are generally called "bell peppers". <S> I don't know about the USA, but in the UK the word "paprika" is reserved for the spice. <A> Paprika is a ground spice that's made from dried peppers, although the exact type of pepper can vary. <S> Apparently, in other languages, paprika refers to both the spice and the plant/fruit, but it exclusively refers to the spice in American English. <S> These peppers are indeed fruits botanically, since they develop from the plant's flower, although they are usually considered vegetables from a culinary perspective due to their more savory flavor and the manner in which they're typically used. <A> As well as being called bell peppers in the other answers, they are sometimes also called Capsicum in some English speaking countries, as per Wikipedia Bell pepper . <S> Capsicum is actually the Genus name of the plant. <A> In Australia, these are called 'Capsicums'. <S> In Autralia, whilst Paprika is generally reserved for the spice, you can actually buy the fruit/vegetable when in season. <S> These are generally longer and skinnier and 'ribbed' and mostly, green although I have seen red ones. <S> Just to confuse things even more, you can also buy 'Baby Bell Peppers', usually in the form of 'Cheese Stuffed Baby Bell Peppers' (which are delicious.) <S> But practically, I actually don't know botanically what these are. <S> We get them fresh, so <S> im going to assume they are just baby capsicums. <S> And finally, because we hate the English language so much, we also use the phrase 'Peppers' in reference to some types of Chilli's when in fruit form. <S> (Chilli Peppers). <A> I haven't observed the word "paprika" used this way, but professional lexicographers have. <S> From dictionary.com: <S> BRITISH DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS FOR PAPRIKA <S> paprika / (ˈpæprɪkə, pæˈpriː-) <S> / <S> noun <S> 1 a mild powdered seasoning made from a sweet variety of red pepper 2 the fruit or plant from which this seasoning is obtained WORD ORIGIN FOR PAPRIKA <S> C19: <S> via Hungarian from Serbo-Croat, from papar pepper <S> That usage doesn't show up in the Wikipedia disambiguation page for "paprika", so it's probably not a very widespread usage. <S> I wouldn't recommend using the word "paprika" this way with someone outside of your linguistic community. <S> " <S> Bell pepper", "sweet pepper", and "capiscum" are more widely recognized and it seems the right choice depends on who you're talking to.
| These are commonly called bell peppers in American English, and are often referred to simply by their color (red/yellow/green peppers).
|
Does 'in 20 years' indicates time in the past or future ABC city sees a doubling of air pollution in 20 years. does this 'in 20 years' mean the past 20 years or the next 20 years to come?I have found a similar structure in news titles, see quoted: With Covid surge, Karnataka sees cases doubling in 10 days It seems the indicated time refers to the past. But 'in' can also mean time in the future right? <Q> Does "in 20 years" indicates time in the past or future? <S> No. <S> It's a prepositional phrase. <S> It doesn't have a verb, and it doesn't have any tense. <S> On its own, it doesn't indicate anything about the past, the present, or the future. <S> With Covid surge, Karnataka sees cases doubling in 10 days. <S> The only finite verb here is "sees", which is a present-tense construction. <S> This headline expresses the current state of a trend. <S> The participle "doubling" (even though it's traditionally called a present participle ) does not have any tense, and so the complete phrase "doubling in 10 days" is also a tense-free constituent. <S> It is natural to assume that doubling in 10 days has happened in the recent past and will continue in the near future. <S> ABC city sees a doubling of air pollution in 20 years. <S> This example uses similar grammar: a phrase with no tense inside a present-tense clause. <S> Here, the "doubling of air pollution in 20 years" is a gerund phase acting as the direct object. <S> This might not be the same sense of the verb to see . <S> In the earlier example, to see probably means something like to experience or to observe . <S> In this example, to see probably means something like to forecast or to anticipate . <S> One difference is that we've gone from days to years. <S> Another is that the doubling is itself the direct object here, although "cases" is the object in the first example. <S> Pragmatically, the forecasting interpretation is more likely -- although additional context could easily change that. <S> The tense of the verb, the meaning of the verb, and the way that the constituent in question attaches to the verb all influence how (and even whether) we place that constituent in time. <S> The object of a present-tense observation makes sense in the present, and the object of a present-tense forecast makes sense in the future. <S> A prepositional phrase, and even a participial phrase, has no tense. <S> Such phrases can be used in clauses with any tense. <S> What matters is how it relates to a constituent that does have tense. <A> As the comments say, "in 20 years" is itself ambiguous. <S> But in your first example, I think the question hinges on the meaning of "sees". <S> The use in the first example is synonymous with "foresees", "expects" or "predicts", and applies to the future. <S> Lexico "see" "2.3 Foresee; view or predict as a possibility." <S> The linked article, however, refers to neither the past nor the future, but to the "doubling rate" of covid. <S> That means that for every ten-day period, its prevalence doubles. <S> That must be based on experience (past), but would also apply to the future, unless something changes. <A> that's how I see it. <S> For the past, it would be "20 years ago", so my answer is the future.
| I think "In 20 years" means "20 years from now" at least-
|
past tense of "should" I found the following in a grammar textbook under a unit about “ should ” as a modal verb: “ I suggested that she should buy a car .” But it is stated there that the past tense of “ should ” is “ should have + past participle”. So, is the example grammatically wrong? If yes, what’s the correct form? If no, why? <Q> Should (referring to the past) versus should have + past participle "Should have" + past participle is a perfect construction, referring to a completed action. <S> It tends to imply "... <S> but it's too late now". <S> If you say "I suggested that she should have bought a car", this means that you suggested that she should (already) have bought a car (by the time you spoke). <S> But if you say "I suggested that she should buy a car", then the possibility of buying one was still open to her at the time you spoke to her (and may or may not still be open now). <S> You may have said to her, "You should buy a car." <S> Tense Tense is a tricky matter when it comes to modal verbs. <S> Morphologically, "should" is already in the past, and for some purposes it may occasionally still function as the past tense of "shall" - although it may be better to think of them as two separate verbs. <S> Time <S> Regardless of formal tense, "should" can be used to refer to the present time ("You should buy a car (right now)" or future time ("You should buy a car soon", " <S> You should buy one tomorrow"), but it can also refer to the past <S> ("I said she should buy a car", "She knew that she should buy a car", " <S> He wondered whether he should quit smoking"). <A> No, the example is not grammatically wrong. <S> The past tense verb "suggested" tells us the rest of the sentence is in the past. <S> Imagine another phrase instead: I suggested that he is a fool. <S> Nothing wrong with that <S> , right? <S> I'm referring to what I said at a moment in the past <S> It actually changes the meaning if you put "should have" in your example sentence. <S> "I suggested that she should have bought a car" means that in this past instance, I told her she should have bought a car prior to this past instance, i.e. you needed a car and didn't have one, you should have bought one when you had the chance . <S> Whereas if I say "should buy a car" it means that in this past instance, I was telling her she should buy a car in the future <S> , i.e. I wish we could go camping, you should buy a car . <A> Well, the book you were looking at is simply wrong. <S> There is no past tense of "should." <S> I suggested to her that she should buy a car <S> is perfectly grammatical. <S> This is "should" in the sense of "ought to." <S> The meaning is <S> I suggested [at some time in the past] that, because she did not own a car at the time of my suggestion, it would be a good thing if she did buy one, probably fairly soon AFTER <S> I gave my suggestion. <S> I suggested to her that she should have bought a car <S> is also grammatical, but it has a different meaning. <S> The meaning is <S> I suggested [at some time in the past] that it would have been a good thing if she had bought a car at some time BEFORE <S> I gave my suggestion.
| You may well have said to her, "You should have bought a car."
|
Frequency adverbs: Is this ordering correct? I'm trying to ascertain whether the ordering of these frequency adverbs, in this link , is correct? Always 100% Usually 90% Often 70% Sometimes 50% Occasionally 30% Seldomly 10% Hardly ever 5% Never 0% My main doubt is in stating that seldomly is for more frequent actions than hardly ever ... I would have assumed that rarely also meant hardly ever . P.S.: I wasn't expecting users to take the numbers to heart. Please, consider them only as a guideline in the ordering of the words... They are not to be taken literally. <Q> The percentages of chance shown next to these adverbs of frequency are completely opinion-based (with the exception of always and never ). <S> Equating a word to a value like this is not really a grammar matter. <S> How "rare" something is would depend on context. <S> In medicine, "rare side effects" would occur in 0.01% to 0.1% of cases, yet a disease or condition is classed as rare if it affects fewer than 0.050% of people in the general population. <A> I think the ordering is fine, but there is no word "seldomly". <S> The word you want is just "seldom". <S> I agree, assuming I understand you correctly, that attempting to use "rarely" instead of "seldom" would be confusing, since "rarely" and "hardly ever" would close to the same meaning in readers' minds. <A> First, "seldomly" barely exists: the OED marks it as "obsolete" and the iWeb corpus shows 611 instances, against 759 589 of "seldom". <S> Seldom is the usual adverb. <S> In answer to your main question, attempting to rank these precisely is a waste of effort. <S> Language is used by people, not machines, and they don't necessarily have hard and precise rules. <S> Sometimes , occasionally , rarely (which you don't list), seldom , and hardly ever can all overlap. <S> I would say that the main difference between occasionally and seldom / rarely / hardly ever is that occasionally has positive polarity , but the others have negative. <S> This is not obvious from the definitions, but it has implications not just pragmatically but also on syntax. <S> If you ask somebody how often something happens, and they answer "occasionally", this is usually neutral, not implying any expectation. <S> If they answer seldom , rarely , or hardly ever there is often an implied "contrary to what you might have expected" (or "contrary to what I might have expected"). <S> The syntactic effects of negative polarity are well known. <S> Two of the most salient are: <S> They take any and its relatives rather than some : <S> I have occasionally seen somebody there. <S> (not anybody ) <S> I have seldom seen anybody there. <S> ( somebody is possible, but less likely) <S> Negative polarity adverbial phrases can come clause-initially, triggering subject-verb inversion: <S> Never/rarely/seldom/ <S> have I seen such a thing . <S> But not *Occasionally have I seen such a thing .
| You're right, "rarely" is probably synonymous with "hardly ever", but so is "seldom".
|
"Keep my mouth shut"....is it rude to say? Today I had a lot of fun with a group of mums and kids in a muddy obstacle race. I fell into the muddy pool while my mouth was opened and drank some muddy water by accident. Then I said to the other mum I better "keep my mouth shut" as I didn't want to drink anymore muddy water. The instructor then said I was rude by saying that. Is it very rude and impolite to say that in that situation please? <Q> The phrase keep your mouth shut could be used literally, as you have used it, to mean that you should physically close your mouth to keep something from getting into it. <S> I can think of no situation where using the phrase as you have used it could be interpreted as you being rude. <S> The phrase can also be used to mean shut-up or don't speak. <S> For example someone might say, "When we are in Mr. Bigg's office discussing big plans, you should keep your mouth shut. <S> " <S> Used this way <S> the phrase is stern at best and possibly rude. <S> Based on your experience it sounds like someone misinterpreted what you had said. <A> Answering from a US English perspective. <S> I can't think of a situation where talking about keeping your own mouth shut would be rude. <S> But telling someone else to keep their mouth shut would be considered rude. <A> Although I think the instructor may have misinterpreted, I can offer an alternative. <S> "keep one's mouth shut <S> " usefully refers to speaking , especially when coupled with "keep". <S> I might have used the phrase " <S> Next time I'll remember to keep my mouth closed!" <S> Or even safer, " <S> Next time I'll remember not to leave my mouth open!" <A> I agree that the instructor probably misheard! <S> But some context might be helpful. <S> "Keep your mouth shut" is a very rude, often aggressive or threatening way of telling someone to stop talking, or to not say anything (maybe about a particular subject). <S> You could say it to a friend in a non-serious way, but you wouldn't say it to someone you were being polite to. <S> If the instructor thought you said this to somebody, they definitely might criticise you for it! <S> It can be a bit like telling yourself to shut up, and some people might be sensitive to that kind of language. <S> It can also imply that someone is ordering you to keep quiet - "I'll keep my mouth shut" can sound like someone is forcing that on you, or you've offended them, or you're implying there's something bad you're promising not to mention. <S> So I agree with the other posters who think they'd probably say "I'll keep my mouth closed " - it doesn't have any of that baggage or negative association. <S> "Mouth closed" usually just means "not open", but "mouth shut" usually means "silent"
| "I'll keep my mouth shut" isn't about another person, so it's less confrontational - but it isn't exactly polite. I think what you said was misheard.
|
Can we say "I'm going to the bathroom" to mean "I'm going to take a shower / bath"? To me, "going to the bathroom" means "going to use the toilet" although the word "bathroom" can mean both places, which is why I always try to clarify and say "I was in the shower" instead of "I was in the bathroom" as I think the latter would be interpreted as "I was in the toilet". Am I wrong? <Q> As a British English-speaker, I would never assume that someone who is 'going to the bathroom' is having a shower or bath, just that they are going to that room. <S> I might, however, assume that the person has spent some time in the USA, and so would be going to use the toilet. <A> As with any euphemism, the more common it is, the more likely it is that it will be interpreted non-literally unless appropriate context is given. <S> "To go to the bathroom" as an euphemism for using a toilet (or, more precisely, urinating/defecating) is common enough to make it to Cambridge Dictionary , so in my opinion you do risk being misunderstood. <A> Even in British English, people are probably likely to interpret it that way, <S> unless it's obvious from the context that you probably mean something different ("Sarah's had a shower - now it's my turn. <S> Right, I'm going to the bathroom"). <S> If you were going to have a bath or a shower, you'd be more likely to say "I'm going to have a bath" or <S> "I'm going to have a shower". <S> (British English prefers "have" here, where American English prefers "take".) <S> On the other hand, "I was in the bathroom" (in British English) could literally mean that you were in the bathroom (whether to wash or to clean your teeth or to use the toilet or for some other reason). <A> When somebody says that they are going to the bathroom, the most you can ever assume is the literal statement itself. <S> Somebody could be going to the bathroom to use the toilet, or they could be going to the bathroom to use the sink. <S> Or they could be going to the bathroom for any number of other reasons. <S> It's probably most likely that they are going to use the toilet, but there is no way to be sure unless you actually ask them. <S> (Which could raise other social issues.) <S> And different people will say exactly the same thing when they mean different things—just like anything else in English <S> that's ambiguous. <S> Assuming anything in contexts like this always raises the possibility of being mistaken. <S> You will never know for sure what the person's literal intention is—aside from the fact that they intend to visit that room itself. <A> How the statement is understood depends to a great extent on the circumstances. <S> If you are a dinner guest at a dinner party in my home, and you say you are going to the bathroom, or we are in a restaurant or a department store or the theatre, it can only mean that you are going to the loo (assuming you do not have a cocaine habit). <S> If you are a house guest, and we pass on the landing, you in a dressing gown, then the same remark suggests you are planning to get ready for bed (or to get up, if it is morning). <S> But your question raises an issue. <S> The statement is only an issue for two reasons: first, even (or perhaps especially) in these permissive times, many people do not like to refer directly to their bodily functions. <S> We not like to say what they are going to do: ("I am going for a pee/wee", or "I'm off to defecate", or I'm off to have a bath <S> /shower").So we refer to the destination rather than the purpose. <S> But also we do not quite like to speak directly of the destination itself as lavatory, toilet or loo . <S> Instead Americans speak of a rest room . <S> Bathroom is also a popular euphemism, or ladies, in my youth used to speak of going to "powder my nose", and even now I have heard people say "I'm just going to wash my hands". <S> So we are speaking not so much of the use of language to convey meaning and its use to avoid meaning (or at least certain meanings). <S> Bathroom ore recently beginning to be be separated again in hotels and more and more homes. <S> But this is the world of hinting, as opposed to direct assertion. <A> It is taboo in many cultures to discuss using a toilet, whereas it is not to discuss bathing. <S> The result is we can talk about taking (AmE) or having (BrE) <S> a bath, so using the room named for that bath instead refers to using the toilet it also contains. <S> And, to keep up this facade, we sometimes use the name “bathroom” for any room with a toilet despite many not actually containing a bath. <S> (That may also be called a “half bath”, “washroom” or “powder room”, which also still avoid referencing the toilet.)
| "I'm going to the bathroom" is likely to be understood as meaning you're going to use the toilet, especially in American English. How likely a misinterpretation is would again depend on context.
|
What do you call the skin shed by an insect or worm? What do you call the skin shed by an insect or worm? I am sure there's a word for it, and also is there another verb that means "shed a skin"? Because "shed a skin" is a verb and I am wondering if there's a word replacement for it. <Q> Worms don't shed their skin. <S> Snakes do, but you'd call the shed skin a "snake skin". <S> depending on how hard it is) <S> Most insects don't shed their skins as adults. <S> Some do shed a skin as they transform from larvae to adult insects. <S> For example, cicada will leave "cicada shells" on trees. <S> You occasionally find grasshopper shells too. <S> You also find shed crab shells and the shed skins of spiders. <S> The verb is usually "shed" but you can also "moult" and "slough" (as per comment) <S> (Moult also means replacing hair or feathers) <S> There is a highly technical word, but don't use it unless you are writing a scientific paper. <S> I didn't know this word before researching this answer. <S> The technical word is exuvia <S> (plural exuviae) <A> An old word that used to be used was " husk ". <S> The OED has this as an obsolete word for "The coriaceous wing-case of an insect; an elytron", or an archaic word for "The shell or case of a chrysalis; a cocoon. <S> " that could be left behind. <S> Not a modern or technically correct word, but it would be valid as a poetic alternative. <A> Whether or not insects or worms shed their skin (and at least spiders seem to), the overall word is molt (or in UK English, moult ). <S> It can be both a verb and a noun: <S> [Merriam-Webster] <S> intransitive verb : to shed hair, feathers, shell, horns, or an outer layer periodically // <S> Birds molt once or twice a year. <S> transitive verb: to cast off (an outer covering) periodically specifically : to throw off (the old cuticle (see CUTICLE sense 1 )) —used of arthropods // <S> a spider, like a lobster, molts its covering as it grows — Eugene Kinkead <S> noun : the act or process of molting specifically : ECDYSIS
| Generally there is no special word, you just say "'animal name' skin" or "... shell" (
|
What is the difference between present continuous and future continuous? What time are you meeting Jane? What time will you be meeting Jane? Henry is not coming to the party next week. Henry will not be coming to the party next week. What time are you arriving? What time will you be arriving? <Q> In normal use, the sentence pairs they are essentially the same. <S> However, there is a subtle difference. <S> It applies equally to each of the pairs, so I will focus on the first. <S> Note that in the following, this difference would probably not apply, but I'm pointing it out because there could be such a difference in the right situation. <S> What time are you meeting Jane? <S> This is asking about something that is currently planned. <S> The meeting with Jane is scheduled, and the question is asking the time of that schedule. " <S> Let me check. <S> Ah, here it is in my calendar. <S> I meet her at 10:30. <S> " <S> What time will you be meeting Jane? <S> Let's suppose there is no such calendar entry. <S> However, you have very firm plans of making one Or, let's suppose that Jane doesn't even know who you are, and you haven't even contacted her yet. <S> However, you fully intend to introduce yourself and set up a meeting with her at some point. <S> In both cases, the meeting does not actually exist. <S> But you can still answer the question if you have the intention of meeting her anyway. " <S> Currently, there is no meeting. <S> But I intend for it to be at 10:30." <S> In short: The what time are you <S> form expresses something actually in existence as a plan for the future. <S> The what time will you form expresses something that is an intention about the future. <S> The other two pairs have the same distinction, although if you analyze the negative version similarly, it could be given a sinister light. <S> For instance, a villain in a story who is not willing to let Henry attend the party, even though his attendance has already been planned, would be more likely to say Henry <S> will not be coming , if the villain is thinking of arranging an accident for him. <S> The is not version is still possible in this sense, but probably more likely if the villain has <S> already arranged that accident. <S> This can be a very subtle difference in meaning, and the distinction is often not made. <S> For practical purposes, the two forms are interchangeable. <A> Two things going on here. <S> First: <S> Present continuous is often used to talk about something that happens in the near future. <S> "Near future" is dependent on context. <S> What time are you meeting Jane? <S> Second: <S> Modals are used to impart politeness and substitute for imperatives/commands in many settings, such as a business setting. <S> Will is a modal. <S> But will X of course still means X in the future. <S> Because of this, someone may prefer to use when will you X to get an official answer or commitment from someone, rather than what time are you X'ing . <A> The difference involves what I call a situational "when": "What time are you meeting Jane?" is a straightforward question. <S> However,"What time will you be meeting Jane? <S> " implies the the speaker already knows something about the situation. <S> When something has happened or is happening, the question is asked in this way because the speaker already knows, for example, that something like " when we get to Dallas" in the future is implied. <S> This is very similar to the past continuous, the past prefect continuous and the past perfect, which also usually imply a when situation which may be given specifically in the conversation or just implied by the context: <S> What were you doing yesterday (when the game was on TV)? <S> What had you done yesterday <S> (when your sister arrived)? <S> What had you been doing (when the doorbell rang)? <S> What will you be doing next year? <S> [future situation: when school starts or when COVID-19 is no longer a threat). <S> The when situation can be implicit or explicit, which is what can make this tricky for learners.
| We can probably assume you're meeting Jane sometime before the end of the day.
|
What do you call that side of a plank that you create if you cut it in two? In Russian, there is a special word for the side of a plank that you see after cutting it in two. The word is "торец", if it's of any help. This part is shown in the picture I am linking to. A native speaker that I have contacted had no idea what it's called. Dictionaries don't give any variants that I could prove via Google. "Plank sides" returned images of planks from many different angles, though usually showing the side I need. I still want to make sure, so I'd like to know what you actually call this part of a plank in English. <Q> I would call the part of the wood which has been cut with a saw: the sawn-off edge. <S> This term might not be used by everybody, so I did a little searching and found a site called Fine Homebuilding <S> The easiest way to quickly assess different cuts of wood is to look at the end grain. <S> A board with growth rings running roughly parallel—usually in arches—relative to the face of the board is called a plain-sawn (or flat-sawn) board. <S> If the growth rings are at a steep angle relative to the face, the board is said to have quartersawn grain. <S> If the growth rings run at a slightly lower angle, it’s called rift-sawn <A> Google translates the Russian term "торец" as "butt", which seems as if it might be a good word, but I can't find it used that way. <S> "Surfaces: <S> The surfaces of a board are refered to as the end, face and edge." <A> the end of a plank End of a plank of weathered rustic wood or timber on an outdoor framein a close up selective focus view of the texture — <S> Photo byelfgradost <S> Typically, one just says end of a board or plank. <S> The ends of the plank have been painted white. <S> [Example] <S> Another example from a technical manual about planks: <S> and the ends of the planks are unfinished . <S> Edge banded ends areavailable upon request. <S> FSC <S> ®-certified options are available (SW-C0C-003601). <S> planks <S> If you cut a plank in two with a saw, you get two planks. <S> Planks have ends and faces. <S> The place where the cut was made for both, would be referred to as the "cut end of the plank". <S> The sawn end or the cut-off end. <S> Sawn sounds like a manual saw, for an electric saw: cut end of the plank. <S> This Old House, a very famous TV show in the States: <S> The cut end of the plank cut end of a plank <A> Don't quote me but descriptions like <S> "the fresh face" "the freshly cut face" "the newly exposed side" "the now exposed face" may get the meaning across. <S> The "sawn off side " (from @Mari-Lou A's well reserched answer above) may be the most apt. <A> I have worked in furniture shops in the United States, and learned to call the exposed surface of a cross-sectional cut called endgrain , sometimes spelled with a space, "end grain": <S> Endgrain is exposed when timber is cut across the annual growth rings at 90 degrees rather than cutting a plank of wood along the length of the tree. <S> This type of cut exposes the internal character and mechanics of a tree to reveal a highly attractive and durable surface. <S> ( endgrain.org.uk ) <S> A wood-working technique has a direction relative to the wood grain ; one of these directions can be described "end grain" (or "cross-grain"): end grain (at right angles to the grain, for example trimming the end of a plank) <S> ( Wikipedia ) <S> The first thing that I think of in relation to endgrain, because of many hours spent sanding and varnishing by hand, is the fact that it absorbs much more sealer, paint or varnish than the "side grain" when finishing it. <S> Here is one way to reduce this difference: <S> Simply sand the end and edge grains to one higher grit than the side grain. <S> So if you sand the side grain to 150, sand the end grain to 220; if the side is 220, the end and edge grains should be 320 and so forth. <S> This makes the uniform roughness (which is really what sandpaper accomplishes) of the end grain smaller, where it soaks up less finish. <S> ( bobvila.com, emphasis added )
| This site calls it simply the "end": benchnote.com lumber dimensions
|
Translations of older or historical professions from German Should the German term "Bauernvogt", literally meaning "peasants' bailiff" be kept as "Bauernvogt", translated to "peasants' vogt", "vogt of peasantry" or literally translated as given first? Should the German word "Landesgevollmächtigter", literally meaning "empowered of land" or "entitled to the land", both in the regional sense of "Land", be translated as "regional representative", "entitled of region" or "empowered of region"? <Q> The German term " Vogt " can have various translations such as "governor", "steward", "bailiff". <S> I read in the German Wikipedia that a Bauernvogt was once the representative of a self-governing peasant village. <S> I find it confusing to use the term "bailiff" for this (because most English speakers will take "bailiff" to mean something else), but the range of historical meanings for "bailiff" given in some dictionaries suggest that it might after all be suitable. <S> Wiktionary includes the following definition of "bailiff (and more to the point, the full OED has a similar one): <S> (historical) <S> A landvogt in the medieval German states. <S> It may be helpful to the English-speaking reader to use the German term (in italics) and then to explain what it is. <S> You should not rely on anyone knowing or being able to guess what the term "peasants' bailiff" means. <S> "Peasants' vogt " or "Bauernvogt" might therefore work better, but you would still have to explain it because very few readers would understand it, unless you were writing an article aimed at academics who specialise in medieval Germany. <S> For " Landesgevollmächtigter ", something like "regional representative" or "region's minister plenipotentiary" is likely to be appropriate. <S> A minister plenipotentiary is a representative sent with full powers to negotiate and conclude agreements on behalf of the government that sent them. <A> This depends on your audience. <S> Are you writing a report for a group of English speaking experts on the European Middle ages, or are you writing a story for general English speakers, who know little to nothing about feudal Germany? <S> In the second case a very general gloss like "village leader" might be clearest. <S> There was what seems to be a similar position in Anglo Saxon and medieval England. <S> The "reeve" was the chief official in a town or village. <S> Perhaps "reeve" might be a suitable gloss. <S> A "Shire reeve" was a more senior figure, and from that we get "Sheriff", so <S> "sheriff" might be a suitable gloss of Landesgevollmächtigter, if you are writing for a general audience who don't know or care about the details of feudal Germany. <A> "Bauernvogt" seems to be rendered as "farmer bailiff" as well as "peasant Bailiff". <S> As this is a very specific term from a period of pre-Prussian history, it isn't surprising <S> we don't have a corresponding term. <S> You could translate it as above, or you could just explain the German term once, and then continue to use it in an English text. <S> This wouldn't be unusual. <S> "Landesgevollmächtigter" actually translates to the English "Plenipotentiary", meaning " a person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country ". <S> A synonymous term is "Ambassador Extraordinary". <A> Landlord maybe? <S> Or "king's messenger"? <S> I don't think an English speaker would understand a more specific translation unless you're talking to a European history professor or something.
| In the first case the precision of non-translation (perhaps with explanation) seems to be the best solution.
|
with/on/from my first salary I would like to say that when I get my first salary, I will buy/get a cat. Which preposition should I use with 'salary' and is it correct to say 'buy a cat'? Or shouldn't I use the word 'salary'? I will spend my salary on getting a cat. (But I am afraid this makes it sound as if the cat will cost me 100% of my salary, which is not something I want to say) I will buy a cat with/on/from my first salary. <Q> You could say this. <S> Out of my first wages I'll buy a cat. <S> A small part of my first wages will go into buying a cat. <A> At least in the U.S., we don't use "first salary", because salary is the amount you make per year, and not the lump sum payment that your employer gives to you each week or month. <S> You could say "when I get my salary this month," but we wouldn't use "first salary." <S> The word Americans would use is paycheck (even though your salary is no longer delivered by check, but most likely deposited directly to your bank account). <S> However, British English does not use the word paycheck ; I don't know what the idiomatic expression in the U.K. would be. <S> What we would say is something like: <S> I will buy a cat with my first paycheck. <S> You shouldn't say <S> *I will spend my first paycheck on getting a cat, because that sounds like the price of the cat will be your entire first paycheck. <A> You are correct in discarding 1, which implies a very expensive cat or a meagre salary. <S> Furthermore, salary is, strictly, a rate of getting money ( <S> e.g. $3K per month, or $36K per year etc), and not a sum of money. <S> "I will buy a cat with my first salary" is acceptable. <S> Most would interpret it to mean that you will buy the cat with a part of your first salary payment, or (by taking money from) from your first salary payment. <S> If you say "on" your first salary it suggests you are saying "on the date of my first salary" or "contingent on my receiving my first salary".
| I will use my first paycheck to get a cat.
|
Common word for Help and Feedback in a mobile app Is there a common word for "Help" and "Feedback" on a mobile app that can be used to group them as one screen? I am building a mobile app, and because of the small amount of buttons on each page, I want to combine them into one screen, and "Help & Feedback" is too long. I need another heading for the screen that includes both getting help about the app and giving feedback about the app. <Q> I would suggest to group them under a [Support] button. <S> Most apps and many websites have such a section. <S> If a user needs help with the app, they require support . <S> If a user wishes to provide positive feedback, they wish to show their support for the project. <S> If a user wishes to ruin your day with an angry rant about the various shortcomings of your app, they believe you require support in the development process. <S> An alternative may be [Meta]. <S> As you probably already know, all Stack Exchange sites have a meta site where users can find helpful resources and complain about diverse matters. <S> However, this is a rather broad term and the purpose of the button is not immediately clear from the label. <S> I would use [Support]. <A> <A> The two actions are way different from each other and I don't suppose it is possible to combine them into a single recognizable and understandable term. <S> Buttons with captions like FAQ, Support, Help are often reflecting these actions. <S> "Feedback" is more about giving an opinion about the software, providing a review or an overview, rating it, commenting on the quality, the functionality, the usability, and the performance of an application. <S> The best solution for you would be either to replace them both with just a link to Google Store where you would have the email for contacting you in case any help needs to be provided, or concatenate them as you proposed.
| "Help" means asking for assistance or support, looking for an answer to a question, seeking a solution to an issue or a problem. One possible common term is "Reflection" or more specifically "App Reflection" for the app - the user is reflecting on the app's quality by giving feedback, or the user is reflecting on how to use the app by getting help.
|
Is there any nonnegative word to describe those who are in their late 30s to 50s but not in employment? From Wikipedia NEET is an acronym that stands for "Not in Education, Employment, orTraining". It refers to a person who is unemployed, not receiving aneducation or in vocational training. I'm not sure if the acronym is commonly-used in your country, but if it is, then do you use it to describe someone who are in their late 30s, 40s and 50s also? If you don't, is there any alternative word to describe them other than such negative sounding ones as the jobless or the unemployed? <Q> In British politics and media, the term "Youth Unemployment" is used to describe 18-24-year-olds who are not in employment - everybody older is classed as an adult. <S> "Adult unemployment" is not normally used as a corresponding term - that is just "unemployment". <S> Some people are of the opinion that this division is for the purpose of making "unemployment" statistics look better than they are, by excluding 18-24-year-olds from the standard figured. <S> Others say that youths who have just left education should not be included in unemployment figures because they have not been put out of work, and finding a job after education does take time, so including them would only skew the figures. <S> Therefore, "unemployment" in the UK is automatically assumed to be people over the age of 25, not so far off the 30-year-old point you are asking about. <S> For people aged 45-65, this is termed "middle-aged", and the media do sometimes refer to this group as "middle-aged unemployed" (or "middle-aged and unemployed). <S> As 60-65 has been the standard retirement age for some time, people over this age are not generally thought of as being unemployed when not in work. <A> It means a person who is actively seeking work. <S> Other categories of person may be unemployed but not jobseekers: " Homemaker " is a relatively new term for "housewife" (or househusband).We can also talk about a person based on how they get money to live: You could talk about "a person on disability benefit ", for example. <S> Finally an older person can be described as "retired", which implies that they are drawing a pension. <A> If the person is planning to find another job soon, then I think the most common not-negative way to describe that is that they are between jobs . <S> If they are speaking to recruiters, hiring managers, potential coworkers, and other "job people," they will probably describe themselves as available for opportunities . <S> In the professional world, this is a well-known fancy way of saying "unemployed and looking for work."
| The most general term is " economically inactive person ", which is used by statisticians to include jobseekers, homemakers and those unfit for work for various reasons. To put a positive spin, the word " jobseeker " is sometimes used. If they have earned enough money to last for the rest of their life, and they have decided not to work any more, they are retired , regardless of how old they are.
|
Is "butter on toast" an idiom in English This is a stanza from Ruskin Bond's poem If Mice Could Roar : If tortoise could run And losses be won And bullies be buttered on toast I can't understand the phrase bullies be buttered on toast. By the way, in another stanza of the same poem: If pebbles could sing And bells never ring And teachers were lost in the post ; What is the meaning of post in this context? <Q> I found an answer on brainly.in <S> that describes it as: <S> Usually a bully is arrogant and dominating. <S> The poet wishes that if a bully could become softer and more compatible with others, just as butter on toast. <S> There's no idiom "buttered on toast" and I'm a native American English speaker. <S> However, in the context of poetry there is often significant creative freedom in the words chosen and used. <A> There is an idiom "to butter someone up" to please someone, so that that person will do what you want them to do. <S> The metaphor is that putting butter on something makes it less dry and easier to eat. <S> This is extended, as butter on toast becomes warm and soft. <S> The poet is inventing a metaphor that suggests "if bullies could become soft and would do what we want them to do just by being nice to them". <S> It is sometimes used an excuse: <S> "No I didn't do the task <S> , I never received your instruction, the letter must have got lost in the post. <S> " <S> This figuratively means "teachers don't come and interrupt my play with their boring lessons". <S> Similarly "bells never ring" refers to the bell that is rung at the end of break time when the pupils have to return to the classroom. <A> The post is still, I think, the most common term in Britain for what elsewhere might be called the mail . <S> (Think of "the Post Office", even in the US) <S> I tried searching corpora to justify that, but it' a bit difficult, because post is now in wide use to mean a post on an internet site. <S> But on the GloWbE corpus in the post to you has 15 instances in British sources and 1 in US; while in the mail to you has 5 US and 1 GB. <S> Edit: <S> I then thought of searching for "lost in the post|mail", and that gives a clear difference. <A> "Butter on toast" isn't exactly an idiom, but butter is often used in similes and metaphors to describe something as soft, smooth, or meltable. <S> Your example though says " buttered on toast". <S> To butter means to spread butter, usually on bread or toast, <S> so "[if] bullies [could] be buttered on toast" is imagining that bullies could be spread as if they were soft as butter . <S> A bully is often spoken of as a "tough" or "hard" person, so to wish they were soft is the opposite. <S> " <S> Lost in the post" means lost in the mail . <S> In British English, we usually say "post" (postman, post service etc), whereas in American English they say "mail". <S> THe poet appears to be wishing that school teachers would disappear without trace, as if lost in the mail. <A> I believe the general idea of the poem is to focus on why things are the way they are through counter-factuals. <S> The general form being: if thing wasn't thing then we wouldn't have thing. <S> For example: if a bell didn't ring would it actually be a bell? <S> Isn't that the essence of what a bell is? <S> Or with the losses line: if a loss was a win it wouldn't be a loss. <S> It's a tautology. <S> If a bell didn't ring it wouldn't be a bell. <S> Finally: why are bullies a problem? <S> Well if bullies didn't bully we wouldn't have a problem with bullies. <S> The fact that they don't melt like butter (meaning: be warm and caring to others) but are instead cold and hard is the entire problem! <S> It's the essence of the idea of a bully, taking it (the hardness and coldness of bullies) <S> away means changing the definition and conception of the word itself. <S> The post line almost certainly is talking about mail <S> but I'm not entirely sure the exact meaning the author intended with it. <S> It might be about teachers who refuse to admit they are incorrect (instead they should admit on some questions they are 'lost in the post' or 'out to sea'), but I feel it's a stretch. <S> I doubt the author intends it to mean what if teachers don't exist? <S> because that would seem to clash with the final line of "this world would be better than most."
| There is no idiom butter on toast , but there is the established phrase in Britan hot buttered toast , which I think the poem riffs on. "Lost in the post" when talking about a letter means it was sent but never arrived.
|
The phrase "from before" In the sentence "I know him from before", what part of speech is "before"? Is such a sentence acceptable in the first place? More generally, is the phrase "from before" meaningful? My question arises from the fact that no dictionary lists "before" as a noun; but from the sentence it appears that "before" is the object of the preposition "from" and refers to the past time of the speaker's life.Why isn't it listed as noun then by dictionaries? <Q> The most logical explanation I can manage is that “from” and “before” are both acting as prepositions with implied objects: I don’t remember him from [the time(s)] before [this time]. <S> I didn’t remember him from [the times(s)] before [that time]. <S> This isn’t something you could do generally because context can rarely supply two implied objects at once. <S> It’s probably simpler to just accept it as an idiom. <A> The sentence is a bit informal and context dependent, not something you're likely to see in a formal setting but certainly acceptable in a colloquial sense. <S> The speaker is leaving out information and assuming the listener knows what they mean by "before", e.g. "I know him from before the war" if the listener is assumed to know that "before" must mean "before the war". <S> Many different languages do this sort of shortening or elision where the speaker leaves out information assuming the listener will understand from context. <S> It allows us to speak more briefly, more succinctly. <S> In that sense "before" isn't the noun, but the beginning of a partially elided noun phrase such as "before the war" from my example. <S> It's clear that "before" can't function as a noun on its own: "the before" doesn't sound quite right, though perhaps you could take some creative license and say "the before-time" to force "before" into being a noun. <S> If the listener knows what you're talking about, a single word like "before" can take on great significance, conveying that you're referring to a time prior to some major event without explicitly referring to the event. <A> Merriam-Webster lists before as both an adjective and an adverb in the following sense: <S> 2 <S> : at an earlier time // <S> the night before <S> // <S> knew her before <S> In the first phrase, before modifies the noun night , so it's acting as an adjective. <S> In the second phrase, before modifies the verb knew , so it's acting as an adverb. <S> Now consider there : <S> adverb <S> 1 <S> : in or at that place // stand over there —often used interjectionally <S> We can expand that phrase into a sentence: He stands her over there. <S> Breaking that down, it's pronoun + verb + pronoun + preposition + adverb. <S> Based on everything so far: I knew him from before. <S> Pronoun + verb + pronoun + preposition + adverb .
| "I know him from before" is missing the information about the past that would normally follow the word "before".
|
Is it OK to respond to "thanks" with "sure"? When someone says ..., thanks. Is it appropriate to respond with sure If so, in which situations it would be OK, and what exactly would it imply? <Q> Yes, this is a common, idiomatic response among English speakers where I live (California). <S> It's casual, so it's mainly used for the kind of casual situation where people would say "Thanks" all by itself, like in the following: <S> "Could I have some of your sunscreen?" <S> "Sure, here you go." <S> "Thanks." <S> "Sure." <S> But in the following it would be out of place, because the context is not casual and the thank-you is a big deal: <S> "After my wife died, I was really lost. <S> Your friendship meant a lot tome. <S> I don't know what I would have done without you. <S> Thanks." <S> "Sure." <A> It depends on the person you are speaking to and the way you say it. <S> I don't think sure is a common way to respond to thanks , because it's potentially ambiguous. <S> It could be interpreted as a shortened form of: <S> Sure thing! , which is equivalent to Anytime! <S> or You're welcome! <S> It could also be interpreted as: <S> Sure you are... , which is a sarcastic (read: rude) way of expressing your doubt that they are really thankful. <S> I would strongly suggest you only reply with <S> Sure in a casual setting. <S> You also want to make sure you say it with enthusiasm to avoid misinterpretation. <S> Note the differing punctuation in my two examples. <S> Even better, respond in full: say Sure thing! . ' <S> Fewer words' does not always mean 'preferable'. <A> in which situations it would be OK, and what exactly would it imply? <S> It would be okay in the USA. <S> If you said it in the UK, it would imply that you are using American English. <S> As has been said in comments, this may or may not be understood in other places than North America. <S> If it is understood, then it is through watching American TV and cinema. <S> In Britain, I would expect, "You're welcome", "No problem", "Not a problem", " <S> That's okay" or even just a smile or a nod of acknowledgement. <S> Depending on the exact context, some traditionally-minded people in Britain might say, "My pleasure" or "It was nothing", or (very old-fashioned) "Think nothing of it". <S> In Australia <S> (I'm not an expert), I might expect, "No problem", "No worries", " <S> You're welcome" <S> EDIT <S> See comment by @mdewey. <S> In Britain the phrase "No worries" is increasingly used. <S> If my memory serves, it came into use here after the release of the movie Crocodile Dundee where the phrase was used a lot by Australian characters. <S> You can search the script here http://www.allreadable.com/mv10758EEG8 <A> It is a perfectly normal response that people will understand if you say it to them. <S> I say of course when someone says Thank you, and I see that as a normal response also. <S> The same with no problem, you're welcome, yes, etc. <S> I see it is as a much better response than receiving no response at all. <A> I'm American, born and raised, and even I wouldn't say "sure" unless I'm using it dismissively. <S> Trying to get across that I don't care about their gratitude. <S> This is just a product of my childhood though. <S> When I was in Middle-school I had a teacher that would always send me out of class for responding with "sure" so to me ( <S> and her I guess) it has a negative annotation. <S> Now I just respond with "anytime", using various levels of sarcasm to get my feelings across. <A> In Eastern Canada * , "sure" comes across as rude. <S> We normally say "(You're) welcome" or <S> "No problem" instead, or maybe "Don't mention it", "My pleasure", or "No worries". <S> But if it's an American saying "sure", I think most Canadians will know what they mean, and not be offended. <S> For context, there's a cultural aspect to this: in general, Canadians and Americans are equally nice, but Canadians take a polite angle, while Americans take a modest angle, downplaying their generosity. <S> * I can't speak for anything west of Quebec <A> Here is an example: <S> "Thanks, I appreciate the explanation you gave." <S> "Sure." <S> For a frame of reference, I am a traditional fellow from the deep South and hearing "Sure" in response to an expression of gratitude in formal or business contexts comes across as shockingly improper at best, and dismissive or sarcastic at worst, depending on tone. <S> I personally would not ever say it. <S> In a very informal context with close friends and among the younger generations, saying "Sure, no problem," or "Sure, anytime," are more common. <S> I cannot think of a time I have heard "Sure" by itself without it being deliberately sarcastic or dismissive, however. <A> I don't even get the "sure thing" example, actually. <S> You think it's a sure thing that I'm thankful? <S> I'm not sure what that would mean <S> but I don't think it's flattering. <S> If the OP finds themselves in a group for which this seems to be convention, then, fine, go with it. <S> If there's any chance that that the conversation partner is actually going to try to process its meaning, I'd avoid it...for sure.
| Some people also have very strict ideas about manners, and might object to "sure" in all cases, even casual ones. While I would not consider replying with "Sure" to be polite, I have noticed that it is extremely common among Indian English speakers to reply with "Sure" in this context as a normal reply. It's only standard in parts of the USA, as far as I know.
|
What's the difference between making something “in ten minutes” or “for ten minutes"? Gordon Ramsay attempts to make fish and chips in ten minutes Why is “in” used here instead of “for”? <Q> If you do something in a certain period of time, it implies that you have completed the task. <S> The fish and chips are cooked and ready to eat after ten minutes. <A> One meaning that hasn't been mentioned so far is using "in" to refer to an action which will begin in the future. <S> With this interpretation, the sentence says nothing about the duration of the act of making dinner. <S> Another valid interpretation of that sentence would be that the act of making dinner will be completed in 10 minutes. <S> In that case the sentence gives no indication when I will start making dinner, just that it will take 10 minutes. <S> I'd argue that my first interpretation - that I will start 10 minutes from now - is far more common, at least in Canadian English. <S> Which meaning is intended is usually (for a native speaker) apparent from context. <S> If someone says "We will be planting tomatoes on Mars in 100 years" they're probably not expressing the idea that we will be spending the next 100 years planting tomatoes on Mars. <S> Although that would make a lot of ketchup. <A> "Gordon Ramsay attempts to make fish and chips for ten minutes" would mean you are promised to see footage which is exactly 10 minutes long showing Gordon Ramsay performing the task of making fish and chips. <S> But it does not guarantee that it shows the whole process. <S> The footage might start in the middle of the process. <S> The 10 minutes might end before he is finished. <S> He might even be finished after 8 minutes and then start another batch in order to complete the promised 10 minutes of labor. <S> A possible failure condition for this attempt would be if Ramsay would become exhausted or bored before the 10 minutes are completed and just quit. <S> "Gordon Ramsay attempts to make fish and chips in ten minutes" , on the other hand, promises that you are going to see the whole process from start to finish in 10 minutes or less. <S> A possible failure condition for this attempt would be if Ramsay would be unable to complete the whole process within the 10 minute time limit.
| Doing something for a certain time just means that you spend all that time in that activity, whether you finish your task or not. If someone says "I will make dinner in 10 minutes" they are usually (in my experience) expressing that they will start to make dinner 10 minutes from now.
|
What makes the phrase "to be continued." so idiomatic? The phrase "to be continued" is a kind of set phrase we often see at the end of part of a story, a television show etc., and I believe it is an abbreviation for "The story (or the show etc.) is to be continued." In this case, I can think of some other variations of this sentence like the following: The story is to continue . The story is going to continue . The story is going to be continued . The story will continue . The story will be continued . If the five sentences are all correct, then is there any difference in meaning or implied nuance between "to be continued" and the other alternatives above? I wonder what makes the phrase "to be continued." so idiomatic? <Q> The passive ones ( be continued ) are fine. <S> The middle ( continue ) uses are less common, but you do find them (eg " <S> The story continues tomorrow"). <S> But none of them are very common. <S> What makes to be continued an idiom is that it is used as one. <S> Notice that, unlike your other examples, it doesn't need a subject (or verb): it is common to see To be continued at the end of an episode. <S> Your question has an implicit "why?" <S> Almost all "why?" <S> questions about language have only one answer: "Because that is how it is". <S> You can often explain how something came to be the way it is, but almost never why it took that path rather than any other. <A> …to be continued. <S> It's an elliptical phrase in the passive infinitive voice , it means the episode of the story has not yet concluded. <S> It could be used, ironically, for other events such as a pause during a meeting, <S> e.g. <S> “to be continued after the break” but normally we see it at the end of a television episode, and occasionally at the end of a movie in order to create expectation and suspense among viewers. <S> By ThoughtCo <S> In English grammar, the passive infinitive is an infinitive construction in which the agent (or performer of the action) either appears in a prepositional phrase following the verb or is not identified at all. <S> It is also called the present passive infinitive . <S> The passive infinitive is made up of the marker to + be + a past participle (also known as the -ed or -en form), as in "The case is to be decided by a judge." <S> As for whether the OP's examples are grammatical–see Colin Fine's answer– they are but they are wordier <S> and it's my assumption that television executives, producers and writers prefer an announcement <S> whose brevity mimics “The End" rather than a full sentence. <A> The use of the passive here is crucial to meaning. <S> Most native speakers would understand the verbal phrase as part of a full sentence not fully expressed. <S> This is not really an idiom . <S> The other variations mean something else and do not imply "by the TV Channel or producers or writers". <S> There are many instances where this structure would be used in a written situation (and often hand-written on a text or memo, etc.), for example: to be done, to be finished, to be continued, to be reviewed. <S> In every instance, an agent and broader situation is implied: <S> For example: [this work is] to be done [by John] <S> [this chapter is] to be finished [by you] <S> [this policy is] to be reviewed [by the committee]. <S> So, the form to be + past participle is idiomatic but not an idiom.
| You don't change an idiom; once an idiom, always an idiom. [The story or series is] to be continued [ by the TV Channel ]
|
What does "guilty" mean in this context? Please help me to understand the meaning of "guilty" in this context: "He turns around and spots me. Byron.Once I would have done anything for Byron. ‘Skye! Skye Turner – it’s you, isn’t it?’ ‘Guilty,’ I say, then instantly regret it. Byron engulfs me in his strong arms." Excerpt from "My mother's silence" by Lauren Westwood Suppose, her answer does not mean that she is literally guilty for returning to the place she left many years ago? <Q> It is purely a conversational joke, a little old-fashioned, a way of saying "Yes", "That is correct", or "You have guessed correctly". <S> In courts of law in English-speaking countries, a defendant (accused person) is asked to "plead" either "guilty" (they admit the crime) or "not guilty" (they deny the crime). <S> Byron has not seen Skye for many years, and is not sure that he is addressing her, so he asks if it is her. <S> She pretends that Byron, is "accusing" her of being Skye, and says "guilty" because he is correct. <A> In addition to the two existing good answers, I'd like to add that the fuller version of "guilty" is " guilty as charged ". <S> The state will prove that the defendants are guilty as charged. <S> (Merriam Webster) <S> But there is a figurative sense that is commonly used colloquially. <S> See Cambridge Dictionary used to admit that what someone has been accused of is true, often when you think this is not really bad: Guilty as charged! <S> I am an Elvis fan! <S> Yes, he's guilty as charged of being a show-off, but that's why he's so entertaining. <S> This has a slight implication that the thing one is being identified as can be jocularly likened to a minor offense. <S> "You like Elvis Presley?" <S> "Guilty!" <S> This basically means: "Yes I am an Elvis fan. <S> And I am proud of being one. <S> " Of course being an Elvis fan is nothing to be ashamed of, but the funny part is you are using "guilty" to imply that some people might think that, (but you are proud). <S> I found your source on Google Books . <S> Fuller context: <S> But even before he turns around, I know him. <S> I had no idea he worked here now, or else I wouldn't have come inside. <S> I should have arranged for a taxi before I arrived, or better yet, rented a car in Glasgow. <S> Now, it's too late. <S> He turns around and spots me. <S> Byron. <S> Apparently "I" do not want to see this Byron guy and "I" didn't know he would be here, otherwise "I" wouldn't have come. <S> Of course there are reasons why that is the case, and you will have to get it from the prior passages, but the situation described here is clear. <S> "I" feel embarrassed and thus reluctant to see Byron, and that is implied in the use of the phrase "guilty" as a way to say "yes" (give an affirmative answer) to <S> "It's you, isn't it!" <A> In court the judge may state the crime of which the defendant is accused, and the defendant will answer 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'. <S> Guilty means ' <S> Yes I did it', and Not Guilty means ' <S> No I did not do it'. <S> This has become a colloquialism in modern English in which replying 'Guilty' (or Not guilty) to a question means an affirmative or negative answer. <S> It sometimes has the nuance that the responder feels the question is an accusation, but is generally used as a light hearted response. <A> Skye! <S> Skye Turner – <S> it’s you, isn’t it?’ <S> ‘Guilty,’ I say, then instantly regret it. <S> ' <S> Guilty' implies that someone has done something wrong. <S> In this response it conveys the positive assertion that the speaker is indeed the person they are looking for, and that it is something to be ashamed of as if being that person is a bad thing. <S> However, it is a very light implication and a fairly common response and usually usually used in a joking manner and not really an implication that someone is ashamed of who they are. <S> It may also be a shortcut as saying "sorry" for some minor thing the speaker feels bad about. <S> From the quote it seems as if one person has moved away and lost contact with the people they grew up with and that they feel a little bad for not keeping in touch. <S> But from 'then instantly regret it' it seems to me like it was just used to try and be funny and was so corny that they regretted saying it.
| The basic meaning of this phrase is the same as "guilty" as explained by Michael Harvey and jla, namely, to affirm that one is responsible for a crime that they have committed.
|
Difference between 'Some woman' and 'A woman' What's the difference between the following sentences? 1 There was a woman waiting for you. 2 There was some woman waiting for you. <Q> A woman" means what it says. <A> There was some woman waiting for you <S> This usually implies disrespect or disapproval. <S> Example <S> Wife: When I got home today there was some woman waiting for you. <S> Husband: <S> Really? <S> What did she want? <S> Wife: I didn't ask. <S> I told her if it was urgent she should phone you. <S> Note that the wife in this scenario is probably angry/jealous in this situation. <S> She is depersonalizing the woman. <S> Cross-posted with @Michael Harvey <A> While the two sentences theoretically mean the same thing, only the first is neutral in tone. <S> The phrase "some woman" in the second sentence has a derogatory sense about it, as if the woman is unsuitable company for the hearer. <S> However "some woman" may also be admiring, more likely as "that was some woman waiting for you". <S> The sentences could be used of the same woman if, for example, the first was spoken by an ex-fiancee and the second was a male friend.
| "Some woman" is a disrespectful way of referring to an unknown woman, and may suggest that the speaker disliked or mistrusted her. "
|
"Yesterday I was fired from work, broke up with my girlfriend, and this morning, to cap it all off, lost my wallet." Which sentence is more accurate Yesterday I was fired from work, broke up with my girlfriend, and this morning, to cap it all off, lost my wallet. or Yesterday I was fired from work and broke up with my girlfriend, and this morning, to cap it all off, I lost my wallet. <Q> I would recommend splitting the events that happened yesterday into a different sentence, however: <S> Yesterday, I was fired from work and I broke up with my girlfriend. <S> This morning, to cap it all off, I lost my wallet. <S> The issue with the first is that the first two items in the list are qualified with "Yesterday" but the last is qualified with "This morning". <A> Yesterday I was fired from work, broke up with my girlfriend, and this morning, to cap it all off, lost my wallet. <S> or Yesterday I was fired from work and broke up with my girlfriend, and this morning, to cap it all off, I lost my wallet. <S> Either one is fine. <S> As are these: <S> Yesterday, I left town, drove north, and this morning I arrived in Newport. <S> Yesterday, I left town and drove north, and this morning I arrived in Newport. <S> There is absolutely no rule that says you can't have two predicates without an "and" <S> and then an "and" and another predicate. <S> It just depends on how you want to say it . <S> The first is slightly more emphatic on the actions. <A> In example 1, the sentence consists of 3 phrases in a series. <S> @Calmpalm is right that this is awkward as its first 2 phrases are qualified with ''yesterday'. <S> We can move in the 'yesterday', and the 3 phrases are nowsubordinated to 'I'. <S> The reconstructed sentence is 'I was fired from work yesterday, broke up with my girlfriend, and this morning, to cap it all off, lost my wallet.' <S> Example 2 is a compound sentence. <S> Two simple sentences are compounded by the coordinating conjunction, the 2nd 'and'. <S> This is alright even without being split into 2 sentences.
| The latter sentence is more correct.
|
What is 'provocateur'? Is it idiomatic? I've come across the word 'provocateur' several times, but mostly in the context of Eastern European politics (so, I assumed, it was a straightforward translation of 'провокатор'). Lately, I've noticed it in a WP article about Portland protests. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler turned the blame back on the president, saying Trump had “supported and energized” provocateurs who had come to the city to create chaos. There are two problems. First, Lexico doesn't have such an entry. Second, the closest thing to it, 'agent provocateur' (one could suppose that 'provocateur' is just the phrase's clipping), doesn't seem to match the context. "A person who induces others to break the law so that they can be convicted," defines the expression Lexico. Longman adds that such people are "employed". While it's possible in countries like Russia and Ukraine, I doubt that in the US, the government can pay people to provoke its opponents into committing illegal acts. Therefore, I suspect that the word meant something different in the WP article. What exactly and how common and idiomatic it is? <Q> Provocateur is present in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary with two definitions: 1 : agent provocateur 2 : one who provokes a political provocateur <S> The OED definition, meanwhile, is "A person who provokes a disturbance; an agitator; an agent provocateur". <S> "Agent provocateur", in turn, is defined first as a person employed by government to incite unrest in order to discredit a cause, but a secondary definition (dating back to the 19th century) records an "extended and figurative use": "A person or thing that incites some action or reaction; a provoking cause or agent. <S> " <S> Frequency: <S> Google Ngram Viewer shows that the term "provocateur" has not only been increasingly in frequency in recent decades but, since 1980, has increased in frequency significantly faster than the term "agent provocateur" (of which it is sometimes seen as an abbreviated form). <S> The OED places the word "provocateur" in Frequency Band 4. <S> This band is defined as follows: " <S> Band 4 contains words which occur between 0.1 and 1.0 times per million words in typical modern English usage. <S> Such words are marked by much greater specificity and a wider range of register, regionality, and subject domain than those found in bands 8-5. <S> However, most words remain recognizable to English-speakers, and are likely be used unproblematically in fiction or journalism. <S> Examples include overhang, life support, register, rewrite, nutshell, candlestick, rodeo, embouchure, insectivore...". <S> Meaning: <S> Not all use of "provocateur" is political (except perhaps in a very broad definition): <S> The Guardian recently quoted Richard Saltoun describing the performance artist Ulay as follows: <S> Ulay was the freest of spirits – a pioneer and provocateur with a radically and historically unique oeuvre. <S> Similarly, Diane Kashin wrote a blog about teachers as provocateurs and <S> Forbes recently asked "Are you an office peacemaker or a provocateur?" <S> Idiomaticity: <S> There is nothing particularly weird or unnatural about the word. <S> It retains its French spelling and approximate pronunciation, but, as its OED frequency band suggests, it is likely to be recognisable to most people and there is nothing unidiomatic about it (although I prefer to reserve the term "idiomatic" for phrases, constructions, etc, rather than using it to describe individual words). <A> A provocateur is someone who provokes. <S> From the Cambridge Dictionary : <S> Provoke - to cause a reaction, especially a negative one <S> In the article, the provocateurs are causing chaos in the city which is the negative reaction in this case. <S> I wouldn't say this is idiomatic. <S> Many native American English speakers can deduce what this means based on their familiarity with the word "provoke". <S> If you want an idiom with a similar meaning, see to rile up . <A> I'm in New Zealand. <S> We speak British English, although it may sound to the Brit's that we talk somewhat funny-like. <S> To educated people the term provocateur could be used utterly without misunderstanding or surprise on the hearers part. <S> It's just part of the language. <A> (As can be obviously seen by googling it in a zillion US articles, particularly about current (2020) politics and riots.) <S> Regarding the mystery of why it's not on Lexico, it's probably just an oversight. <S> (Note that they use the word in other definitions! <S> Example click on the archaic spelling: https://www.lexico.com/definition/provocator ) <A> If by " Idiomatic <S> " you mean " A word or phrase peculiar to a particular period, individual or group " then no it is not idiomatic. <S> "Provocateur" is simply an uncommon word, like "Idiomatic" (in fact, I'd be willing to bet that more people know what provocateur means than know what idiomatic means). <S> Even though they rarely use it, most English speakers know what it means and as far as I know it is generally included in high-school vocabulary lists. <S> In short, provocateur is no more idiomatic than the word idiomatic is.
| A provocateur is someone who provokes. It's a completely normal English word, universally used and understood. I'd not consider it any more idiomatic than eg croissant :-).
|
Is it correct to say to a child "let go of the chair" when he is holding on to the chair? In the dictionary let somebody/something go | let go (of somebody/something) : to stop holding somebody/something Don't let the rope go. Don't let go of the rope. Let go! You're hurting me! I think we often say " let go of a thing " when that thing is leaving us or moving away from us or trying to escape us. For example, 2 children are fighting over a car, and they are pulling the car towards themselves. And you say, " let go of the car " (the car is moving away from you). Now, your son is holding tight onto a chair. The chair stands still, it won't move away from the boy. Can we say " let go of the chair " when the chair stands still and won't move away from the boy? <Q> The distinction you describe does not exist. <S> "Let go of" just means to stop holding something, regardless of what's moving away or if anything is moving at all. <S> "Let go of the chair" is a perfectly normal thing to say. <A> We also “let go” of an emotional grip on someone or something, usually because we were hurt by them/it leaving us. <A> To let go is from c. 1300 as "allow to escape," 1520s as "cease torestrain," 1530s as "dismiss from one's thoughts." <S> https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=let+go Words change their meaning over time as you can see from the above excerpt. <S> Originally "to let go" referred to objects that could move, meaning "allow them to depart". <S> Later it came to mean "release your grip". <S> Nowadays we usually employ different grammar to indicate the difference. <S> Let the prisoners go! <S> (release the prisoners from imprisonment) <S> Let go of the prisoners! <S> (stop physically grasping the prisoners) <S> Note: As is usual in English, the true meaning is understood from the context of what is being said. <A> You can say "let go of the chair" or you can say "let the chair go". <S> Both phrases can be used whether the chair is moves or not. <S> However "let the chair go <S> " has a second meaning, similar to "let the chair fall". <S> If you use second phrase, it's up to the listener to decide from context which meaning is intended. <S> You can see how these phases are constructed if you consider the phrase "let the dog run". <S> There is no equivalent "let run of the dog" - <S> that is simply wrong. <A> In general use: let go = allow to move (leave) this is the literal meaning of the two words "let" and "go" <S> let go of = release control of <S> this is a phrasal verb by addition of the preposition "of" and now for the detailed but necessary to understand part: <S> You will often see "Let go!" <S> used in situations where time is short, but used in this way, it is actually an abreviated form of "Let go of [insert animal or object here]!" <S> eg. <S> when a child says it to a bigger child holding him: "Let go!" <S> = "Let go [of me]!" <S> now to bring it back to the question: The first time you tell a child to release control of an object, it would be normal to say the whole sentence politely: <S> Please let go of the chair. <S> but the need to repeat oneself usually devolves first into the less polite: Let go of the chair! <S> and finally if no compliance seems forthcoming: Let go! <S> Let go! <S> = <S> Let go [of the chair]! <S> Let go [of the chair]!
| To “let go” of a physical grip on someone or something does not require movement.
|
Do plural nouns need to have preceding articles in the same way singular nouns require "a", "an" or "the"? Can you say: "i want apples" or "can you give me apples?" without a "some" before the plural noun "apples"? Because something like "i want an apple" or "can you give me an apple" requires that "a" (or in this case "an") article, but do plurals need an article? and is that article just "some"? Sorry if this seems really simple, but if what I suppose above is the case, then might the lack of an article tell you that a noun is plural? <Q> "I want apples" and "I want some apples" are both valid. <S> "Some" isn't really an article. <S> The indefinite article has no plural in English. <S> The determiner "some" may appear in some circumstances to function like the plural of "a", but it is not. <S> One can say "I want chocolate", "I want success"; these are mass nouns (uncountable, but treated as singular in many respects: they take singular verbs), although (like many mass nouns) they can also be used as countable nouns ("a chocolate", "a success"). <S> In discussing "some", Quirk et al. <S> ( A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language ) point out that whereas we say "She has become a vegetarian", we wouldn't say "They have become some vegetarians". <S> We'd just say "They have become vegetarians". <S> Neither Quirk nor Huddleston & Pullum <S> ( The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language ) class "some" as an article. <S> "Some" isn't always plural, either. <S> " <S> Some idiot did this" is a valid sentence referring to a singular idiot. <A> In fact, nowadays you tend to say "I want apples" <S> rather than "I want some apples" ( ngram ), but both can be said. <S> The same thing is true for "give me (some) apples" ( ngram ). <S> No, it doesn't, the number of a noun is to be determined from a dictionary. <S> People will tell you that the Earth is flat in those days. <S> Expansion of the conquest is not advised. <A> Do plural nouns need to have preceding articles in the same way singular nouns require “a”, “an” or “the”? <S> No. <S> However, most countable nouns can be used as uncountable nouns and this adds some complication. <S> All singular countable nouns must be qualified by a determiner or "one" or a suitable quantifier. <S> A/an has the effect of " a single example of" on its noun. <S> An Apple = <S> A single example of an apple. <S> The plural of " an apple" is "apples". <S> The unqualified plural, "apples" = <S> An indefinite number of examples of an apple. <S> If the "a/an, etc." is not added, then the singular countable noun becomes an uncountable noun. <S> " <S> This drink tastes of apple." <S> An uncountable noun describes the members of an homogeneous group, and as such are abstract, e.g. "advice" (uncountable) = "a member of the set of those things that contain wise and useful words" Uncountable nouns are not specific. <S> "This drink tastes of apple. <S> " differs subtly from 2. <S> " <S> This drink tastes of apples. <S> "[1] <S> In 1. "of apple" is uncountable and means "of the flavour associated with apples in general." <S> In 2. <S> "apples" = " <S> similarly to the way in which an indefinite number of examples of a real apple might taste. <S> " <S> The distinction between " The apples" and " the apple" is simply one of numbers. <S> " <S> The" acts, in both cases, as a demonstrative pronoun that is similar to "that", but which qualifies its noun with the meaning "of which we are both aware" or "of which I have made, or will make you aware." <S> "The" can be used with uncountable nouns and singular and plural countable nouns. <S> [1] <S> For most normal uses, this distinction is not important and native speakers use both indisciminately.
| Lack of an article or determiner does not in itself allow the learner to deduce that a noun is plural.
|
Is "gaped," "gawked," and "beamed" usually paired with "at subject"? I usually see these words paired with "at subject." Even dictionaries have it this way: They stood gaping at the pig in the kitchen. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gape Same with "gawked" and "beamed." (I'm not very sure, though.) Would it be strange to write this words without an "at subject"? Example: He gaped, then told told Lily, "What are you doing?" <Q> It's quite normal to use these words on their own. <S> Some common examples Don't stand there gaping <S> She beamed all night <S> I met her, and gawked all through dinner <S> And then I just gaped <S> You're correct that "gaped at something" is more common, but it's completely normal to use them alone. <A> Yes, you can gape (or gawk or beam) at something, or just gape/gawk/beam in general. <S> For gaping or gawking, usually if you don't specify the subject, it's understood from the context, though you can just beam in general without aiming it at anything particular, in which case you're just describing having a huge smile. <S> ("Sarah bounced into the room, beaming.") <S> Example: <S> "I'm going into the forest tonight," Harry said. <S> Ron gaped. <S> "The forest? <S> At night? <S> Are you mad? " <S> Since it's a conversation between Harry and Ron, it's implied that Ron is gaping at Harry, even though it isn't stated. <A> The verbs are ways of looking at someone, and they use the same preposition as "look at", just as do "scowled" and "frowned" and "smiled". <S> Used that way, you aren't specifying who the expression was directed toward. <S> That could mean that it wasn't directed at anyone (you can smile when you are alone), or that it is understood who the expression is directed at, for example, in a conversation between two people.
| It can be correct to say "gaped" or any of the other expression words mentioned without an indirect object (at someone).
|
Why they are called to-be verbs? Being non-native speaker and English being 2nd language, I always stumble upon discrete thoughts about English grammar. I don't know, how obvious this question is to native speaker, but I wonder: Why "are", "is", "were" "am" etc. are called to-be verbs? What's to-be about them? My concern is, why they are called to-be verbs and not just verbs? I don't understand the word "to-be" . I would appreciate, if you can explain me with fundamental thought behind it. <Q> Most verbs have several different forms: <S> Regular verbs, for example have a basic form "play", a past tense form "played" (which is identical to a past particple form), a form used in the third person singular "plays" and a present participle/gerund form "playing" <S> We might say "play/played/played/plays/playing" <S> Irregular verbs have irregular patterns like "eat/ate/eaten/eats/eating". <S> You have to learn these individually <S> Some verbs are very irregular: <S> "go/went/gone <S> /goes/going". <S> That odd "went" is because the past tense of another verb "wend" with similar meaning to "go" replaced the orginal past tense of "go". <S> Now we don't think of go/went as two different verbs. <S> We think of "went" as the past tense of go. <S> The verbs "go/went" mean the same (with different tense). <S> The verb "be" is particularly complicated. <S> What was originally three different verbs with similar meanings have become mixed up, and now act as if it is one irregular verb. <S> The present of "be" is "am/are/is". <S> The past tense is "was/were" the part participle is "been", the present particple is "being". <S> We consider all these to be different forms of the same verb. <S> They are all different forms of "be" The words " <S> am/is/are/was/were/been/being/be" <S> all mean the same. <S> Now in any language that has words that can change form, there is one form that is the "dictionary form" For example, in English, <S> nouns have a singlar "cat" and plural "cats". <S> But the dictionary will only list "cat". <S> Irregular words like "man/men" might have an entry for "men" that says "plural of man". <S> The dictionary form of a verb in English is the bare infinitive. <S> In nearly all verbs the bare infinitive is the same as the first person singualar... with one exception: "be". <S> This is why we call am <S> /is/was "be-verbs". <S> The basic dictionary form of the word is "be" <S> In a sentence you use "be" where ever an infinitive is required: I want to sing a song. <S> I want to be happy. <S> or a bare infinitive <S> You can eat the ice cream. <S> You can be good. <A> Inflection In English, verbs have multiple forms <S> , so - for example - there's have , has , had , having , all of which belong to the verb to have . <S> Infinitive Verbs are conventionally cited or named by their infinitive forms. <S> The infinitive form may include a preceding "to", or it may be a bare infinitive (without "to"). <S> The form in the dictionary usually excludes the preceding "to". <S> The form used to cite the verb when discussing it often includes the "to". <S> To be <S> The verb to be is irregular, and has the present tense forms am (as in I am ) <S> , are (as in you are , we are , they are ), and is <S> ( he/she/ <S> it is ), along with the past tense forms <S> was (as in I was , he/ <S> she/ <S> it was ) <S> and were (as in you were , <S> we were , <S> they were ). <S> The past participle is been , present participle being . <S> Etymologically, the different forms of this verb come from multiple roots. <S> If you look up be in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, it has a list of "verb forms" that you can expand. <S> You can also read about the verb "to be" here . <S> Examples of be as an infinitive <S> Here are some examples of <S> be in its infinitive form: <S> I want to be a star. <S> We could be friends. <S> It might be too late. <S> I don't want to be abandoned. <S> It's nice to be here. <S> Imperative. <S> As pointed out by Lambie, <S> be is also used as the imperative form, e.g. Be quiet or Please be kind . <A> BE SAFE BE GOOD <S> BE NICE <S> And maybe the virus won't get you. <S> And above all, be yourself. <S> be =imperative form of the verb and the infinitive form. <S> They are not called "to be verbs". <S> There is one verb, the infinitive form is: to be . <S> The rest of the forms are the present: <S> I am , <S> you are , he/ <S> she/ <S> it is , <S> we are , <S> you are , and they are . <S> past and future tenses: <S> was/were and have/had been and will be . <S> All of this irregularity is still referred to as the verb “be” . <S> The simple past of the verb be <S> is: I was. <S> The past perfect of the verb be <S> is: I have been etc. <S> It has many tenses and forms. <S> So, one verb, many tenses and forms. <A> “are", "is", "were" "am" etc. are different inflections of the verb “to be”. <S> We normally refer to verbs by their infinitive (not inflected) form. <S> “to be” is the most irregular verb in the English language, and it is also the most commonly used. <S> (Those facts are probably connected.) <S> As a result, teachers will spend a lot of time discussing just this one verb. <S> It’s possible that your teacher used “to be” as an exception for that reason but the bare infinitive for all other (much simpler) verbs, which would explain your confusion.
| Since the bare infinitive (“be”) could be confused with one or more of the inflected forms, we specifically use the to-infinitive (“to be”).
|
"White glass" or "transparent glass"? I was writing an essay wherein I encountered the need of writing the description of a mirror. The mirror I want to describe is a normal mirror which isn't coloured, the simple one found at our home. So should I use the words "white glass" or "transparent glass" or some other alternative? <Q> The glass in a household mirror is transparent, but since all glass in those kind of mirrors is transparent, you don't need to mention it. <S> In fact, they all contain glass, so even saying "glass mirror" would be a little redundant. <S> If you do feel the need of describing it, "clear glass" (thanks @MichaelHarvey), "transparent glass" and "colourless/colorless glass" (depending on whether you write British or American English) are technically correct and should be understandable. <S> The first option is used most often: (source: Google Ngrams ) <A> A mirror is usually referred to as "silvered glass", since it was often made by depositing silver nitrate on one side, as the Wikipedia entry describes. <S> "White glass" would (to me) be more an antique glass called "milk glass", because it's milky white. <S> "Transparent glass" is, well, a window. <A> A normal everyday mirror that isn't colored is just a "mirror". <S> There's no need to specify that it DOESN'T have an unusual quality. <S> While "white glass" would mean translucent milky glass, and window glass could be called "clear glass", a "clear glass mirror" is a confusing contradiction in terms. <S> A mirror isn't clear, it's a mirror. <S> I'm having a hard time understanding what kind of phrase you're building where you need to describe a mirror as something other than a mirror. <A> 'Transparent colorless glass in front of a silver reflective material.' <S> The term 'white glass' evokes thoughts of either milk glass or frosted glass , typically implying that the glass is question is neither colorless nor entirely transparent. <S> The term 'transparent glass' by itself is ambiguous in that something can be colored but sufficiently clear to be considered transparent. <S> Some varieties uranium glass and cranberry glass provide some particularly visually striking examples of colored but transparent glass (note that the cranberry glass in that Wikipedia article is actually translucent not transparent, but this is due to the complex shapes of the pieces and not the color (cranberry glass is rather expensive, so it's more common to see complicated shapes made from it which tend to result in it not being truly transparent)). <S> Combining 'transparent' with <S> 'colorless' accurately describes the glass found in most mirrors that use a layer of glass to protect the reflective material, though in more modern mirrors it may be an acrylic or polycarbonate layer instead of glass (resulting in a less expensive mirror, but you have to be more careful about how you clean it) <S> The layer of reflective material behind the glass is best described in almost all house mirrors as 'silvery', which refers to a near colorless grey or white material with a very high reflectance. <S> Traditionally this would have actually been a very thin layer of silver, though these days aluminum or a highly reflective polymer such as <S> BoPET is much more common because it's a lot less expensive (and technically more reflective). <A> " Frosted glass " is the most common term normally used for glass with some opacity. <S> Some glass manufacturers use other terms such as "obscure glass". <S> "Transparent glass" isn't a term I've ever heard. <S> It sounds like a tautology - transparent glass is just glass! <S> But if you were trying to differentiate between normal glass and frosted glass, you might say " clear glass". <S> Glass which acts as a mirror is called " mirror glass ", or perhaps " mirrored glass ". <S> A "one-way mirror" is a pane of glass which is only reflective one-way. <S> If you wanted to describe glass which had some mirror properties but still had some degree of transparency you might describe it as "reflective glass". <A> First of all, as others have observed, "white glass" is definitely wrong. <S> That suggests glass that has been colored or painted white. <S> It is also confusing to say something like "we bought a clear glass mirror" or "on the wall was a clear glass mirror". <S> I would wonder if it was a special mirror that you could see through or something. <S> Really, the proper description probably depends on context. <S> What other kinds of mirror is this mirror being contrasted with? <S> Ordinarily, if you just say "a mirror", people assume you mean an ordinary mirror. <S> If you have to be more clear, you might say "an ordinary mirror, like you would find at home." <S> Rereading your question, if this mirror is being contrasted with ones that are colored, I think the term "colorless" would work well. <S> Perhaps "ordinary colorless mirror" just to emphasize that this is just like the ones people see every day. <A> The mirror I want to describe is a normal mirror which isn't coloured, the simple one found at our home. <S> A plain [glass] mirror , unframed mirror or frameless mirror <S> I suspect <S> is what the OP is asking about. <S> In all of the above, the mirror is flushed with the wall, so a frame is unnecessary. <A> As mirrors age the silver at the back erodes and loses reflectiveness, which is referred to as clouding . <S> So a mirror which is functioning perfectly could also be referred to as unclouded , if you are emphasising that it is producing a good reflection.
| I wouldn't use "white glass"; just look it up on Google, that means something made of glass but with a white tint, and you can't see through that kind of glass.
|
what's the usage of to name someone I know that to name someone could mean to give him a name (for newborn babies for example), but I would like to know if this can be used to contempt someone? For example, to say, "people name him" to mean people use vulgar names (like crazy,.. etc. ) to someone? if not what verb is used for that? <Q> The equivalent phrase in English is "to call someone names" , an action that is also referred to as name-calling. <A> To express contempt, one might "call someone a bad name". <S> For example, one could "call someone a dog/rat/pig". <S> These animals are all insulting things to call people. <S> One could also "call someone a cheat/liar/con man". <S> Your word "crazy" isn't a name, but a descriptive adjective. <S> It's less common to say "name someone" in that context. <A> You can “call someone [adjective]” or “call someone a [noun]”. <S> This can be positive, such as calling someone smart or calling them a genius. <S> You can’t “call someone names” yourself, but you can report others doing so, and it is presumed to mean various bad things that you are too polite to repeat.
| It can also be negative, such as calling someone stupid or calling them an idiot.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.