eval_dataset.json

{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou can also contact me to customize your template, or create a new unique one. Do I need to put a comma between the new and unique adjectives in this sentence? In my native language (if I am not mistaken) we don't put a comma if the adjectives are of a different type. Not sure about English though, and if it's the case here anyway. Any help would be appreciated!","question":"You can also contact me to customize your template, or create a new unique one. Do I need to put a comma between the new and unique adjectives in this sentence? In my native language (if I am not mistaken) we don't put a comma if the adjectives are of a different type. Not sure about English though, and if it's the case here anyway. Any help would be appreciated!","answer":"If you need a comma is a classic case of \"depends!\" Have a look at this blog entry from grammar girl. The comma rule comes down to the difference between two kinds of adjectives: coordinate adjectives and cumulative adjectives. ... Just remember that if you can reverse your two adjectives or can place an \u201cand\u201d between them, you need a comma. So in this case, use a comma.","output":"If you need a comma is a classic case of \"depends!\" Have a look at this blog entry from grammar girl. The comma rule comes down to the difference between two kinds of adjectives: coordinate adjectives and cumulative adjectives. ... Just remember that if you can reverse your two adjectives or can place an \u201cand\u201d between them, you need a comma. So in this case, use a comma."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHere is a sentence from Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (the beginning of Letter 2): How slowly the time passes here, encompassed as I am by frost and snow! Here is the full text: http:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/files\/84\/84-h\/84-h.htm At the time the character writes the sentence, he is in the northern part of Russia, in the city of Archangel (Arkhangelsk), from which he plans to go on an expedition to the North Pole. OALD says that as used in such a way (with an adjective in front of it) is synonymous with though. But looking at the context, I don't think though is really what the author meant. In a Russian translation of the book, this sentence sounds like: How slowly the time passes for those who are encompassed by frost and snow! What does encompassed as I am actually mean? Is it equal to though I am encompassed, or is it just a kind of inversion, with the \"direct\" version being as I am encompassed and the as meaning while (i.e. during the time) or something like that? How slowly the time passes here, though I am encompassed by frost and snow! How slowly the time passes here, while I am encompassed by frost and snow!","question":"Here is a sentence from Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (the beginning of Letter 2): How slowly the time passes here, encompassed as I am by frost and snow! Here is the full text: http:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/files\/84\/84-h\/84-h.htm At the time the character writes the sentence, he is in the northern part of Russia, in the city of Archangel (Arkhangelsk), from which he plans to go on an expedition to the North Pole. OALD says that as used in such a way (with an adjective in front of it) is synonymous with though. But looking at the context, I don't think though is really what the author meant. In a Russian translation of the book, this sentence sounds like: How slowly the time passes for those who are encompassed by frost and snow! What does encompassed as I am actually mean? Is it equal to though I am encompassed, or is it just a kind of inversion, with the \"direct\" version being as I am encompassed and the as meaning while (i.e. during the time) or something like that? How slowly the time passes here, though I am encompassed by frost and snow! How slowly the time passes here, while I am encompassed by frost and snow!","answer":"The phrase as I am here would be better understood with the two optional commas: How slowly the time passes here, encompassed, as I am, by frost and snow! You could also use parenthesis without changing the meaning: How slowly the time passes here, encompassed (as I am) by frost and snow! The usage here is older English, which is why it is giving you trouble. \"As I am\" here is a way of explaining that this is actually the situation he finds himself in right now. I'm not familiar with the broader work, but the author could be using it for emphasis of the speaker's situation, or to use the appropriate number of syllables.","output":"The phrase as I am here would be better understood with the two optional commas: How slowly the time passes here, encompassed, as I am, by frost and snow! You could also use parenthesis without changing the meaning: How slowly the time passes here, encompassed (as I am) by frost and snow! The usage here is older English, which is why it is giving you trouble. \"As I am\" here is a way of explaining that this is actually the situation he finds himself in right now. I'm not familiar with the broader work, but the author could be using it for emphasis of the speaker's situation, or to use the appropriate number of syllables."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am confused about adverbs that can be placed in front of the verb as in: He quickly reads a book. And can be used at the end of the sentence as in: He works hardly Can I mix them as: He really works hardly","question":"I am confused about adverbs that can be placed in front of the verb as in: He quickly reads a book. And can be used at the end of the sentence as in: He works hardly Can I mix them as: He really works hardly","answer":"Hardly belongs to that category of words in English whose meanings don't match or coincide with the first or most logical ones that pop into your head. When hard is used as an adjective in the following: \"He is a hard worker,\" we understand it to mean that the subject is someone who works long hours with great zeal and diligence. But English, if it needs reminding, isn't always logical, and the real meaning of hardly is surprisingly quite the opposite. not at all; scarcely (used to qualify a statement by saying that it is true to an insignificant degree) And what's more, hardly usually precedes the verb it modifies; therefore, the phrase \"He hardly works\" means someone who works very little or so rarely that it's almost not worth the effort of mentioning. The adverbial form of the adjective hard is instead...hard. He is a hard worker (adj) He works hard (adv) He works really hard (adv) Fast is another example of a word that is used as both an adjective and an adverb. He is a fast worker (adj) He works fast (adv) He works really fast (adv) Typical adjectives which do not add ly to form adverbs are: early, late, hard, fast, long, high, low, deep, near. Nowadays grammarians call them flat adverbs but in the past they were better-known as plain adverbs. Why do they exist? Surely they ought to have some visual clue as to their grammatical function? I found this brief explanation which might help (emphasis mine) \"In EMnE [Early Modern English], plain adverbs (those identical in form to adjectives) were widely used, even by careful writers. The list of acceptable plain adverbs today has shrunk to a few frequent ones, which often seem to have survived only because the corresponding form in -ly has a different meaning. We say 'I worked hard until very late' because hardly and lately do not mean the same thing as hard and late. Except for a handful of common time words like early, daily, weekly, and hourly, even adjectives that already end in -ly are at best uncomfortable when used adverbially. For example, though contemporary dictionaries still list friendly as an adverb, most of us would hesitate to write it as such, preferring a paraphrase like in a friendly manner or even the phonological monstrosity friendlily (also recognized by some dictionaries). \"Some of the common closed-list adverbs (those not derived from adjectives) of EMnE have since become obsolete or at least archaic. Examples include afore 'before,' ere long, without 'outside, out of doors.' hither, and thither.\" (C.M. Millward, A Biography of the English Language, 2nd ed. Harcourt Brace, 1996) Now onto the question of where to position an adverb of manner in a sentence. When an adverb modifies a verb, you can usually put it either in front, in the middle, or at the end of a phrase. Middle can be either after the first auxiliary verb, after be as a finite verb, or before any other finite verb if there is no auxiliary verb. Quickly let's get back to work! Let's quickly get back to work. Let's get back to work quickly. But avoid placing an adverb between the main verb and the object Quickly he reads a book (yes) He quickly reads a book (yes) He reads quickly a book (NO) He reads a book quickly (yes) Really Really is an adverb of degree, it's often used to emphasize an adjective or adverb but it can also modify a verb. Unfortunately, regarding positioning, there are no hard or fast rules. He's a really hard worker (modifies the adjective, hard) He really works hard (modifies the verb, work) He works really hard (modifies the adverb, hard)","output":"Hardly belongs to that category of words in English whose meanings don't match or coincide with the first or most logical ones that pop into your head. When hard is used as an adjective in the following: \"He is a hard worker,\" we understand it to mean that the subject is someone who works long hours with great zeal and diligence. But English, if it needs reminding, isn't always logical, and the real meaning of hardly is surprisingly quite the opposite. not at all; scarcely (used to qualify a statement by saying that it is true to an insignificant degree) And what's more, hardly usually precedes the verb it modifies; therefore, the phrase \"He hardly works\" means someone who works very little or so rarely that it's almost not worth the effort of mentioning. The adverbial form of the adjective hard is instead...hard. He is a hard worker (adj) He works hard (adv) He works really hard (adv) Fast is another example of a word that is used as both an adjective and an adverb. He is a fast worker (adj) He works fast (adv) He works really fast (adv) Typical adjectives which do not add ly to form adverbs are: early, late, hard, fast, long, high, low, deep, near. Nowadays grammarians call them flat adverbs but in the past they were better-known as plain adverbs. Why do they exist? Surely they ought to have some visual clue as to their grammatical function? I found this brief explanation which might help (emphasis mine) \"In EMnE [Early Modern English], plain adverbs (those identical in form to adjectives) were widely used, even by careful writers. The list of acceptable plain adverbs today has shrunk to a few frequent ones, which often seem to have survived only because the corresponding form in -ly has a different meaning. We say 'I worked hard until very late' because hardly and lately do not mean the same thing as hard and late. Except for a handful of common time words like early, daily, weekly, and hourly, even adjectives that already end in -ly are at best uncomfortable when used adverbially. For example, though contemporary dictionaries still list friendly as an adverb, most of us would hesitate to write it as such, preferring a paraphrase like in a friendly manner or even the phonological monstrosity friendlily (also recognized by some dictionaries). \"Some of the common closed-list adverbs (those not derived from adjectives) of EMnE have since become obsolete or at least archaic. Examples include afore 'before,' ere long, without 'outside, out of doors.' hither, and thither.\" (C.M. Millward, A Biography of the English Language, 2nd ed. Harcourt Brace, 1996) Now onto the question of where to position an adverb of manner in a sentence. When an adverb modifies a verb, you can usually put it either in front, in the middle, or at the end of a phrase. Middle can be either after the first auxiliary verb, after be as a finite verb, or before any other finite verb if there is no auxiliary verb. Quickly let's get back to work! Let's quickly get back to work. Let's get back to work quickly. But avoid placing an adverb between the main verb and the object Quickly he reads a book (yes) He quickly reads a book (yes) He reads quickly a book (NO) He reads a book quickly (yes) Really Really is an adverb of degree, it's often used to emphasize an adjective or adverb but it can also modify a verb. Unfortunately, regarding positioning, there are no hard or fast rules. He's a really hard worker (modifies the adjective, hard) He really works hard (modifies the verb, work) He works really hard (modifies the adverb, hard)"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou can say: [1] You can use any pen to fill out this form. But people say you can't say: [2] I meet any man of the group. [3] I met any man of the group. I wonder why you can't. To me, with [2], you have a good intention of seeing any man that belongs to the group who wants to see me. Or, this describes your inclination. [3] is just the past version of [2] Why can't you say the two sentences alone.","question":"You can say: [1] You can use any pen to fill out this form. But people say you can't say: [2] I meet any man of the group. [3] I met any man of the group. I wonder why you can't. To me, with [2], you have a good intention of seeing any man that belongs to the group who wants to see me. Or, this describes your inclination. [3] is just the past version of [2] Why can't you say the two sentences alone.","answer":"[2] and [3] has no sense because these phrases are in Present Indefinite Tense. It's about what you usually do and not about you CAN do. You can say: I can meet any man of the group. Or you can say (if it's about you): I meet every man of the group.","output":"[2] and [3] has no sense because these phrases are in Present Indefinite Tense. It's about what you usually do and not about you CAN do. You can say: I can meet any man of the group. Or you can say (if it's about you): I meet every man of the group."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe categorization on Android Wiki looks pretty arbitrary and redundant to me contemplating the single articles in the categories. In every one you find a tutorial, guide and how-to on for example How to root an android phone, so these are mostly step-by-step instructions or a numeric list on how to proceed. This differentiation seems kind of pointless to me. Aren't they all synonyms? Only guide and how-to imply to me something like a written manual, while tutorial can also be verbal instructions in a seminar or a YouTube video. But on a webpage with only written articles, does this differentiation make sense?","question":"The categorization on Android Wiki looks pretty arbitrary and redundant to me contemplating the single articles in the categories. In every one you find a tutorial, guide and how-to on for example How to root an android phone, so these are mostly step-by-step instructions or a numeric list on how to proceed. This differentiation seems kind of pointless to me. Aren't they all synonyms? Only guide and how-to imply to me something like a written manual, while tutorial can also be verbal instructions in a seminar or a YouTube video. But on a webpage with only written articles, does this differentiation make sense?","answer":"Based on experience with the terms in computing\/technology, not necessarily the same as general usage: A tutorial is a step-by-step walk-through for someone with no experience. A guide gives basic information, not detailed instruction. Think \"pointers\". Particularly for computers, a how-to is more of a list of detailed steps for particular operations. Here's a list from the Linux Documentation Project","output":"Based on experience with the terms in computing\/technology, not necessarily the same as general usage: A tutorial is a step-by-step walk-through for someone with no experience. A guide gives basic information, not detailed instruction. Think \"pointers\". Particularly for computers, a how-to is more of a list of detailed steps for particular operations. Here's a list from the Linux Documentation Project"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm stuck with understanding the following sentence from Effective Modern C++: 42 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of C++11 and C++14 yes, the syntax looks toxic, but knowing it will score you mondo points with those few souls who care. What are these mysterious \"mondo points\"? I googled it and it relates to shoe size which seems kind of weird. Do I understand correctly that these points are represented by souls? I also found that there is a phrasal verb \"score with\" which means to please somebody or someone. So in this case, knowing will score with (please) few souls and you is now irrelevant?","question":"I'm stuck with understanding the following sentence from Effective Modern C++: 42 Specific Ways to Improve Your Use of C++11 and C++14 yes, the syntax looks toxic, but knowing it will score you mondo points with those few souls who care. What are these mysterious \"mondo points\"? I googled it and it relates to shoe size which seems kind of weird. Do I understand correctly that these points are represented by souls? I also found that there is a phrasal verb \"score with\" which means to please somebody or someone. So in this case, knowing will score with (please) few souls and you is now irrelevant?","answer":"Mondo is slang for very or extremely. The entire sentence is very informal and has some other elements of programmer jargon or slang. Re-written more formally, it would be: yes, the syntax looks bad, but knowing it will get you a lot of credit and appreciation from the few people who care. mondo (MW) extremely (slang)","output":"Mondo is slang for very or extremely. The entire sentence is very informal and has some other elements of programmer jargon or slang. Re-written more formally, it would be: yes, the syntax looks bad, but knowing it will get you a lot of credit and appreciation from the few people who care. mondo (MW) extremely (slang)"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen I'm following up with someone about something, i would like to ask if there's anything I can do to make it faster. Should I use \"facilitate the progress\" or \"facilitate the process\"? Or there's no big deal to use either of it?","question":"When I'm following up with someone about something, i would like to ask if there's anything I can do to make it faster. Should I use \"facilitate the progress\" or \"facilitate the process\"? Or there's no big deal to use either of it?","answer":"I second what John said. You typically say \"to facilitate the process\" rather than \"facilitate progress,\" but the two phrases have different meanings. If you were wanting to facilitate the progress of a system, goal or process, it may make more sense to use the term \"expedite\" or to assist the progress of a process. If you were wanting to permit or facilitate achievement or accomplishment towards a goal, you could alternatively use the action-oriented term \"enable.\"","output":"I second what John said. You typically say \"to facilitate the process\" rather than \"facilitate progress,\" but the two phrases have different meanings. If you were wanting to facilitate the progress of a system, goal or process, it may make more sense to use the term \"expedite\" or to assist the progress of a process. If you were wanting to permit or facilitate achievement or accomplishment towards a goal, you could alternatively use the action-oriented term \"enable.\""}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat do you mean that it's wrong? In the above sentence, is the that-clause an adverbial clause? Or a complement? What is the syntactic function of the string \"(that) it's wrong\"? In other words, what are the grammatical relations in the sentence? Here are more real examples from COCA (with and without the that): OK, what do you mean that your children are trying to kill you? What do you mean that it's believed that's where he got off? What do you mean you found him? What do you mean they run the show?","question":"What do you mean that it's wrong? In the above sentence, is the that-clause an adverbial clause? Or a complement? What is the syntactic function of the string \"(that) it's wrong\"? In other words, what are the grammatical relations in the sentence? Here are more real examples from COCA (with and without the that): OK, what do you mean that your children are trying to kill you? What do you mean that it's believed that's where he got off? What do you mean you found him? What do you mean they run the show?","answer":"I wonder whether different examples can shed some light: How can you say [that] it's wrong? There doesn't seem to be anything odd about the nominative subordinate clause \"[that] it's wrong\". To my eye, it looks like an direct object. It's the thing that can be said. The part that seems odd is that \"how can you\" and \"why would you\" express the same sentiment in this context. That doesn't hold true in other contexts. Questions like \"how can you eat so much?\" and \"why would you eat so much?\" expect different answers, such as a high metabolism and a low self-esteem respectively. However, that's a question of modality which we can ignore for the moment. What do you mean that it's wrong? Why do you say that it's wrong? The subordinate clause still appears to be a direct object. These two questions seem to express similar sentiments and expect much the same range of answers. Both questions allow the original statement to be supported or explained, or for the implications of that statement to stand as an answer. The oddity here is that the \"what\" in that question acts like \"how\" and \"why\" usually behave. \"How\" and \"why\" are adverbial interrogatives. They can be parsed as adjuncts rather than arguments. Ordinarily, \"what\" is a pronominal interrogative, which isn't a suitable adjunct on its own. We can explain this oddity if we assume an elision: What do you mean [by saying] that it's wrong. Here, \"that it's wrong\" is the direct object of the gerund \"saying\". The entire prepositional phrase \"by saying that it's wrong\" is an adjunct to the verb \"do mean\", while \"what\" acts as its direct object. If we do not assume the elision, the next obvious possibility is that \"to mean\" allows \"what\" to act as an adjunct. The questions \"what do you mean that it's wrong?\", \"how do you mean that it's wrong\" and \"why do you mean that it's wrong\" expect similar ranges of responses, even though we've progressed from the utterly unsurprising to the highly questionable. The elision seems easier to support. How do you mean that it's wrong? You mean that it's wrong, but how? Given a clear adjunct, we can separate the question that it asks from the statement that it modifies. The same doesn't hold for \"what\": What do you mean that it's wrong? *You mean that it's wrong, but what? Once the verb \"mean\" has an obvious direct object, the word \"what\" no longer makes sense. It doesn't act like an adjunct from other positions, even though we haven't changed the governing verb. What do you mean that it's wrong? You said that it's wrong, but what do you mean? This transformation practically begs for the restoration of at least one elided word.","output":"I wonder whether different examples can shed some light: How can you say [that] it's wrong? There doesn't seem to be anything odd about the nominative subordinate clause \"[that] it's wrong\". To my eye, it looks like an direct object. It's the thing that can be said. The part that seems odd is that \"how can you\" and \"why would you\" express the same sentiment in this context. That doesn't hold true in other contexts. Questions like \"how can you eat so much?\" and \"why would you eat so much?\" expect different answers, such as a high metabolism and a low self-esteem respectively. However, that's a question of modality which we can ignore for the moment. What do you mean that it's wrong? Why do you say that it's wrong? The subordinate clause still appears to be a direct object. These two questions seem to express similar sentiments and expect much the same range of answers. Both questions allow the original statement to be supported or explained, or for the implications of that statement to stand as an answer. The oddity here is that the \"what\" in that question acts like \"how\" and \"why\" usually behave. \"How\" and \"why\" are adverbial interrogatives. They can be parsed as adjuncts rather than arguments. Ordinarily, \"what\" is a pronominal interrogative, which isn't a suitable adjunct on its own. We can explain this oddity if we assume an elision: What do you mean [by saying] that it's wrong. Here, \"that it's wrong\" is the direct object of the gerund \"saying\". The entire prepositional phrase \"by saying that it's wrong\" is an adjunct to the verb \"do mean\", while \"what\" acts as its direct object. If we do not assume the elision, the next obvious possibility is that \"to mean\" allows \"what\" to act as an adjunct. The questions \"what do you mean that it's wrong?\", \"how do you mean that it's wrong\" and \"why do you mean that it's wrong\" expect similar ranges of responses, even though we've progressed from the utterly unsurprising to the highly questionable. The elision seems easier to support. How do you mean that it's wrong? You mean that it's wrong, but how? Given a clear adjunct, we can separate the question that it asks from the statement that it modifies. The same doesn't hold for \"what\": What do you mean that it's wrong? *You mean that it's wrong, but what? Once the verb \"mean\" has an obvious direct object, the word \"what\" no longer makes sense. It doesn't act like an adjunct from other positions, even though we haven't changed the governing verb. What do you mean that it's wrong? You said that it's wrong, but what do you mean? This transformation practically begs for the restoration of at least one elided word."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the difference between Raw foods and Ingredients? For examples, meats, vegetables, salt or sugar, sauce and so on. How can I sort those things? Before I cook, I should wash up X first. I should wash up X, before I start cooking. By this, I mean I need to wash some raw foods that are with some dirt like soil, dust or agricultural pesticides or chemicals, but I don't need to wash ingredients like sugar and salt.","question":"What is the difference between Raw foods and Ingredients? For examples, meats, vegetables, salt or sugar, sauce and so on. How can I sort those things? Before I cook, I should wash up X first. I should wash up X, before I start cooking. By this, I mean I need to wash some raw foods that are with some dirt like soil, dust or agricultural pesticides or chemicals, but I don't need to wash ingredients like sugar and salt.","answer":"In the context of food, \"raw\" means \"uncooked\". Ingredients are the things that are combined to make some kind of food, like a cake, a sauce, a chicken dish, meatballs, or a souffle, whether they're something you make or something packaged that you buy at the store. There is no \"difference\" between raw foods and ingredients because they're two separate concepts. Some ingredients may be raw, some may be cooked. Chocolate chips are an ingredient in chocolate chip cookies, and they aren't raw: the chips themselves were melted before sugar and other ingredients were added to them. The flour is raw. The eggs are raw unless they were pasteurized.","output":"In the context of food, \"raw\" means \"uncooked\". Ingredients are the things that are combined to make some kind of food, like a cake, a sauce, a chicken dish, meatballs, or a souffle, whether they're something you make or something packaged that you buy at the store. There is no \"difference\" between raw foods and ingredients because they're two separate concepts. Some ingredients may be raw, some may be cooked. Chocolate chips are an ingredient in chocolate chip cookies, and they aren't raw: the chips themselves were melted before sugar and other ingredients were added to them. The flour is raw. The eggs are raw unless they were pasteurized."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it correct to say: \"In the following, we outline how this can be done\". My main question is that: Is \"In the following\" at a right place?","question":"Is it correct to say: \"In the following, we outline how this can be done\". My main question is that: Is \"In the following\" at a right place?","answer":"Some other ways to say the same thing: \"The following outlines how this can be done:\" \"In what follows, we outline how this can be done.\"","output":"Some other ways to say the same thing: \"The following outlines how this can be done:\" \"In what follows, we outline how this can be done.\""}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've already asked question about this word on English stack exchange What is synonyme of \"scale\"? But I guess there is some other meaning of it. What does it mean in this case? In a lot of cases, the bigger a company gets the harder it is to actually find a way to contact support. Maybe remarkable support just doesn\u2019t scale. But does it have to be this difficult to find an email address? From http:\/\/blog.statuspage.io\/customer-service-email I tried to find an appropriate definition in the FreeDictionary and Cambridge dictionary, but it didn't help. Perhaps \"doesn't scale\" means \"is not highly appreciated\"?","question":"I've already asked question about this word on English stack exchange What is synonyme of \"scale\"? But I guess there is some other meaning of it. What does it mean in this case? In a lot of cases, the bigger a company gets the harder it is to actually find a way to contact support. Maybe remarkable support just doesn\u2019t scale. But does it have to be this difficult to find an email address? From http:\/\/blog.statuspage.io\/customer-service-email I tried to find an appropriate definition in the FreeDictionary and Cambridge dictionary, but it didn't help. Perhaps \"doesn't scale\" means \"is not highly appreciated\"?","answer":"In this sense, \"scale\" is part of the phrasal verb, scale down or scale up. To say that something doesn't scale means that it either breaks under the weight of the full-scale organization, or its functionality is reduced to the point that it is no longer reliable or productive. scale up - increase proportionally; \"scale up the model\" scale down - reduce proportionally; \"The model is scaled down\" [ http:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/scale+up ]","output":"In this sense, \"scale\" is part of the phrasal verb, scale down or scale up. To say that something doesn't scale means that it either breaks under the weight of the full-scale organization, or its functionality is reduced to the point that it is no longer reliable or productive. scale up - increase proportionally; \"scale up the model\" scale down - reduce proportionally; \"The model is scaled down\" [ http:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/scale+up ]"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan I use \u201cHow to\u201d instead of \u201cHow do I\u201d when I ask a question? And will it be grammatical? I often notice some English learners use \u201cHow to\u201d when they ask a question.","question":"Can I use \u201cHow to\u201d instead of \u201cHow do I\u201d when I ask a question? And will it be grammatical? I often notice some English learners use \u201cHow to\u201d when they ask a question.","answer":"The usage of how to to ask a question is a direct translation from the learner's own language: it is not correct as a question in English. The expression is used in titles, for example \"How to win friends and influence people\" In English, a how-question is formed by taking a normal sentence, making a question in the usual way (by applying subject-auxiliary inversion) and then adding how in front of it. I get a visa I do get a visa - add do because there is no auxiliary verb Do I get a visa? - invert subject and auxiliary How do I get a visa? - add how","output":"The usage of how to to ask a question is a direct translation from the learner's own language: it is not correct as a question in English. The expression is used in titles, for example \"How to win friends and influence people\" In English, a how-question is formed by taking a normal sentence, making a question in the usual way (by applying subject-auxiliary inversion) and then adding how in front of it. I get a visa I do get a visa - add do because there is no auxiliary verb Do I get a visa? - invert subject and auxiliary How do I get a visa? - add how"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen I was a kid I remember distinctly this lesson on how to pronounce a word. If there is only one consonant between two vowels like in the word \"make\" then the e jumps over the k and the a yells its name \"eh\" instead of its sound \"ah\". For a word like \"little\" there are a bunch of consonants there so the e can't jump and make the i say \"I\". I know about \"whole word\" vs \"phonics\" is an ongoing debate but is the jumping letter concept a phonics thing? Or did I just have a creative teacher?","question":"When I was a kid I remember distinctly this lesson on how to pronounce a word. If there is only one consonant between two vowels like in the word \"make\" then the e jumps over the k and the a yells its name \"eh\" instead of its sound \"ah\". For a word like \"little\" there are a bunch of consonants there so the e can't jump and make the i say \"I\". I know about \"whole word\" vs \"phonics\" is an ongoing debate but is the jumping letter concept a phonics thing? Or did I just have a creative teacher?","answer":"When I was just learning to read, my teacher had a sock puppet named Mr. Easy, whose face was a lower-case e with a dot in the enclosure to form his \"eye\". Mr. Easy's job was to help the vowels say their name. He would tack himself on to mat and call out to the vowel: \"Tell me your name!\" And we, being 5 or 6 and eager to help the vowel, would call out \"A. Your name is A!\" And Mr. Easy would then turn to us and ask us what word the a was trying to make. And we would shout the answer, laughing and having a great time. And thus mat became mate, them would become theme, bit would become bite, and to this day I remember Mr. Easy. This is not intended as a glowing little remembrance, but to point out that whatever device a teacher uses to bring an idea to life is a good idea. Kids like games, they like fun, they like cartoonish characters, and they actually love solving problems. Whether the teacher uses a sock puppet or a jumping game, the important thing is that good teaching involves engaging children in a way that makes a lesson fun and memorable.","output":"When I was just learning to read, my teacher had a sock puppet named Mr. Easy, whose face was a lower-case e with a dot in the enclosure to form his \"eye\". Mr. Easy's job was to help the vowels say their name. He would tack himself on to mat and call out to the vowel: \"Tell me your name!\" And we, being 5 or 6 and eager to help the vowel, would call out \"A. Your name is A!\" And Mr. Easy would then turn to us and ask us what word the a was trying to make. And we would shout the answer, laughing and having a great time. And thus mat became mate, them would become theme, bit would become bite, and to this day I remember Mr. Easy. This is not intended as a glowing little remembrance, but to point out that whatever device a teacher uses to bring an idea to life is a good idea. Kids like games, they like fun, they like cartoonish characters, and they actually love solving problems. Whether the teacher uses a sock puppet or a jumping game, the important thing is that good teaching involves engaging children in a way that makes a lesson fun and memorable."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow could one convey the idea that a place is \u201cin the middle\u201d of the geographic area of a country, thus far from the seaside \u2014 whether city or town, rural or urban? The fact that it\u2019s a city or town or rural or urban is not relevant. The only relevant information would be: far from the sea; non-coastal. This word (or phrase, expression) would be used in sentences like this: \u201cI don\u2019t go to the beach very often, I live [...]\u201d \u2014 without needing to say one\u2019s exact location or explain too much, if possible. Does such straightforward expression (preferably a single word) exist?","question":"How could one convey the idea that a place is \u201cin the middle\u201d of the geographic area of a country, thus far from the seaside \u2014 whether city or town, rural or urban? The fact that it\u2019s a city or town or rural or urban is not relevant. The only relevant information would be: far from the sea; non-coastal. This word (or phrase, expression) would be used in sentences like this: \u201cI don\u2019t go to the beach very often, I live [...]\u201d \u2014 without needing to say one\u2019s exact location or explain too much, if possible. Does such straightforward expression (preferably a single word) exist?","answer":"In American English, a city which is inland from the sea can be referred to simply as an inland city. The AHD definition\u2014 adj. 1. Of, relating to, or located in the interior part of a country or region: inland freshwater lakes and ponds. \u2014is typical, but I would say that inland as used in AmE does not usually mean \"toward the middle,\" but rather \"away from the coast,\" and may be very relative depending on context. The Los Angeles neighborhood of Brentwood is inland from Pacific Palisades, but that isn't much an impediment for getting to the beach, even in Los Angeles traffic. I hesitate to speak for British English as I know inland is frequently a synonym for domestic (e.g. inland post, Inland Revenue), and geographic sensibilities as to direction and distance are very different, so too with Australia. If you want to specify that a city is very deep inland, you could refer to it as an interior city\u2014 adj. 1. Of, relating to, or located on the inside; inner. 3. Situated away from a coast or border; inland. [AHD]. While Interior more strongly indicates something close to the middle and far from the coasts; Sacramento or Albany or even Washington, D.C. are inland, but I would not expect them to be called interior cities, even if by a technical definition that would be true. Salt Lake City is an interior city, St. Louis is in the interior. In the U.S., this sense may be reinforced because the U.S. Department of the Interior is the division of the federal government which deals with federal lands, natural resources, and Native Americans\u2014far away (or driven away) from the major cities, and again I cannot speak for elsewhere, where an interior ministry is something completely different that has no real U.S. equivalent. Distance from the borders with Canada or Mexico is more nebulous a requirement; I wouldn't refer to Detroit or El Paso as interior cities, but others might. Another approach, as @Billy suggests, is to describe the city based on geographic terms that indicate distance from the sea. If I describe Lincoln, Nebraska as a Great Plains city, or Helena, Montana as nestled in the Rockies, or even that Louisville is in Kentucky, someone familiar with American geography will know that they cannot be situated anywhere near the ocean. This only works for a handful of regions, however. The further danger is that there are cultural associations with certain geographic terminology that may not make sense, particularly with ill-defined terms like heartland or Middle America. Boulder, Colorado is in the middle of America, but it is not of Middle America; its stereotypical resident would not be labeled a Middle American, but its stereotypical resident would not mind that in the slightest. As to the setting of a city in the countryside, I don't understand your meaning. The very definition of city means that wherever the city is located is not rural. You will encounter farms and ranches and open space driving an hour outside Kansas City, Missouri, but you can also find farms and ranches and open space an hour outside San Diego or Philadelphia.","output":"In American English, a city which is inland from the sea can be referred to simply as an inland city. The AHD definition\u2014 adj. 1. Of, relating to, or located in the interior part of a country or region: inland freshwater lakes and ponds. \u2014is typical, but I would say that inland as used in AmE does not usually mean \"toward the middle,\" but rather \"away from the coast,\" and may be very relative depending on context. The Los Angeles neighborhood of Brentwood is inland from Pacific Palisades, but that isn't much an impediment for getting to the beach, even in Los Angeles traffic. I hesitate to speak for British English as I know inland is frequently a synonym for domestic (e.g. inland post, Inland Revenue), and geographic sensibilities as to direction and distance are very different, so too with Australia. If you want to specify that a city is very deep inland, you could refer to it as an interior city\u2014 adj. 1. Of, relating to, or located on the inside; inner. 3. Situated away from a coast or border; inland. [AHD]. While Interior more strongly indicates something close to the middle and far from the coasts; Sacramento or Albany or even Washington, D.C. are inland, but I would not expect them to be called interior cities, even if by a technical definition that would be true. Salt Lake City is an interior city, St. Louis is in the interior. In the U.S., this sense may be reinforced because the U.S. Department of the Interior is the division of the federal government which deals with federal lands, natural resources, and Native Americans\u2014far away (or driven away) from the major cities, and again I cannot speak for elsewhere, where an interior ministry is something completely different that has no real U.S. equivalent. Distance from the borders with Canada or Mexico is more nebulous a requirement; I wouldn't refer to Detroit or El Paso as interior cities, but others might. Another approach, as @Billy suggests, is to describe the city based on geographic terms that indicate distance from the sea. If I describe Lincoln, Nebraska as a Great Plains city, or Helena, Montana as nestled in the Rockies, or even that Louisville is in Kentucky, someone familiar with American geography will know that they cannot be situated anywhere near the ocean. This only works for a handful of regions, however. The further danger is that there are cultural associations with certain geographic terminology that may not make sense, particularly with ill-defined terms like heartland or Middle America. Boulder, Colorado is in the middle of America, but it is not of Middle America; its stereotypical resident would not be labeled a Middle American, but its stereotypical resident would not mind that in the slightest. As to the setting of a city in the countryside, I don't understand your meaning. The very definition of city means that wherever the city is located is not rural. You will encounter farms and ranches and open space driving an hour outside Kansas City, Missouri, but you can also find farms and ranches and open space an hour outside San Diego or Philadelphia."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am having some difficulty wording a title for a paper of mine. I am going for something like, \"Automatic text iconification\". Which means an automatic method of giving text a symbolic representation. However, online dictionaries are not helping: iconification is found on wiktionary but not webster or reference.com iconify is not found on webster and the case seems weird if I used \"iconifing\" What word\/tense do I use to make this correct?","question":"I am having some difficulty wording a title for a paper of mine. I am going for something like, \"Automatic text iconification\". Which means an automatic method of giving text a symbolic representation. However, online dictionaries are not helping: iconification is found on wiktionary but not webster or reference.com iconify is not found on webster and the case seems weird if I used \"iconifing\" What word\/tense do I use to make this correct?","answer":"The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for iconize. Its earliest, and obsolete, meaning is \u2018to form into an image; to figure, to represent\u2019, and is illustrated by a citation from 1678. From 1986 it is found in the computing industry to mean \u2018to transform (a window) into an icon; to represent (a function or program) with an icon.\u2019 An alternative is iconify.","output":"The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for iconize. Its earliest, and obsolete, meaning is \u2018to form into an image; to figure, to represent\u2019, and is illustrated by a citation from 1678. From 1986 it is found in the computing industry to mean \u2018to transform (a window) into an icon; to represent (a function or program) with an icon.\u2019 An alternative is iconify."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCould you possibly help me on this question please? \"She ........in London for several years before she moved to New York.\" was living has lived had lived going to go Well, I know the option 3 fits here more grammatically and emphasize \"the timeline structure\" more clearly..but in daily life can we use the option 1? If we can, does the meaning change totally? And can we say \"She lived in London for several years before she moved to New York\"? I think and was taught because there is the word \"before\", we don't have to use past perfect at the beginning of a sentence in situations like this.","question":"Could you possibly help me on this question please? \"She ........in London for several years before she moved to New York.\" was living has lived had lived going to go Well, I know the option 3 fits here more grammatically and emphasize \"the timeline structure\" more clearly..but in daily life can we use the option 1? If we can, does the meaning change totally? And can we say \"She lived in London for several years before she moved to New York\"? I think and was taught because there is the word \"before\", we don't have to use past perfect at the beginning of a sentence in situations like this.","answer":"Context, context, context! Either 1 or 3 could be correct. 1 is employed in a context where your discourse concerns the time when she was living in London and mention her move to New York only to provide a 'timeframe' for her London residence; for instance: She was living in London for several years before she moved to New York, and found British accents (once she was able to understand them) much more attractive than that of her native Minnesota. 3 is employed in a context where your discourse concerns the time when or after she moved to New York and wish to mention her prior residence in London as the source of some state which obtained at that later time; for instance: She had lived in London for several years before she moved to New York, and found it difficult to understand even midwestern American accents when she returned.","output":"Context, context, context! Either 1 or 3 could be correct. 1 is employed in a context where your discourse concerns the time when she was living in London and mention her move to New York only to provide a 'timeframe' for her London residence; for instance: She was living in London for several years before she moved to New York, and found British accents (once she was able to understand them) much more attractive than that of her native Minnesota. 3 is employed in a context where your discourse concerns the time when or after she moved to New York and wish to mention her prior residence in London as the source of some state which obtained at that later time; for instance: She had lived in London for several years before she moved to New York, and found it difficult to understand even midwestern American accents when she returned."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm trying to describe a process where there is one stage that serves as a foundation (base) for the intermediate stages, and then a final stage that serves as, well, the opposite. The idea is that Stage A provides broad support that underpins the other stages, and then the final Stage X provides an overarching conclusion. I'm trying to draw parallels between the foundational stage and this one, so I'm trying to find set of words that describe the same type of function though at different ends of the process. My sample sentence (using A and X as placeholder names) is as follows: Stage X serves as the ______, opposite the Stage A foundation. The closest word I could think of was endcap \u2013 for example, if you think of a fence-post, this is the cap that goes at the end. However the mental image I have of an endcap is a pointed triangular structure, which implies that all things converge, which is not accurate in this situation.","question":"I'm trying to describe a process where there is one stage that serves as a foundation (base) for the intermediate stages, and then a final stage that serves as, well, the opposite. The idea is that Stage A provides broad support that underpins the other stages, and then the final Stage X provides an overarching conclusion. I'm trying to draw parallels between the foundational stage and this one, so I'm trying to find set of words that describe the same type of function though at different ends of the process. My sample sentence (using A and X as placeholder names) is as follows: Stage X serves as the ______, opposite the Stage A foundation. The closest word I could think of was endcap \u2013 for example, if you think of a fence-post, this is the cap that goes at the end. However the mental image I have of an endcap is a pointed triangular structure, which implies that all things converge, which is not accurate in this situation.","answer":"In addition to @Jason Bassford's good suggestions, capstone is a term that might work for you, depending on the context of what you want to say. The term is often defined as a \"high point\", a \"crowning achievement\", or a sort of \"finale\". It is also used as an architectural term, meaning \"a stone on top of a wall or building\". That said, it is often used in academia, where students complete a \"capstone project\" at the end of their degrees. These projects are intended to bring together all of what the students have learned throughout the course of a full degree program, including \"foundational\" courses. There are many sources for this usage of capstone. Wikpedia aggregates a number of them and offers a synthetic description of the term's meaning in this context. Merriam-Webster, in its definition of capstone, offers examples of how the term is used, and includes a citation that mentions a student's \"capstone project\". The site of the Harvard Business School's MS\/MBA in Engineering Sciences offers an example of a capstone course. The description is lengthy, but here's an excerpt: \"During Year 2, students..., during the January and spring terms, complete the Capstone course, in which they work in a small team to build and launch a new product...The MS\/MBA: Engineering Sciences Capstone is an intensive project that requires teams of students to apply and integrate the skills they have learned across core disciplines developed in the program curriculum.\"","output":"In addition to @Jason Bassford's good suggestions, capstone is a term that might work for you, depending on the context of what you want to say. The term is often defined as a \"high point\", a \"crowning achievement\", or a sort of \"finale\". It is also used as an architectural term, meaning \"a stone on top of a wall or building\". That said, it is often used in academia, where students complete a \"capstone project\" at the end of their degrees. These projects are intended to bring together all of what the students have learned throughout the course of a full degree program, including \"foundational\" courses. There are many sources for this usage of capstone. Wikpedia aggregates a number of them and offers a synthetic description of the term's meaning in this context. Merriam-Webster, in its definition of capstone, offers examples of how the term is used, and includes a citation that mentions a student's \"capstone project\". The site of the Harvard Business School's MS\/MBA in Engineering Sciences offers an example of a capstone course. The description is lengthy, but here's an excerpt: \"During Year 2, students..., during the January and spring terms, complete the Capstone course, in which they work in a small team to build and launch a new product...The MS\/MBA: Engineering Sciences Capstone is an intensive project that requires teams of students to apply and integrate the skills they have learned across core disciplines developed in the program curriculum.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the meaning of \"thou thee\" from the quotation below referenced in this Quora answer? (Attributed to the attorney-general at Sir Walter Raleigh\u2019s trial.) All that he did was at thy instigation, thou viper; for I thou thee, thou traitor.","question":"What is the meaning of \"thou thee\" from the quotation below referenced in this Quora answer? (Attributed to the attorney-general at Sir Walter Raleigh\u2019s trial.) All that he did was at thy instigation, thou viper; for I thou thee, thou traitor.","answer":"In \"I thou thee\", \"thou\" is a verb. The relevant definition in the OED is: trans. To address (a person) with the pronoun thou (or its equivalent in another language). (The quote in your question is one of the examples listed for this sense, in fact.) It's really the same pattern as \"Don't 'honey' me!\" which you may have actually heard in real life. To understand the reason this was an insult, one must be aware that \"thou\" at this time was a familiar pronoun of the second person singular while \"you\", the plural, had come to be used in the singular for people owed a certain measure of respect. (Compare French \"tu\" and \"vous\", if you're familiar with French.) Therefore, to \"thou\" someone whose relationship to the speaker would ordinarily call for the use of \"you\" was a show of grave disrespect.","output":"In \"I thou thee\", \"thou\" is a verb. The relevant definition in the OED is: trans. To address (a person) with the pronoun thou (or its equivalent in another language). (The quote in your question is one of the examples listed for this sense, in fact.) It's really the same pattern as \"Don't 'honey' me!\" which you may have actually heard in real life. To understand the reason this was an insult, one must be aware that \"thou\" at this time was a familiar pronoun of the second person singular while \"you\", the plural, had come to be used in the singular for people owed a certain measure of respect. (Compare French \"tu\" and \"vous\", if you're familiar with French.) Therefore, to \"thou\" someone whose relationship to the speaker would ordinarily call for the use of \"you\" was a show of grave disrespect."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nNerd is defined as an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits. (Merriam Webster) The first documented appearance of the word nerd is as the name of a creature in Dr. Seuss's book If I Ran the Zoo (1950). Dork is defined as a socially awkward or inept person (Merriam Webster), and currently used as a synonym for nerd. However, Merriam-Webster states that Dork is a variation on Dick, which is a variation on Prick. Both Prick and Dick are defined as \"a spiteful man.\" Ex. The captain is a real prick\/dick. So in its early use, dork would have referred to someone who's a prick (a spiteful man). How did dork as a \"a spiteful man\" become a synonym for nerd, someone \"slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits?\" Is there a common linguistic process at work here?","question":"Nerd is defined as an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits. (Merriam Webster) The first documented appearance of the word nerd is as the name of a creature in Dr. Seuss's book If I Ran the Zoo (1950). Dork is defined as a socially awkward or inept person (Merriam Webster), and currently used as a synonym for nerd. However, Merriam-Webster states that Dork is a variation on Dick, which is a variation on Prick. Both Prick and Dick are defined as \"a spiteful man.\" Ex. The captain is a real prick\/dick. So in its early use, dork would have referred to someone who's a prick (a spiteful man). How did dork as a \"a spiteful man\" become a synonym for nerd, someone \"slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits?\" Is there a common linguistic process at work here?","answer":"It's probably more the case that they begin as terms with a similar meaning, and only later diverge. DORK is noted as \"a penis\" (from 1961) and \"a fool\" (from 1965) in Green's Dictionary of Slang. NERD there is given as \"(orig. US) an unpleasant, insignificant or dull person\" (from 1951). That rather misses out the nuance whereby it could be said that nerds are dorks with brains. It seems to be the case that \"nerd\" begins as a general pejorative, and only later develops the \"studious but socially unacceptable\" sense. Looking at the cites given in GDoS, it looks as if the shift in the meaning of \"nerd\" begins to happen in the late 1980s.","output":"It's probably more the case that they begin as terms with a similar meaning, and only later diverge. DORK is noted as \"a penis\" (from 1961) and \"a fool\" (from 1965) in Green's Dictionary of Slang. NERD there is given as \"(orig. US) an unpleasant, insignificant or dull person\" (from 1951). That rather misses out the nuance whereby it could be said that nerds are dorks with brains. It seems to be the case that \"nerd\" begins as a general pejorative, and only later develops the \"studious but socially unacceptable\" sense. Looking at the cites given in GDoS, it looks as if the shift in the meaning of \"nerd\" begins to happen in the late 1980s."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to explain something in the first sentence and then say some opposite thing in the second sentence. I thought, I could use the phrase in contrast to make the flow of a paragraph. For example: The statistics illustrate a low overall result. In contrast, the figure shows a good completeness. I doubt whether I am using the phrase in contrast correctly because I found the usage of in contrast to something correct as well. So, my main concern is whether we should use in contrast to something or simply in contrast followed by a comma.","question":"I want to explain something in the first sentence and then say some opposite thing in the second sentence. I thought, I could use the phrase in contrast to make the flow of a paragraph. For example: The statistics illustrate a low overall result. In contrast, the figure shows a good completeness. I doubt whether I am using the phrase in contrast correctly because I found the usage of in contrast to something correct as well. So, my main concern is whether we should use in contrast to something or simply in contrast followed by a comma.","answer":"The use of in contrast isn\u2019t quite right here, and it isn\u2019t really clear what is meant. Do the two sentences mean that the statistics are complete, but that they show a result lower than might have been expected? If so, you need to say something like The figures are complete, but they show a disappointingly low result. EDIT: I see now that you are asking whether in contrast can be used on its own to introduce an opposing sentence. It can. For example, I might say It rained the whole of May. In contrast, June was a very dry month. It follows in principle that you can use it that way in your example, but it remains unclear what two items are being contrasted. That may because of the use of completeness (which is not a good choice here anyway). Does it mean that the statistics are complete, or that whatever it is they describe is complete?","output":"The use of in contrast isn\u2019t quite right here, and it isn\u2019t really clear what is meant. Do the two sentences mean that the statistics are complete, but that they show a result lower than might have been expected? If so, you need to say something like The figures are complete, but they show a disappointingly low result. EDIT: I see now that you are asking whether in contrast can be used on its own to introduce an opposing sentence. It can. For example, I might say It rained the whole of May. In contrast, June was a very dry month. It follows in principle that you can use it that way in your example, but it remains unclear what two items are being contrasted. That may because of the use of completeness (which is not a good choice here anyway). Does it mean that the statistics are complete, or that whatever it is they describe is complete?"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe word Change doesn't seem to make much sense in this quote from A Christmas Carol. To emphasis the sentence, I kept it in bold-type. MARLEY was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, & the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it. And Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to.","question":"The word Change doesn't seem to make much sense in this quote from A Christmas Carol. To emphasis the sentence, I kept it in bold-type. MARLEY was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, & the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it. And Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to.","answer":"The meaning of the sentence relies on the word 'Change, which is a shortened form of Exchange - the stock exchange. The sentence means that Scrooge had a good reputation on the stock exchange and that his signature carried weight. There is a clue to working out the meaning, since Change begins with a capital letter, indicating that it is a proper noun and not a verb or abstract noun in this context.","output":"The meaning of the sentence relies on the word 'Change, which is a shortened form of Exchange - the stock exchange. The sentence means that Scrooge had a good reputation on the stock exchange and that his signature carried weight. There is a clue to working out the meaning, since Change begins with a capital letter, indicating that it is a proper noun and not a verb or abstract noun in this context."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was looking for a word (a noun) that describes a young person\/a teenager who is stubborn, acts recklessly, and likes to show off to draw people's attention (as they think it's cool). I've found the word tearaway, which somehow fits the definition, and would like to know if there is a similar word which is commonly used in American English (besides the word hellion, as I think that doesn't wholly fit what I was looking for like the word tearaway)?","question":"I was looking for a word (a noun) that describes a young person\/a teenager who is stubborn, acts recklessly, and likes to show off to draw people's attention (as they think it's cool). I've found the word tearaway, which somehow fits the definition, and would like to know if there is a similar word which is commonly used in American English (besides the word hellion, as I think that doesn't wholly fit what I was looking for like the word tearaway)?","answer":"The word delinquent (basically standing for the legal term juvenile delinquent) is frequently used in US English in this sense. The OED has the definition A person who commits an offence against the law or customary morality; a criminal, an offender. Now chiefly specifically: a person, especially a young person, who (persistently) commits minor crime or engages in antisocial behaviour. Usage, from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: Joyce Emily Hammond, the very rich girl, their delinquent, who had been recently sent to Blaine as a last hope, because no other school, no governess, could manage her.","output":"The word delinquent (basically standing for the legal term juvenile delinquent) is frequently used in US English in this sense. The OED has the definition A person who commits an offence against the law or customary morality; a criminal, an offender. Now chiefly specifically: a person, especially a young person, who (persistently) commits minor crime or engages in antisocial behaviour. Usage, from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: Joyce Emily Hammond, the very rich girl, their delinquent, who had been recently sent to Blaine as a last hope, because no other school, no governess, could manage her."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMy work basically is to answer customers' questions by emails and I use the phrase' tell me' at my work, but my boss said it's too casual , I should use the phrase \"let me know \", is it ture? I don't really understand what the difference is. For example, if I'm asking for a customer's address or his\/her waist size, which one should I say?","question":"My work basically is to answer customers' questions by emails and I use the phrase' tell me' at my work, but my boss said it's too casual , I should use the phrase \"let me know \", is it ture? I don't really understand what the difference is. For example, if I'm asking for a customer's address or his\/her waist size, which one should I say?","answer":"\"Let me know\" is asking to be informed. As \"let\" means to allow, this is a polite way of asking to be kept informed, because you are asking for permission to know. \"Tell me\" is a demand, and so less polite. You can certainly make it more polite by saying \"please tell me\", but you are still asking for information rather than asking to be allowed that information. \"Please let me know\" would be even more polite.","output":"\"Let me know\" is asking to be informed. As \"let\" means to allow, this is a polite way of asking to be kept informed, because you are asking for permission to know. \"Tell me\" is a demand, and so less polite. You can certainly make it more polite by saying \"please tell me\", but you are still asking for information rather than asking to be allowed that information. \"Please let me know\" would be even more polite."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am in search of a word which I'm not sure exists. What is a good way to describe something which: \u2014 has little to no consequence \u2014 is possibly important in theory \u2014 would be considered good form to do correctly Here's an example. Suppose you are writing an essay for a professor who really cares about formatting. You italicize a section of words and also italicize the period which follows, even though the period should not have been italicized. Obviously nobody can tell whether a period is italicized or not, but if your professor opened your essay in a word processor, they might note that you had italicized incorrectly.","question":"I am in search of a word which I'm not sure exists. What is a good way to describe something which: \u2014 has little to no consequence \u2014 is possibly important in theory \u2014 would be considered good form to do correctly Here's an example. Suppose you are writing an essay for a professor who really cares about formatting. You italicize a section of words and also italicize the period which follows, even though the period should not have been italicized. Obviously nobody can tell whether a period is italicized or not, but if your professor opened your essay in a word processor, they might note that you had italicized incorrectly.","answer":"Your example suggests 'pedantry' (n.), which is practiced by 'pedants' (n.pl.), who are called 'pedantic' (adj.): ped\u00b7ant\u00b7ry 1. The ostentatious display of academic knowledge, or undue attention paid to minor details or formal rules: His detailed research was dismissed as pedantry. 2. An instance of pedantic behavior: grew tired of his pedantries. [pedantry. (n.d.) American Heritage\u00ae Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved February 21 2016 from http:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/pedantry . Bold emphasis mine.] Funny you should ask on this site, where practicing pedants produce prolix pedantries.","output":"Your example suggests 'pedantry' (n.), which is practiced by 'pedants' (n.pl.), who are called 'pedantic' (adj.): ped\u00b7ant\u00b7ry 1. The ostentatious display of academic knowledge, or undue attention paid to minor details or formal rules: His detailed research was dismissed as pedantry. 2. An instance of pedantic behavior: grew tired of his pedantries. [pedantry. (n.d.) American Heritage\u00ae Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved February 21 2016 from http:\/\/www.thefreedictionary.com\/pedantry . Bold emphasis mine.] Funny you should ask on this site, where practicing pedants produce prolix pedantries."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nConsider the phrase: \"That shovel belongs to Tim.\" which when you reverse the subject becomes: \"Tim owns that shovel\" However there is another use of belong, which means membership of. \"Susan belongs to the North Hampton Soccer Club.\". How would I reverse that subject. \"The North Hampton Soccer Club owns Susan\"? That isn't correct, Susan isn't property. \"The North Hampton Soccer Club includes Susan\"? That doesn't convay the same strength of belonging, but it is better. Consider another example: \"Fred belongs to the Catholic Church\" \"The Catholic Church owns Fred\", \"The Catholic Church includes Fred\", I am ideally looking for a single word verb.","question":"Consider the phrase: \"That shovel belongs to Tim.\" which when you reverse the subject becomes: \"Tim owns that shovel\" However there is another use of belong, which means membership of. \"Susan belongs to the North Hampton Soccer Club.\". How would I reverse that subject. \"The North Hampton Soccer Club owns Susan\"? That isn't correct, Susan isn't property. \"The North Hampton Soccer Club includes Susan\"? That doesn't convay the same strength of belonging, but it is better. Consider another example: \"Fred belongs to the Catholic Church\" \"The Catholic Church owns Fred\", \"The Catholic Church includes Fred\", I am ideally looking for a single word verb.","answer":"This is an awesome question. Going to take a stab at an answer, though I can't imagine a totally satisfactory one if you would rather not use \"include\" or \"own.\" There are also some obvious answers that you can find in a thesaurus, so I'm going to try to offer some alternatives that you might not have considered. Contains - From latin meaning \"to hold altogether,\" contains might be the most appropriate if you don't want to use include. Comprehends - Though now commonly used to refer to a cognitive understanding, this word is derived from the latin roots that translate roughly to \"grasp together.\" The idea of being grasped or held together, as in a group, seems a nice blend of owns and includes. But be ready for many people to argue, \"hey, that's not what the word means!\" If you chose, you could use the following sample sentences from a Google books search as evidence it was used in this manner. Note the dates, though. The plan of the school comprehends an architectural or builders' course, a mechanical course, a course in freehand drawing, a course in cabinet work and decorative design, and a course in modelling. - From Annual Report of the Bureau of Industries for the Province of Ontario, 1893 The retail trade of the city comprehends every variety of store... - From Resources and Industries of the City of Lancaster, Lancaster, 1887 Houses or holds - I typically see this used when describing a collective in possession of another collective. E.g., \"The city houses some of the nation's top institutions,\" \"The county animal shelter holds some of the most desperate animals.\" If you're willing to accept phrases instead of single words, I would also consider something like the following: The church counts Fred as a member. The club names Susan on its roster. The group has claimed (or accepted) the individual as its own.","output":"This is an awesome question. Going to take a stab at an answer, though I can't imagine a totally satisfactory one if you would rather not use \"include\" or \"own.\" There are also some obvious answers that you can find in a thesaurus, so I'm going to try to offer some alternatives that you might not have considered. Contains - From latin meaning \"to hold altogether,\" contains might be the most appropriate if you don't want to use include. Comprehends - Though now commonly used to refer to a cognitive understanding, this word is derived from the latin roots that translate roughly to \"grasp together.\" The idea of being grasped or held together, as in a group, seems a nice blend of owns and includes. But be ready for many people to argue, \"hey, that's not what the word means!\" If you chose, you could use the following sample sentences from a Google books search as evidence it was used in this manner. Note the dates, though. The plan of the school comprehends an architectural or builders' course, a mechanical course, a course in freehand drawing, a course in cabinet work and decorative design, and a course in modelling. - From Annual Report of the Bureau of Industries for the Province of Ontario, 1893 The retail trade of the city comprehends every variety of store... - From Resources and Industries of the City of Lancaster, Lancaster, 1887 Houses or holds - I typically see this used when describing a collective in possession of another collective. E.g., \"The city houses some of the nation's top institutions,\" \"The county animal shelter holds some of the most desperate animals.\" If you're willing to accept phrases instead of single words, I would also consider something like the following: The church counts Fred as a member. The club names Susan on its roster. The group has claimed (or accepted) the individual as its own."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI heard couple of uses of just so in spoken English. For examples: Fine, but just so we're clear, just so you know, My understanding is that it can be interpreted as it's just like that, so .... Is my interpretation correct? Is it sort of a set expression?","question":"I heard couple of uses of just so in spoken English. For examples: Fine, but just so we're clear, just so you know, My understanding is that it can be interpreted as it's just like that, so .... Is my interpretation correct? Is it sort of a set expression?","answer":"just so can mean \"only because\" or \"only for the purpose of\". just so we're clear, ... means \"I say what I am about to say only because I wish to avoid any misunderstanding.\" If the phrase follows a statement, then it is \"I said what I said only because I wish to avoid any misunderstanding.\" ..., just so we're clear. The phrase is meant to draw the listener's attention. The effect is \"I want you to pay attention to these words\" or \"I want you to pay attention to those words\". OK. I can lend you my car, but just so we're clear, I meant what I said: you must return it no later than tomorrow at noon. Not 12:15. Not 12:30. I have to drive into the city for an important meeting, and noon is already cutting things close for me. just so you know, ... ..., just so you know are similar. There it means I am saying what I am about to say for the sole purpose of making you aware. I said what I just said for the sole purpose of making you aware. OK. I can lend you my car. But just so you know, it's almost out of gas, so be sure to get some before going anywhere. Listen up: the car is almost out of gas. P.S. The phrase just so in this sense of \"only because\" or \"only for the purpose of\" can be used to explain almost anything. \"I'm engaged to be married\", she said. \"Just so you don't get the wrong idea\". Just so you don't put the food in the oven without removing it first, the inner wrap is transparent. I'm putting a note on the fridge, just so you don't forget to water the plants while we're away. As you can see with the \"oven\" and \"transparent wrap\" example, the phrase can be \"meta\" in its logic. That sentence could be paraphrased \"I say the following so you don't put it in the oven without removing the wrap first: the wrap is transparent\". The same is true with the \"I'm engaged to be married\" example, which means \"I said that to make sure you don't get the wrong idea\".","output":"just so can mean \"only because\" or \"only for the purpose of\". just so we're clear, ... means \"I say what I am about to say only because I wish to avoid any misunderstanding.\" If the phrase follows a statement, then it is \"I said what I said only because I wish to avoid any misunderstanding.\" ..., just so we're clear. The phrase is meant to draw the listener's attention. The effect is \"I want you to pay attention to these words\" or \"I want you to pay attention to those words\". OK. I can lend you my car, but just so we're clear, I meant what I said: you must return it no later than tomorrow at noon. Not 12:15. Not 12:30. I have to drive into the city for an important meeting, and noon is already cutting things close for me. just so you know, ... ..., just so you know are similar. There it means I am saying what I am about to say for the sole purpose of making you aware. I said what I just said for the sole purpose of making you aware. OK. I can lend you my car. But just so you know, it's almost out of gas, so be sure to get some before going anywhere. Listen up: the car is almost out of gas. P.S. The phrase just so in this sense of \"only because\" or \"only for the purpose of\" can be used to explain almost anything. \"I'm engaged to be married\", she said. \"Just so you don't get the wrong idea\". Just so you don't put the food in the oven without removing it first, the inner wrap is transparent. I'm putting a note on the fridge, just so you don't forget to water the plants while we're away. As you can see with the \"oven\" and \"transparent wrap\" example, the phrase can be \"meta\" in its logic. That sentence could be paraphrased \"I say the following so you don't put it in the oven without removing the wrap first: the wrap is transparent\". The same is true with the \"I'm engaged to be married\" example, which means \"I said that to make sure you don't get the wrong idea\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI would like to know the difference between the two sentences in meaning. Let's all take a time and be thankful that we are Koreans. Let's all take a time to be thankful that we are Koreans. Please, could you tell me the difference?","question":"I would like to know the difference between the two sentences in meaning. Let's all take a time and be thankful that we are Koreans. Let's all take a time to be thankful that we are Koreans. Please, could you tell me the difference?","answer":"There is no practical difference. They are slightly different in their literal meaning. The first uses \"and\" to join two actions: taking time, and being thankful. It does not explicitly say that the time will be used to be thankful. However, this is clearly the intention, and it should be read that way. The second lists just one action: taking time. It then explicitly says the purpose of that action is a second action (being thankful). There may be an individual preference for \"to\" or \"and\". One of my favourite authors, J. R. R. Tolkien, was annoyed with the editors or typesetters of his novel, The Lord of the Rings, for \"correcting\" some of his phrases, including \"try and say\" to \"try to say\".","output":"There is no practical difference. They are slightly different in their literal meaning. The first uses \"and\" to join two actions: taking time, and being thankful. It does not explicitly say that the time will be used to be thankful. However, this is clearly the intention, and it should be read that way. The second lists just one action: taking time. It then explicitly says the purpose of that action is a second action (being thankful). There may be an individual preference for \"to\" or \"and\". One of my favourite authors, J. R. R. Tolkien, was annoyed with the editors or typesetters of his novel, The Lord of the Rings, for \"correcting\" some of his phrases, including \"try and say\" to \"try to say\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nGiven: Of all ____ reasons for my decision to become a university professor, my father's advice was ____ most important one Which of the following choice is correct? A: the; a B: \/; a C: \/; the D: the; the The slash (\"\/\") here means \"don't fill anything\". The author says the correct answer is D, but I think C is also correct. Why is \"the\" required before \"reasons\"? What is the explanation from a grammatical point of view? Actually I am an EFL teacher and my native language is Chinese. I am quite confused about the question. I've asked the question somewhere else, but they failed to explain why \"of all the reasons\" is grammatically correct while \"of all reasons\" is not. Or do you also think they both are correct?","question":"Given: Of all ____ reasons for my decision to become a university professor, my father's advice was ____ most important one Which of the following choice is correct? A: the; a B: \/; a C: \/; the D: the; the The slash (\"\/\") here means \"don't fill anything\". The author says the correct answer is D, but I think C is also correct. Why is \"the\" required before \"reasons\"? What is the explanation from a grammatical point of view? Actually I am an EFL teacher and my native language is Chinese. I am quite confused about the question. I've asked the question somewhere else, but they failed to explain why \"of all the reasons\" is grammatically correct while \"of all reasons\" is not. Or do you also think they both are correct?","answer":"It has to be \u2018of all the reasons\u2019 because \u2018reasons\u2019 is post-modified and defined by \u2018for my decision to become a university professor\u2019.","output":"It has to be \u2018of all the reasons\u2019 because \u2018reasons\u2019 is post-modified and defined by \u2018for my decision to become a university professor\u2019."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere are three single-letter words. They are the article a, the pronoun I, and the interjection O. The pronoun I and the interjection O are always capitalized, but the article a follows normal capitalization rules. Why is this the case? When and where did this originate? Edit: As described in the answers to Question 7988, the pronoun I was first used in the 13th century, to avoid confusion with the dotless j, and was retained as a typographic convention because i \"gets lost\" due to its small size. However, this does not explain why O is always capitalized, but a is not, since a and o are approximately the same size.","question":"There are three single-letter words. They are the article a, the pronoun I, and the interjection O. The pronoun I and the interjection O are always capitalized, but the article a follows normal capitalization rules. Why is this the case? When and where did this originate? Edit: As described in the answers to Question 7988, the pronoun I was first used in the 13th century, to avoid confusion with the dotless j, and was retained as a typographic convention because i \"gets lost\" due to its small size. However, this does not explain why O is always capitalized, but a is not, since a and o are approximately the same size.","answer":"English capitalization is a can of worms nestled inside the larger swamp of English spelling -- i.e, there is almost never any good reason for why anything is spelled, punctuated, or capitalized any particular way -- they just are. Sometimes. However, one contributing reason for this particular feature is probably the fact that both I and O are usually stressed (as one can tell from the fact that they contain diphthongs, which require stress to avoid reduction), while a is never stressed and therefore always reduced to \/\u0259\/.","output":"English capitalization is a can of worms nestled inside the larger swamp of English spelling -- i.e, there is almost never any good reason for why anything is spelled, punctuated, or capitalized any particular way -- they just are. Sometimes. However, one contributing reason for this particular feature is probably the fact that both I and O are usually stressed (as one can tell from the fact that they contain diphthongs, which require stress to avoid reduction), while a is never stressed and therefore always reduced to \/\u0259\/."}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoes the idiom \"I'll take that under advisement\" in a non-legal context always (or usually) mean \"I'll ignore your advice\"? i.e. is it a polite (or not-so-polite) way to snub someone? For example, the following quote I found on IBDB, which is from the movie Die Hard (emphasis added): Hans Gruber: [after bad guys hit police ram with rocket] [in radio to bad guys] Hans Gruber: Hit it, again. John McClane: [in radio to Hans] Hans you motherfucker, you made your point! Let them pull back! Hans Gruber: [in radio to McClaine] Thank you, Mr. Cowboy, I'll take it under advisement. [to bad guys] Hans Gruber: Hit it, again.","question":"Does the idiom \"I'll take that under advisement\" in a non-legal context always (or usually) mean \"I'll ignore your advice\"? i.e. is it a polite (or not-so-polite) way to snub someone? For example, the following quote I found on IBDB, which is from the movie Die Hard (emphasis added): Hans Gruber: [after bad guys hit police ram with rocket] [in radio to bad guys] Hans Gruber: Hit it, again. John McClane: [in radio to Hans] Hans you motherfucker, you made your point! Let them pull back! Hans Gruber: [in radio to McClaine] Thank you, Mr. Cowboy, I'll take it under advisement. [to bad guys] Hans Gruber: Hit it, again.","answer":"It literally means \"to take away, consider and get advice on\". When used literally it essentially means \"to consider deeply\". But as with most English idioms it can be used ironically, for emphasis - and is often used so. Thus the meaning asked about of \"to ignore the advice\" is simply the ironic use of the phrase.","output":"It literally means \"to take away, consider and get advice on\". When used literally it essentially means \"to consider deeply\". But as with most English idioms it can be used ironically, for emphasis - and is often used so. Thus the meaning asked about of \"to ignore the advice\" is simply the ironic use of the phrase."}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCould somebody please explain to me what the differences between these words are? In which contexts should I use them? Can I say that I grab a sandwich? Or that I grip a sandwich? (And eat it afterwards ...) Can I grasp a sandwich??? (That sounds to me like I would try to \"understand\" it, but the verb \"to grasp\" can be used in that way, as well, no?)","question":"Could somebody please explain to me what the differences between these words are? In which contexts should I use them? Can I say that I grab a sandwich? Or that I grip a sandwich? (And eat it afterwards ...) Can I grasp a sandwich??? (That sounds to me like I would try to \"understand\" it, but the verb \"to grasp\" can be used in that way, as well, no?)","answer":"I would say, in most day-to-day situations, we simply \"hold\" a sandwich, or \"pick up\" a sandwich. These words you're asking about are a bit colorful, and they normally imply some kind of extraordinarily strong grip. \"Snatch\" means to grab something quickly, and perhaps steathily. I might say: The homeless boy snatched a sandwich off the tray, and stuffed it into his pocket. \"Grip\" means to hold something in a way that would make it hard for something to come lose. Bread is generally too soft for a verb like grip, but I suppose I might say: Having his first meal in three days, the prisoner gripped his sandwich greedily as he ate it. \"Grab\" is unusual, in that it has an informal definition, which NOAD defines as: grab (v.) informal obtain or get (something) quickly or opportunistically So, I could see myself saying: I'm kind of hungry; I'll grab a sandwich before I come over tonight. but, in that case, I'm not alluding to how I'm holding the sandwich \u2013 only that I'm going to get something that is quick and convenient. It implies I may buy the sandwich somewhere, or, if I'm making it myself, I might not put as much care into it as I would if I wanted to make something fancier or more delicious (for example, maybe I'll skip the mustard and just put the meat on plain bread).","output":"I would say, in most day-to-day situations, we simply \"hold\" a sandwich, or \"pick up\" a sandwich. These words you're asking about are a bit colorful, and they normally imply some kind of extraordinarily strong grip. \"Snatch\" means to grab something quickly, and perhaps steathily. I might say: The homeless boy snatched a sandwich off the tray, and stuffed it into his pocket. \"Grip\" means to hold something in a way that would make it hard for something to come lose. Bread is generally too soft for a verb like grip, but I suppose I might say: Having his first meal in three days, the prisoner gripped his sandwich greedily as he ate it. \"Grab\" is unusual, in that it has an informal definition, which NOAD defines as: grab (v.) informal obtain or get (something) quickly or opportunistically So, I could see myself saying: I'm kind of hungry; I'll grab a sandwich before I come over tonight. but, in that case, I'm not alluding to how I'm holding the sandwich \u2013 only that I'm going to get something that is quick and convenient. It implies I may buy the sandwich somewhere, or, if I'm making it myself, I might not put as much care into it as I would if I wanted to make something fancier or more delicious (for example, maybe I'll skip the mustard and just put the meat on plain bread)."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"You can spend all your time making money; You can spend all your love making time.\" from the song Take it to the limit by The Eagles, the phrase \"love making time\" makes me wonder. Does it mean someone refuses to make love (supposed that takes a long time on dating) in order to spend more time to make more money? I mean, \"love-making\" is a phrase to decorate the word \"time\", just like \"you can spend all your precious time\". or Spend love to make time, just like \"Spend time to make money\"? This becomes obvious when I read the answers to this question. So my question: How can one spend love to make time? Love is what you gain after spending a lot of time with other (if lucky), how can you spend love if you don't gain it first by spending time?","question":"\"You can spend all your time making money; You can spend all your love making time.\" from the song Take it to the limit by The Eagles, the phrase \"love making time\" makes me wonder. Does it mean someone refuses to make love (supposed that takes a long time on dating) in order to spend more time to make more money? I mean, \"love-making\" is a phrase to decorate the word \"time\", just like \"you can spend all your precious time\". or Spend love to make time, just like \"Spend time to make money\"? This becomes obvious when I read the answers to this question. So my question: How can one spend love to make time? Love is what you gain after spending a lot of time with other (if lucky), how can you spend love if you don't gain it first by spending time?","answer":"One of the great lyrics in modern English of course, it's straightforward, You can spend ... all your time ... making money, You can spend ... all your love ... making time, If it all fell to pieces tomorrow - would you still be mine? Note that \"making time\" is a slang phrase for (in short) \"trying to get sex\"; it's not unlike the phrase \"to score\" which you may know? The first phrase exhorts you, on the practical side of life, to not spend your whole life, worrying about making money. The second phrase exhorts you, on the love and romance side of life, to not spend all your time just trying to \"get sex\" -- to \"score\" -- keep a space for actual love. If you go ahead and read all the lyrics ... put me on a highway... ..it's generally a song about the loss of things you missed out on (a woman who loved me - and I didn't even know); the two lines you quote are the very epitome of this, the protagonist is even offering it to us as advice .. but for himself ... In the end though - heartbreakingly - the main character's only response is to just keep moving; too hop in a car and cruise away in to the desert. The song seems to have been primarily written by, associated with, Randy Meisner. (Obviously, it is one of The Eagles many Very Famous songs from the period.) In any event in answer to your question, you may not have been familiar with \"making time\" as a phrase associated with \"getting sex\". It's not unlike \"making out\" which you may have heard. So the pair of lines are a turn-about on (A) not wasting your life chasing money, and (B) not wasting your love merely chasing sex.","output":"One of the great lyrics in modern English of course, it's straightforward, You can spend ... all your time ... making money, You can spend ... all your love ... making time, If it all fell to pieces tomorrow - would you still be mine? Note that \"making time\" is a slang phrase for (in short) \"trying to get sex\"; it's not unlike the phrase \"to score\" which you may know? The first phrase exhorts you, on the practical side of life, to not spend your whole life, worrying about making money. The second phrase exhorts you, on the love and romance side of life, to not spend all your time just trying to \"get sex\" -- to \"score\" -- keep a space for actual love. If you go ahead and read all the lyrics ... put me on a highway... ..it's generally a song about the loss of things you missed out on (a woman who loved me - and I didn't even know); the two lines you quote are the very epitome of this, the protagonist is even offering it to us as advice .. but for himself ... In the end though - heartbreakingly - the main character's only response is to just keep moving; too hop in a car and cruise away in to the desert. The song seems to have been primarily written by, associated with, Randy Meisner. (Obviously, it is one of The Eagles many Very Famous songs from the period.) In any event in answer to your question, you may not have been familiar with \"making time\" as a phrase associated with \"getting sex\". It's not unlike \"making out\" which you may have heard. So the pair of lines are a turn-about on (A) not wasting your life chasing money, and (B) not wasting your love merely chasing sex."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat are the antonyms of recently? I have checked with a thesaurus and I got just two: before later Neither of those seems to fit into my call to action sentence - visit 10 URLs that were not accessed for the longest period of time. Visit 10 ... URLs If I use `before`, sentence does not make sense If I use `later`, sentence does not seem to make sense either If I use least visited it does not seem to refer to time but number of visits If I use bottom URLs it all depends on the sort order and does not refer to time In contrast, If I would be referring to the recent I can just say: Visit 10 most recently accessed URLs. What are the antonyms of recently that would fit into the context?","question":"What are the antonyms of recently? I have checked with a thesaurus and I got just two: before later Neither of those seems to fit into my call to action sentence - visit 10 URLs that were not accessed for the longest period of time. Visit 10 ... URLs If I use `before`, sentence does not make sense If I use `later`, sentence does not seem to make sense either If I use least visited it does not seem to refer to time but number of visits If I use bottom URLs it all depends on the sort order and does not refer to time In contrast, If I would be referring to the recent I can just say: Visit 10 most recently accessed URLs. What are the antonyms of recently that would fit into the context?","answer":"In your case (web site visits), some people use \"stalest\" visit 10 stalest URLs","output":"In your case (web site visits), some people use \"stalest\" visit 10 stalest URLs"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDoes the low in Speak in a low voice! He said in a low voice. refer to the volume\/loudness or to the pitch? Does it mean quiet, or low-frequency? EDIT: After understanding from your answers that the meaning is ambiguous (it may apparently mean either the first or the second or both), and after reading some answers to Please \"Mute your voice\"! suggesting \"lower your voice\" as a request to speak more quietly, I am adding a related question: Is the meaning of Lower your voice! also ambiguous, or does this particular phrase refer unambiguously to loudness?","question":"Does the low in Speak in a low voice! He said in a low voice. refer to the volume\/loudness or to the pitch? Does it mean quiet, or low-frequency? EDIT: After understanding from your answers that the meaning is ambiguous (it may apparently mean either the first or the second or both), and after reading some answers to Please \"Mute your voice\"! suggesting \"lower your voice\" as a request to speak more quietly, I am adding a related question: Is the meaning of Lower your voice! also ambiguous, or does this particular phrase refer unambiguously to loudness?","answer":"low (Of a sound or voice) not loud or high: keep the volume very low his low, husky voice It has, therefore, both the meanings. The same dictionary defines husky thus: 1 (Of a voice or utterance) sounding low-pitched and slightly hoarse: his voice became a husky, erotic whisper A low voice can be loud! (click 'More example sentences' in the low entry to open) His voice was low and loud, like a volcanic eruption sounds from inside the volcano. [EDIT] By the same token, lower your voice would also be ambiguous. However, there would hardly be an occasion to ask someone to reduce the frequency rather than the amplitude, other than maybe at an audition\/ recording session.","output":"low (Of a sound or voice) not loud or high: keep the volume very low his low, husky voice It has, therefore, both the meanings. The same dictionary defines husky thus: 1 (Of a voice or utterance) sounding low-pitched and slightly hoarse: his voice became a husky, erotic whisper A low voice can be loud! (click 'More example sentences' in the low entry to open) His voice was low and loud, like a volcanic eruption sounds from inside the volcano. [EDIT] By the same token, lower your voice would also be ambiguous. However, there would hardly be an occasion to ask someone to reduce the frequency rather than the amplitude, other than maybe at an audition\/ recording session."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it more correct to say \"I climbed up the stairs\" or \"I walked up the stairs\"? Climb is defined as go or come up a (slope or staircase); ascend. Walk is defined as an act of travelling or an outing on foot. Both are theoretically correct, but is one more correct than the other?","question":"Is it more correct to say \"I climbed up the stairs\" or \"I walked up the stairs\"? Climb is defined as go or come up a (slope or staircase); ascend. Walk is defined as an act of travelling or an outing on foot. Both are theoretically correct, but is one more correct than the other?","answer":"From Merriam-Webster: climb: to move or go up (something) using your feet and often your hands From Dictionary.com: climb: to ascend, go up, or get to the top of, especially by the use of the hands and feet or feet alone or by continuous or strenuous effort: to climb a rope; to climb the stairs; to climb a mountain Because climb when used without an adverb or prepositional phrase (e.g., over, over the rocks, down, down the stairs) implies \"up\", one should leave out \"up\" in this case. So, either of the following would be equally correct: I climbed the stairs. (Not \"I climbed up the stairs.\") OR I walked up the stairs.","output":"From Merriam-Webster: climb: to move or go up (something) using your feet and often your hands From Dictionary.com: climb: to ascend, go up, or get to the top of, especially by the use of the hands and feet or feet alone or by continuous or strenuous effort: to climb a rope; to climb the stairs; to climb a mountain Because climb when used without an adverb or prepositional phrase (e.g., over, over the rocks, down, down the stairs) implies \"up\", one should leave out \"up\" in this case. So, either of the following would be equally correct: I climbed the stairs. (Not \"I climbed up the stairs.\") OR I walked up the stairs."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs \"Black Swan\" considered as an insult depend on the context it has been used ? For a instance, using \"Black Swan\" as a name for a company name ?","question":"Is \"Black Swan\" considered as an insult depend on the context it has been used ? For a instance, using \"Black Swan\" as a name for a company name ?","answer":"The phrase goes back as far as the Roman poet Juvenal who, in the late 1st or early 2nd century, wrote: let her be handsome, charming, rich and fertile; let her have ancient ancestors ranged about her halls; let her be more chaste than the disheveled Sabine maidens who stopped the war--a prodigy as rare upon the earth as a black swan! \"Black swan\" at the time was probably a metaphor that something did not exist, but could; there is nothing theoretically impossible about such a swan, but by accident of fate, all swans are white. When the island of Australia was first visited by Westerners, though, a large population of black swans (Cygnus atratus) was discovered, utterly undermining the metaphor. About 10 years ago, the essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb repurposed the phrase to mean something very rare, so much so that people have difficulty reasoning about it rationally. I cannot think why it would be an insult, and there is even a book imprint, Black Swan Books, belonging to Transworld Publishers, which also puts out Bantam Books and Doubleday.","output":"The phrase goes back as far as the Roman poet Juvenal who, in the late 1st or early 2nd century, wrote: let her be handsome, charming, rich and fertile; let her have ancient ancestors ranged about her halls; let her be more chaste than the disheveled Sabine maidens who stopped the war--a prodigy as rare upon the earth as a black swan! \"Black swan\" at the time was probably a metaphor that something did not exist, but could; there is nothing theoretically impossible about such a swan, but by accident of fate, all swans are white. When the island of Australia was first visited by Westerners, though, a large population of black swans (Cygnus atratus) was discovered, utterly undermining the metaphor. About 10 years ago, the essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb repurposed the phrase to mean something very rare, so much so that people have difficulty reasoning about it rationally. I cannot think why it would be an insult, and there is even a book imprint, Black Swan Books, belonging to Transworld Publishers, which also puts out Bantam Books and Doubleday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nYou is kind","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"You are kind"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have to write this on a website, which one is better? Are you looking for [...](description of our service)? You've come \/ You came to the right place!","question":"I have to write this on a website, which one is better? Are you looking for [...](description of our service)? You've come \/ You came to the right place!","answer":"When you mention something that happened in the past, its timing isn't mentioned and is perhaps no significance to your mention, and you're mentioning it because of its significance in relation to something happening in the present then the present perfect is suitable. In this case, \"You came to the right place\" isn't grammatically incorrect, but it doesn't express as explicitly what \"You've come to the right place\" does: That, because of your having come here, you are now, in the present, in the right place (to receive good service, to eat a delicious meal, etc.). This use of the present perfect is summarized here.","output":"When you mention something that happened in the past, its timing isn't mentioned and is perhaps no significance to your mention, and you're mentioning it because of its significance in relation to something happening in the present then the present perfect is suitable. In this case, \"You came to the right place\" isn't grammatically incorrect, but it doesn't express as explicitly what \"You've come to the right place\" does: That, because of your having come here, you are now, in the present, in the right place (to receive good service, to eat a delicious meal, etc.). This use of the present perfect is summarized here."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI\u2019m struggling to find the word on google or reverse lookup that has to do with cute features, such as small arms, big eyes, basically the juvenile look nearly every animal has that elicits a care response in adults. It might sound something like neurism or eural, it\u2019s on the tip of my tongue. Edit for mods that closed this for off topic: needed it for a poem where the sound of the word actually is important. Example sentence: The claimed president Of the economy Delusioned a bit Hands spell ______","question":"I\u2019m struggling to find the word on google or reverse lookup that has to do with cute features, such as small arms, big eyes, basically the juvenile look nearly every animal has that elicits a care response in adults. It might sound something like neurism or eural, it\u2019s on the tip of my tongue. Edit for mods that closed this for off topic: needed it for a poem where the sound of the word actually is important. Example sentence: The claimed president Of the economy Delusioned a bit Hands spell ______","answer":"You might be looking for neoteny The retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species","output":"You might be looking for neoteny The retention of juvenile characteristics in the adults of a species"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy do Americans use so much redundancy? Is it because of their schooling or their every day influence? Or is it something totally different? Examples: It was an even tie. (They reached the finish line together, making it a tie.) Other countries abroad.","question":"Why do Americans use so much redundancy? Is it because of their schooling or their every day influence? Or is it something totally different? Examples: It was an even tie. (They reached the finish line together, making it a tie.) Other countries abroad.","answer":"To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they do it for purposes of emphasis, for example this sentence: That is a tiny little fish you caught there! The most common issue I see is with acronyms when the word is rarely broken out in common usage and people don't think about what the letters stand for. Can you tell me where the nearest ATM machine is?","output":"To give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they do it for purposes of emphasis, for example this sentence: That is a tiny little fish you caught there! The most common issue I see is with acronyms when the word is rarely broken out in common usage and people don't think about what the letters stand for. Can you tell me where the nearest ATM machine is?"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI want to know. what type of sentences these are and why do use past participle in these sentences instead verb first form please explain little bit deeply. and in 2nd example I want to know. Is it passive sentence if this is passive then please convert into active. 1)In order to understand the logic AND operation see the fig16.8 in which a lamp is connected to a battery using two switches S1 and S2 connected in series considered as two inputs. there are four possible states of these switches. 2) which are given below","question":"I want to know. what type of sentences these are and why do use past participle in these sentences instead verb first form please explain little bit deeply. and in 2nd example I want to know. Is it passive sentence if this is passive then please convert into active. 1)In order to understand the logic AND operation see the fig16.8 in which a lamp is connected to a battery using two switches S1 and S2 connected in series considered as two inputs. there are four possible states of these switches. 2) which are given below","answer":"Firstly, I should say that I am a learner as you, but I love to share my thoughts. If there is a flaw, I will be happy to know them. We use passive structures to concentrate on the object rather than the subject. In the case of the first sentence: In order to understand the logic AND operation see the fig16.8 in which a lamp is connected to a battery using two switches S1 and S2 connected in series considered as two inputs. there are four possible states of these switches. is connected to a battery ... : is a passive sentence. The author used passive voice to focus on the system's description. connected in series ... : is adjectival phrase-connected is an adjective or reduced relative clause- I am not sure. considered : is reduced relative clause- \"which they are considered .... \" Which are given at below : It is a passive structure. If you want to convert it to an active sentence, you will need to mention a \"subject\" which, in this case, author fits perfectly. Compare: The author gives aforementioned contents at below (Active Voice). The aforementioned contents are given at below {by the author} (Passive Voice).","output":"Firstly, I should say that I am a learner as you, but I love to share my thoughts. If there is a flaw, I will be happy to know them. We use passive structures to concentrate on the object rather than the subject. In the case of the first sentence: In order to understand the logic AND operation see the fig16.8 in which a lamp is connected to a battery using two switches S1 and S2 connected in series considered as two inputs. there are four possible states of these switches. is connected to a battery ... : is a passive sentence. The author used passive voice to focus on the system's description. connected in series ... : is adjectival phrase-connected is an adjective or reduced relative clause- I am not sure. considered : is reduced relative clause- \"which they are considered .... \" Which are given at below : It is a passive structure. If you want to convert it to an active sentence, you will need to mention a \"subject\" which, in this case, author fits perfectly. Compare: The author gives aforementioned contents at below (Active Voice). The aforementioned contents are given at below {by the author} (Passive Voice)."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow did it come to be that the main course of a meal is referred to as \"entree\", where that french word has always meant \"appetizer\"? Did someone translate it incorrectly it ages ago, and we haven't caught on yet, or is there another reason?","question":"How did it come to be that the main course of a meal is referred to as \"entree\", where that french word has always meant \"appetizer\"? Did someone translate it incorrectly it ages ago, and we haven't caught on yet, or is there another reason?","answer":"We're applying a French word to a Russian practice. This can only go wrong! More seriously, we're not even doing that, but the dining practice at most high-end Western restaurants that don't highlight the following of a particular ethnic practice is a late-20th Century adaptation of service \u00e0 la russe. Now, the fact that the English term for this is to use a French term that means \"service as the Russians do it\", is a potted history of this approach all in itself. Indeed, generalise that to \"the English term is a French term that means how they do it outside of Western Europe\" and you have a story that has repeated itself several times in the history of haute cuisine. Service \u00e0 la russe means that you have several courses, which are brought to the table as the previous one is finished, or ideally after just the right length of pause (a skill that sets a Michelin star quality meal apart from a merely excellent one, in itself). But really it means more than that, and what we have is the result of over a hundred years of changes to that style of dining, that is changing still as innovations from the far ends of the spectrum from the likes of Noma and the Fat Duck on one end, and fast-food establishments on the other, work their way into the middle. For a start, we most often eat only 2-3 courses with maybe a couple more on special occasions and even a 3-hour tasting menu may have less than a dozen courses (I don't recall one going above 12 including amuse-bouche and petit fours) where originally service \u00e0 la russe would have frequently had 13, 14 or more courses. Before then, we had service \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise which was also sometimes called service \u00e0 l'anglaise, but which wasn't really called anything until the French and English wanted a name to mean \"the way we used to do it, before this new fancy Russian way became fashionable\". This is close to a buffet style, but with some items brought to and from the table (what the Scandinavians still call \"cold table\" is close, if generally less showy). Most of the food would be laid out on the table in a manner designed to impress on first sight, with a roast ready to carve part-way through the meal, but some would be brought to the diners, and taken from them when they were finished. These dishes would be brought in with some fanfare, of which the best modern example (indeed, one that often goes beyond how it would have been in those days) being the piping of the haggis such as I would have enjoyed on Friday had their been any justice in the world and I hadn't been too busy to celebrate Burns Nicht properly. That is to say, they would have made an entrance, or in French, une entr\u00e9e. Even at this time, just which dish (or perhaps, just which entrance) counted as the entr\u00e9e wasn't a point of universal agreement, which possibly owes more to hosts' desire to place the focus on a dish other than the first, that they were particularly proud of leading to the term being applied to a course after the soup and\/or fish, than to either of those. So, in using entr\u00e9e at all, we're using a term of imprecise meaning, for something at some point in a particular type of service, while practising an adaptation of yet another type of service, in which we have much fewer courses, and in which those courses are nowhere near as well defined in terms of contents or sequence. Really not all that surprising that we don't agree on what it actually means, is it? I suspect that confusion over just what does and doesn't count as an entremet didn't help matters either (strictly a small dish between more substantial dishes, but it's an even older word being applied to an even more recent course, so it can be even less well-defined).","output":"We're applying a French word to a Russian practice. This can only go wrong! More seriously, we're not even doing that, but the dining practice at most high-end Western restaurants that don't highlight the following of a particular ethnic practice is a late-20th Century adaptation of service \u00e0 la russe. Now, the fact that the English term for this is to use a French term that means \"service as the Russians do it\", is a potted history of this approach all in itself. Indeed, generalise that to \"the English term is a French term that means how they do it outside of Western Europe\" and you have a story that has repeated itself several times in the history of haute cuisine. Service \u00e0 la russe means that you have several courses, which are brought to the table as the previous one is finished, or ideally after just the right length of pause (a skill that sets a Michelin star quality meal apart from a merely excellent one, in itself). But really it means more than that, and what we have is the result of over a hundred years of changes to that style of dining, that is changing still as innovations from the far ends of the spectrum from the likes of Noma and the Fat Duck on one end, and fast-food establishments on the other, work their way into the middle. For a start, we most often eat only 2-3 courses with maybe a couple more on special occasions and even a 3-hour tasting menu may have less than a dozen courses (I don't recall one going above 12 including amuse-bouche and petit fours) where originally service \u00e0 la russe would have frequently had 13, 14 or more courses. Before then, we had service \u00e0 la fran\u00e7aise which was also sometimes called service \u00e0 l'anglaise, but which wasn't really called anything until the French and English wanted a name to mean \"the way we used to do it, before this new fancy Russian way became fashionable\". This is close to a buffet style, but with some items brought to and from the table (what the Scandinavians still call \"cold table\" is close, if generally less showy). Most of the food would be laid out on the table in a manner designed to impress on first sight, with a roast ready to carve part-way through the meal, but some would be brought to the diners, and taken from them when they were finished. These dishes would be brought in with some fanfare, of which the best modern example (indeed, one that often goes beyond how it would have been in those days) being the piping of the haggis such as I would have enjoyed on Friday had their been any justice in the world and I hadn't been too busy to celebrate Burns Nicht properly. That is to say, they would have made an entrance, or in French, une entr\u00e9e. Even at this time, just which dish (or perhaps, just which entrance) counted as the entr\u00e9e wasn't a point of universal agreement, which possibly owes more to hosts' desire to place the focus on a dish other than the first, that they were particularly proud of leading to the term being applied to a course after the soup and\/or fish, than to either of those. So, in using entr\u00e9e at all, we're using a term of imprecise meaning, for something at some point in a particular type of service, while practising an adaptation of yet another type of service, in which we have much fewer courses, and in which those courses are nowhere near as well defined in terms of contents or sequence. Really not all that surprising that we don't agree on what it actually means, is it? I suspect that confusion over just what does and doesn't count as an entremet didn't help matters either (strictly a small dish between more substantial dishes, but it's an even older word being applied to an even more recent course, so it can be even less well-defined)."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe often say that the name of a person, place or thing is called noun. So, in which category, we include \"shadow\" as a noun. Though it is neither a place nor a thing or person.","question":"We often say that the name of a person, place or thing is called noun. So, in which category, we include \"shadow\" as a noun. Though it is neither a place nor a thing or person.","answer":"Shadow is an abstract noun. Various definitions of 'shadow' as a noun are given here. Feelings and intangible things are included in the category of abstract noun. 'Light' is also an abstract noun as we can't touch it.","output":"Shadow is an abstract noun. Various definitions of 'shadow' as a noun are given here. Feelings and intangible things are included in the category of abstract noun. 'Light' is also an abstract noun as we can't touch it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMilton slept in this room. According to Cambridge, sleep is an intransitive verb (A1). So we shouldn't be able to rewrite the sentence in the English passive voice. But I want the most important part of the sentence to be the room and not Milton, so I wrote This room was slept in by Milton. First, is this grammatical? Second, I thought the passive voice in English can only use transitive verbs?? I researched about the English Passive Voice on Education First and Purdue University's Online Writing Lab. This answer has been marked as a possible duplicate of Intransitive verbs with preposition in passive sentences. But the most upvoted answer there does not address the property of intransitive as assigned by the dictionary, which is an integral part of this question. In addition the same answer there is confusing because it says both that transitivity is not a property of verbs and yet ends up talking about transitive verbs. In addition, the same answer does not explicitly deal with verbs other than \"sense verbs\". So I'm not sure if that answer applies to to sleep.","question":"Milton slept in this room. According to Cambridge, sleep is an intransitive verb (A1). So we shouldn't be able to rewrite the sentence in the English passive voice. But I want the most important part of the sentence to be the room and not Milton, so I wrote This room was slept in by Milton. First, is this grammatical? Second, I thought the passive voice in English can only use transitive verbs?? I researched about the English Passive Voice on Education First and Purdue University's Online Writing Lab. This answer has been marked as a possible duplicate of Intransitive verbs with preposition in passive sentences. But the most upvoted answer there does not address the property of intransitive as assigned by the dictionary, which is an integral part of this question. In addition the same answer there is confusing because it says both that transitivity is not a property of verbs and yet ends up talking about transitive verbs. In addition, the same answer does not explicitly deal with verbs other than \"sense verbs\". So I'm not sure if that answer applies to to sleep.","answer":"\u1d1b\u029f\u1d05\u0280: Yes, this construction is perfectly grammatical* in English, and perfectly common as well. There are subtle restrictions on it, however, so not all such transforms produce things that sound right, or at least good, to a native speaker. \u0274\u1d0f\u1d1b\u1d07 1: It requires preposition stranding, which some decry \u2014 but they\u2019re wrong. :)\u0274\u1d0f\u1d1b\u1d07 2: Like Pullum, I won\u2019t be using the confusing term \u201cvoice\u201d here, though, because this is not about Latin.:) Prepositional Passives This construction is called the prepositional passive construction. It is one of several constructions sometimes dubiously referred to as a \u201cpseudo-passive\u201d one. Passives occur when a sentence (well, a clause) with an object is rearranged so that what had previously been an object is now that sentence\u2019s grammatical subject governing its verb, and the old subject, if included, ends up being the object of a prepositional phrase starting with by. Another way to say this is that passives are clauses whose subjects and objects get swapped around, even though the agent and patient remain the same. This reversal of subject and object is most commonly seen in clauses with direct objects, but it can also happen in clauses with indirect objects or even prepositional objects as well. Watch how in these pairs, the subject and object shown in the first of each pair exchange positions in the second, making it a passive: Passive with Direct object The dog bit the boy. The boy was bitten by the dog. Passive with Indirect object The school sent the winners prizes. The winners were sent prizes by the school. Passive with Prepositional object A thousand passing schoolboys have peed off of this bridge. This bridge has been peed off of by a thousand passing schoolboys. Just because the verb to pee is intransitive does not forbid it from being used in passives. It just can\u2019t be a passive formed by rearranging a direct object into a subject, since there can be no direct object with an intransitive verb. But intransitive verbs can certainly take prepositions, and these prepositional objects can be used to create passives, and indeed often are. You\u2019ll see in the examples I\u2019ve provided that the passive formed by the direct object has nothing between the be + participle and the word by that precedes the original subject. But with passives formed by the indirect object or the prepositional object, there are extra bits after the particple. I\u2019ve marked this by setting in italic the part after the participle up through the word by in my examples above. Passives, per Pullum In his most excellent essay on \u201cThe Passive in English\u201d, Geoffrey Pullum writes that: In English the prepositional passive is quite frequent, especially in relatively informal style. Most languages don't have anything like it (Norwegian is a rare example of a language that does). Why does Pullum mention informal styles? Because prepositional passives require something we call preposition stranding, which is when the object of a preposition has been moved to some other position in a sentence than immediately following that preposition. Since with prepositional passives we're promoting that object to the sentence subject, this by necessity strands that preposition. Of course, preposition stranding is perfectly normal in English, and always has been. But this is one of those constructions \u201cup with which\u201d certain pseudo-Latinate Victorian registers would so notoriously not put. That\u2019s why it is sometimes considered less formal: because it\u2019s something that informal registers are more likely to put up with outside of Victoria\u2019s earshot. Pullum goes on to observe that English prepositional passives do have restrictions about which ones are valid and which aren\u2019t: There are some peculiar restrictions on prepositional passives in English. One is that there can be a difference in acceptability according to whether the subject denotes an entity that is tangibly altered in state: This bottom bunk has been slept in is dramatically more acceptable than ??The bottom bunk has been slept above, apparently because sleeping in a bunk bed alters its state (the sheets are wrinkled and so on), while sleeping in the top bunk above it doesn't alter its state at all. Intuitively, you use a prepositional passive when the VP expresses a relevantly important property of the subject. That's a restriction on prepositional passives, because there is nothing peculiar about the active version Someone has slept above this bottom bunk. (Why would a language have a restriction like that? Who knows. I don't make or try to enforce any of the rules; I am merely trying to explain what the rules seem to be.) A native speaker \u201cknows\u201d which prepositional passives are allowed and which ones are not, but non-natives attempting to learn the language by inferred rules should probably take some care with them. Footnotes This is the footnote for the asterisk in the opening summary: Remember that \u201cgrammatical\u201d just means that something sounds \u201cright\u201d to a native speaker, and that \u201cnot grammatical\u201d just means that something sounds \u201cnot right\u201d to a native speaker.","output":"\u1d1b\u029f\u1d05\u0280: Yes, this construction is perfectly grammatical* in English, and perfectly common as well. There are subtle restrictions on it, however, so not all such transforms produce things that sound right, or at least good, to a native speaker. \u0274\u1d0f\u1d1b\u1d07 1: It requires preposition stranding, which some decry \u2014 but they\u2019re wrong. :)\u0274\u1d0f\u1d1b\u1d07 2: Like Pullum, I won\u2019t be using the confusing term \u201cvoice\u201d here, though, because this is not about Latin.:) Prepositional Passives This construction is called the prepositional passive construction. It is one of several constructions sometimes dubiously referred to as a \u201cpseudo-passive\u201d one. Passives occur when a sentence (well, a clause) with an object is rearranged so that what had previously been an object is now that sentence\u2019s grammatical subject governing its verb, and the old subject, if included, ends up being the object of a prepositional phrase starting with by. Another way to say this is that passives are clauses whose subjects and objects get swapped around, even though the agent and patient remain the same. This reversal of subject and object is most commonly seen in clauses with direct objects, but it can also happen in clauses with indirect objects or even prepositional objects as well. Watch how in these pairs, the subject and object shown in the first of each pair exchange positions in the second, making it a passive: Passive with Direct object The dog bit the boy. The boy was bitten by the dog. Passive with Indirect object The school sent the winners prizes. The winners were sent prizes by the school. Passive with Prepositional object A thousand passing schoolboys have peed off of this bridge. This bridge has been peed off of by a thousand passing schoolboys. Just because the verb to pee is intransitive does not forbid it from being used in passives. It just can\u2019t be a passive formed by rearranging a direct object into a subject, since there can be no direct object with an intransitive verb. But intransitive verbs can certainly take prepositions, and these prepositional objects can be used to create passives, and indeed often are. You\u2019ll see in the examples I\u2019ve provided that the passive formed by the direct object has nothing between the be + participle and the word by that precedes the original subject. But with passives formed by the indirect object or the prepositional object, there are extra bits after the particple. I\u2019ve marked this by setting in italic the part after the participle up through the word by in my examples above. Passives, per Pullum In his most excellent essay on \u201cThe Passive in English\u201d, Geoffrey Pullum writes that: In English the prepositional passive is quite frequent, especially in relatively informal style. Most languages don't have anything like it (Norwegian is a rare example of a language that does). Why does Pullum mention informal styles? Because prepositional passives require something we call preposition stranding, which is when the object of a preposition has been moved to some other position in a sentence than immediately following that preposition. Since with prepositional passives we're promoting that object to the sentence subject, this by necessity strands that preposition. Of course, preposition stranding is perfectly normal in English, and always has been. But this is one of those constructions \u201cup with which\u201d certain pseudo-Latinate Victorian registers would so notoriously not put. That\u2019s why it is sometimes considered less formal: because it\u2019s something that informal registers are more likely to put up with outside of Victoria\u2019s earshot. Pullum goes on to observe that English prepositional passives do have restrictions about which ones are valid and which aren\u2019t: There are some peculiar restrictions on prepositional passives in English. One is that there can be a difference in acceptability according to whether the subject denotes an entity that is tangibly altered in state: This bottom bunk has been slept in is dramatically more acceptable than ??The bottom bunk has been slept above, apparently because sleeping in a bunk bed alters its state (the sheets are wrinkled and so on), while sleeping in the top bunk above it doesn't alter its state at all. Intuitively, you use a prepositional passive when the VP expresses a relevantly important property of the subject. That's a restriction on prepositional passives, because there is nothing peculiar about the active version Someone has slept above this bottom bunk. (Why would a language have a restriction like that? Who knows. I don't make or try to enforce any of the rules; I am merely trying to explain what the rules seem to be.) A native speaker \u201cknows\u201d which prepositional passives are allowed and which ones are not, but non-natives attempting to learn the language by inferred rules should probably take some care with them. Footnotes This is the footnote for the asterisk in the opening summary: Remember that \u201cgrammatical\u201d just means that something sounds \u201cright\u201d to a native speaker, and that \u201cnot grammatical\u201d just means that something sounds \u201cnot right\u201d to a native speaker."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nExample with a context (The Object-Oriented Thought Process by Matt Weisfeld, 3rd Edition): There are a lot of variables involved in building a design and producing a software product. The users must work hand-in-hand with the developers at all stages. In the analysis phase, the users and the developers must do the proper research and analysis to determine the statement of work, the requirements of the project, and whether to actually do the project.The last point might seem a bit surprising, but it is important. During the analysis phase, there must not be any hesitation to terminate the project if there is a valid reason to do so. Too many times pet project status or some political inertia keeps a project going, regardless of the obvious warning signs that cry out for project cancellation.Assuming that the project is viable, the primary focus of the analysis phase is for everyone to learn the systems (both the old and the proposed new one) and determine the system requirements. I don't quite understand the phrase pet project status. Status in this context evidently means high social standing or something of that nature. If the phrase is to be understood as the status of a pet project, then why not say it exactly like that? I'm actually not even sure if my guess is even remotely correct. Clear things up for me please.","question":"Example with a context (The Object-Oriented Thought Process by Matt Weisfeld, 3rd Edition): There are a lot of variables involved in building a design and producing a software product. The users must work hand-in-hand with the developers at all stages. In the analysis phase, the users and the developers must do the proper research and analysis to determine the statement of work, the requirements of the project, and whether to actually do the project.The last point might seem a bit surprising, but it is important. During the analysis phase, there must not be any hesitation to terminate the project if there is a valid reason to do so. Too many times pet project status or some political inertia keeps a project going, regardless of the obvious warning signs that cry out for project cancellation.Assuming that the project is viable, the primary focus of the analysis phase is for everyone to learn the systems (both the old and the proposed new one) and determine the system requirements. I don't quite understand the phrase pet project status. Status in this context evidently means high social standing or something of that nature. If the phrase is to be understood as the status of a pet project, then why not say it exactly like that? I'm actually not even sure if my guess is even remotely correct. Clear things up for me please.","answer":"pet project status here means \"the status of being [somebody's] pet project\"\u2014that is, somebody influential is very fond of the project and insists that it be pursued. This is not the same thing as \"status of a pet project\", which would ordinarily be understood to mean the current state of development of [somebody's] pet project. Compare: My boss wants to know the status of her pet project. My boss thinks this project will advance her career, so I have to give it 'pet project' status.","output":"pet project status here means \"the status of being [somebody's] pet project\"\u2014that is, somebody influential is very fond of the project and insists that it be pursued. This is not the same thing as \"status of a pet project\", which would ordinarily be understood to mean the current state of development of [somebody's] pet project. Compare: My boss wants to know the status of her pet project. My boss thinks this project will advance her career, so I have to give it 'pet project' status."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSo say you have a car, which is composed of some seats, which are composed of some fabric You could say that the Seats are a subcomponent of the Car and the Fabric is a subcomponent of the Seat But is there a way to describe the relationship in the other direction? Like \"The Car is a supercomponent of a Seat\" Specifically, I am trying to list \"Subcomponents\" as well as \"Supercomponents\", and want to describe the lists accurately Here is an example of the two lists, if I'm looking at a Seat: Subcomponents: - Fabric - Cushion - Frame Supercomponents: - Car - Desk - Airplane I'm just wondering if there is another, better word for \"Supercomponents\"","question":"So say you have a car, which is composed of some seats, which are composed of some fabric You could say that the Seats are a subcomponent of the Car and the Fabric is a subcomponent of the Seat But is there a way to describe the relationship in the other direction? Like \"The Car is a supercomponent of a Seat\" Specifically, I am trying to list \"Subcomponents\" as well as \"Supercomponents\", and want to describe the lists accurately Here is an example of the two lists, if I'm looking at a Seat: Subcomponents: - Fabric - Cushion - Frame Supercomponents: - Car - Desk - Airplane I'm just wondering if there is another, better word for \"Supercomponents\"","answer":"In manufacturing, components are combined to create an assembly. You will see this word on parts diagrams and other documentation about how to construct a machine. In fact, a component is an assembly of its subcomponents. For example, most cars have what is called a \"tail light assembly\" which consists of a light bulb, socket, reflector, and lens. The \"seat\" in your list would be ordered from a supplier as a \"seat assembly\" to distinguish it from the \"seat frame\". However, there is a conceptual problem with your question: although the tail light is part of a car, a car is a lot more than something that has a tail light. In manufacturing, you might call the car a product or a machine. For your list, I would use used in or part of Seat has subcomponents: - Fabric - Cushion - Frame Seat is used in: - Car - Desk - Airplane Or just say a seat is a subcomponent of a car. Edit: On further reflection, I like my second answer better: Seat has subcomponents: - Fabric - Cushion - Frame Seat is a subcomponent of: - Car - Desk - Airplane","output":"In manufacturing, components are combined to create an assembly. You will see this word on parts diagrams and other documentation about how to construct a machine. In fact, a component is an assembly of its subcomponents. For example, most cars have what is called a \"tail light assembly\" which consists of a light bulb, socket, reflector, and lens. The \"seat\" in your list would be ordered from a supplier as a \"seat assembly\" to distinguish it from the \"seat frame\". However, there is a conceptual problem with your question: although the tail light is part of a car, a car is a lot more than something that has a tail light. In manufacturing, you might call the car a product or a machine. For your list, I would use used in or part of Seat has subcomponents: - Fabric - Cushion - Frame Seat is used in: - Car - Desk - Airplane Or just say a seat is a subcomponent of a car. Edit: On further reflection, I like my second answer better: Seat has subcomponents: - Fabric - Cushion - Frame Seat is a subcomponent of: - Car - Desk - Airplane"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is correct in English, non-existing or nonexisting? Searching sources on Google doesn't help much as both variants are widely present there. Onelook Dictionary Search doesn't show much about either option: nonexisting is in Wordnik, which references a Wiktionary entry that defines the word as \"nonexistent\", and non-existing is also in Wordnik, but with no definition, just examples taken from the web (e.g. comments from beneath online news articles). Oxford Dictionaries has an entry for \"non-existing\", defined as \"non-existent\". But \"nonexisting\" and \"non-existing\" are both absent from some other major online dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary.","question":"What is correct in English, non-existing or nonexisting? Searching sources on Google doesn't help much as both variants are widely present there. Onelook Dictionary Search doesn't show much about either option: nonexisting is in Wordnik, which references a Wiktionary entry that defines the word as \"nonexistent\", and non-existing is also in Wordnik, but with no definition, just examples taken from the web (e.g. comments from beneath online news articles). Oxford Dictionaries has an entry for \"non-existing\", defined as \"non-existent\". But \"nonexisting\" and \"non-existing\" are both absent from some other major online dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary.","answer":"Short answer: neither. The word you want is nonexistent. Longer answer: You can actually add a \"non\" prefix to any word to make up something new, even if it's not in the dictionary. (If you do so, common style says to use a hyphen.) After having eaten an endless supply of apples, she was pleased to finally be handed a \"non-apple\". You might do this because you think that non-apple has a better metre here than something that wasn't an apple. Typically, when you do this, a common style to indicate you're using it (while acknowledging it's unusual), is to put it in quotes. These are also called \"scare quotes\"\u2014or, in the real world, \"air quotes.\" Depending on your dictionary source, \"non-existing\" is not a word, and, in general, nonexistent would be used instead of it. (Although, if you primarily follow Oxford this is not a concern.) However, for the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't exist in any dictionary. Or that the hyphenated version doesn't exist anywhere. There could still be a circumstance in which you want to use the hyphenated version. \"He has no quality of life; he's just existing\". \"If you ask me, I'd call it 'non-existing' . . .\" In that exchange, the use of nonexistant is inappropriate because it doesn't express the same sentiment. Nor do nonexisting or not existing have the same meaning. So, for stylistic reasons, the made up word is used. But I wouldn't call it correct to use a nonexistent word outside of a context such as this, or without signalling (as by using quotes) your acknowledgement of its otherwise incorrectness. Edit: When I originally wrote this, I had made the mistake of only looking at existing comments and checking Merriam-Webster. I have since updated the answer, given the fact that it the word does exist in Oxford and some other sources.","output":"Short answer: neither. The word you want is nonexistent. Longer answer: You can actually add a \"non\" prefix to any word to make up something new, even if it's not in the dictionary. (If you do so, common style says to use a hyphen.) After having eaten an endless supply of apples, she was pleased to finally be handed a \"non-apple\". You might do this because you think that non-apple has a better metre here than something that wasn't an apple. Typically, when you do this, a common style to indicate you're using it (while acknowledging it's unusual), is to put it in quotes. These are also called \"scare quotes\"\u2014or, in the real world, \"air quotes.\" Depending on your dictionary source, \"non-existing\" is not a word, and, in general, nonexistent would be used instead of it. (Although, if you primarily follow Oxford this is not a concern.) However, for the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't exist in any dictionary. Or that the hyphenated version doesn't exist anywhere. There could still be a circumstance in which you want to use the hyphenated version. \"He has no quality of life; he's just existing\". \"If you ask me, I'd call it 'non-existing' . . .\" In that exchange, the use of nonexistant is inappropriate because it doesn't express the same sentiment. Nor do nonexisting or not existing have the same meaning. So, for stylistic reasons, the made up word is used. But I wouldn't call it correct to use a nonexistent word outside of a context such as this, or without signalling (as by using quotes) your acknowledgement of its otherwise incorrectness. Edit: When I originally wrote this, I had made the mistake of only looking at existing comments and checking Merriam-Webster. I have since updated the answer, given the fact that it the word does exist in Oxford and some other sources."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've always refrained from using words that weren't necessary to conform with grammar rules and didn't add to the meaning of a sentence. Being a fan of brevity, I don't use the complementizer that unless it is necessary for the sentence to be grammatical or it clears up an ambiguity within the sentence. But I've been told the complementizer that serves a stylistic purpose as well. Exactly what stylistic purpose it serves has always been a mystery to me. Whenever I ask someone, they respond with the frustrating answer \"sometimes it sounds better\". So what exactly is the stylistic end the complementizer that accomplishes? For instance: Raines said (that) this incident was \"uncharacteristic of most interactions\" between the U.S. and Iranian navies. CNN Col. Steve Warren said (that) 10 senior ISIS leaders operating in both Iraq and Syria, \"including several external attack planners,\" with designs on attacking western targets, had been killed in airstrikes. CNN If the complementizer that were inserted into the above sentences, how would that affect the way the sentence is read? This question is related to another question I asked yesterday, Does using \"that\" to introduce a subordinate clause serve any other purpose but to eliminate ambiguity?","question":"I've always refrained from using words that weren't necessary to conform with grammar rules and didn't add to the meaning of a sentence. Being a fan of brevity, I don't use the complementizer that unless it is necessary for the sentence to be grammatical or it clears up an ambiguity within the sentence. But I've been told the complementizer that serves a stylistic purpose as well. Exactly what stylistic purpose it serves has always been a mystery to me. Whenever I ask someone, they respond with the frustrating answer \"sometimes it sounds better\". So what exactly is the stylistic end the complementizer that accomplishes? For instance: Raines said (that) this incident was \"uncharacteristic of most interactions\" between the U.S. and Iranian navies. CNN Col. Steve Warren said (that) 10 senior ISIS leaders operating in both Iraq and Syria, \"including several external attack planners,\" with designs on attacking western targets, had been killed in airstrikes. CNN If the complementizer that were inserted into the above sentences, how would that affect the way the sentence is read? This question is related to another question I asked yesterday, Does using \"that\" to introduce a subordinate clause serve any other purpose but to eliminate ambiguity?","answer":"When the piece of text is read aloud, the word that marks the words that follow as reported speech. Consider your examples when read aloud without that - the words that follow \"(that)\" could be reported speech or direct quotes. In terms of style, that helps avoid this ambiguity. The strong link between that and reported speech can sometimes also help provide some emotional distance between the messenger and the message. E.g., \"Tom said you should go\" vs \"Tom said that you should go\".","output":"When the piece of text is read aloud, the word that marks the words that follow as reported speech. Consider your examples when read aloud without that - the words that follow \"(that)\" could be reported speech or direct quotes. In terms of style, that helps avoid this ambiguity. The strong link between that and reported speech can sometimes also help provide some emotional distance between the messenger and the message. E.g., \"Tom said you should go\" vs \"Tom said that you should go\"."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there a one word substitute for the scenario below, and what is the politest way of saying it to another person or colleague? I drink water from my bottle by touching my mouth When someone wants to drink water from my bottle, I need to inform him\/her in a polite way that I drank it by touching it with my mouth. This is because some people are concerned about this thing, and I don't want to embarrass them.","question":"Is there a one word substitute for the scenario below, and what is the politest way of saying it to another person or colleague? I drink water from my bottle by touching my mouth When someone wants to drink water from my bottle, I need to inform him\/her in a polite way that I drank it by touching it with my mouth. This is because some people are concerned about this thing, and I don't want to embarrass them.","answer":"\"I drank straight from the bottle. Do you mind?\"","output":"\"I drank straight from the bottle. Do you mind?\""}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've heard from some people that \"always\" and \"all the time\" are not always interchangeable. I have written down a few sentences below. (1a) Tom always writes novels at this table. (1b) Tom writes novels at this table all the time. (2a) They always go to math class with advanced calculators. (2b) They go to math class with advanced calculators all the time. (3a) I always enjoy working with you. (3b) I enjoy working with you all the time. In my examples, I think (1a)\/(1b) and (2a)\/(2b) mean the same meaning in their pairs. My non-native speaking friends think (3a) is OK but (3b) is wrong. What is your opinion?","question":"I've heard from some people that \"always\" and \"all the time\" are not always interchangeable. I have written down a few sentences below. (1a) Tom always writes novels at this table. (1b) Tom writes novels at this table all the time. (2a) They always go to math class with advanced calculators. (2b) They go to math class with advanced calculators all the time. (3a) I always enjoy working with you. (3b) I enjoy working with you all the time. In my examples, I think (1a)\/(1b) and (2a)\/(2b) mean the same meaning in their pairs. My non-native speaking friends think (3a) is OK but (3b) is wrong. What is your opinion?","answer":"In casual usage, they may be meant and used in the same way. (Although it would depend on the context.) However, there is certainly a difference in meaning. Taking only the first pair (because the same thing applies to all of them): Tom always writes novels at this table. This means that when Tom writes novels, he does his writing at this table instead of anywhere else. However, he may only write one month out of the year. Tom writes novels at this table all the time. This means that Tom spends the majority of his time writing novels and that he writes those novels at this table. He's more likely to write eleven months out of the year (at the table).","output":"In casual usage, they may be meant and used in the same way. (Although it would depend on the context.) However, there is certainly a difference in meaning. Taking only the first pair (because the same thing applies to all of them): Tom always writes novels at this table. This means that when Tom writes novels, he does his writing at this table instead of anywhere else. However, he may only write one month out of the year. Tom writes novels at this table all the time. This means that Tom spends the majority of his time writing novels and that he writes those novels at this table. He's more likely to write eleven months out of the year (at the table)."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is correct in a sentence? He don't He doesn't I guess \"he doesn't\" should be correct because he is third person singular but I've seen some people using do with he. Which one is correct?","question":"Which one is correct in a sentence? He don't He doesn't I guess \"he doesn't\" should be correct because he is third person singular but I've seen some people using do with he. Which one is correct?","answer":"He doesn't is correct, because it is the contraction of He does not. He don't is incorrect, because it it the contraction of He do not. Subject-Verb agreement requires that he goes with does. He don't, however, is slang and certainly used in many places, but you would never see it in professional writing, because of Subject-Verb agreement.","output":"He doesn't is correct, because it is the contraction of He does not. He don't is incorrect, because it it the contraction of He do not. Subject-Verb agreement requires that he goes with does. He don't, however, is slang and certainly used in many places, but you would never see it in professional writing, because of Subject-Verb agreement."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs learnt UK English and learned US? Is it that simple? I\u2019m used to using learnt, but my US spellchecker says it is wrong.","question":"Is learnt UK English and learned US? Is it that simple? I\u2019m used to using learnt, but my US spellchecker says it is wrong.","answer":"Merriam-Webster marks learnt as \"chiefly British\", and Wiktionary as \"UK\", adding that learned is the \"Standard US English spelling\". Quoting a linguist's comment from elsewhere, [The Corpus of Historical American English] shows that learned has always been more common than learnt in American English. At least, since 1810. So it's not like learnt is completely unheard of in Americal English, but learned has always been more popular, and according to the COHA timetable, the usage of learnt has been on a more or less steady decline since 1820: (X axis: year, Y axis: incidences per million words.) Nowadays, according to the Corpus of Contemporary American English, learnt is most popular in the context of fiction and academic publications, and least popular in newspapers: learned learnt RATIO SPOKEN 9370 18 520.6 FICTION 9624 88 109.4 MAGAZINE 11924 18 662.4 NEWSPAPER 9224 6 1537.3 ACADEMIC 8921 96 92.9 What's more, even the British National Corpus has more cites for learned than for learnt. The stats look as follows: learned learnt RATIO SPOKEN 161 291 0.6 FICTION 1066 409 2.6 MAGAZINE 341 171 2.0 NEWSPAPER 459 151 3.0 NON-ACADEMIC 778 321 2.4 ACADEMIC 837 273 1.6 MISC 1588 537 3.0 It is worth noting that Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Collins English Dictionary all list learned as both a verb form and an adjective, but learnt only as a verb form. Lastly, here's a related question: Dreamed vs. Dreamt, Leaped vs. Leapt, Lighted vs. Lit.","output":"Merriam-Webster marks learnt as \"chiefly British\", and Wiktionary as \"UK\", adding that learned is the \"Standard US English spelling\". Quoting a linguist's comment from elsewhere, [The Corpus of Historical American English] shows that learned has always been more common than learnt in American English. At least, since 1810. So it's not like learnt is completely unheard of in Americal English, but learned has always been more popular, and according to the COHA timetable, the usage of learnt has been on a more or less steady decline since 1820: (X axis: year, Y axis: incidences per million words.) Nowadays, according to the Corpus of Contemporary American English, learnt is most popular in the context of fiction and academic publications, and least popular in newspapers: learned learnt RATIO SPOKEN 9370 18 520.6 FICTION 9624 88 109.4 MAGAZINE 11924 18 662.4 NEWSPAPER 9224 6 1537.3 ACADEMIC 8921 96 92.9 What's more, even the British National Corpus has more cites for learned than for learnt. The stats look as follows: learned learnt RATIO SPOKEN 161 291 0.6 FICTION 1066 409 2.6 MAGAZINE 341 171 2.0 NEWSPAPER 459 151 3.0 NON-ACADEMIC 778 321 2.4 ACADEMIC 837 273 1.6 MISC 1588 537 3.0 It is worth noting that Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Collins English Dictionary all list learned as both a verb form and an adjective, but learnt only as a verb form. Lastly, here's a related question: Dreamed vs. Dreamt, Leaped vs. Leapt, Lighted vs. Lit."}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe classic example of this in my mind is the relationship between Lexus and Toyota. At least in the United States, Lexus is not presented as \"Lexus... by Toyota\". From a newcomer's perspective, it is a fully independent entity. For Toyota, Lexus was targeted at a specific market segment, sales to which might have been adversely impacted by using the Toyota name. The term I thought of for this was \"house brand\", but googling suggests that term's meaning is generally confined to supermarket generics like \"Sam's Choice\". Can someone please help me properly name this brand relationship?","question":"The classic example of this in my mind is the relationship between Lexus and Toyota. At least in the United States, Lexus is not presented as \"Lexus... by Toyota\". From a newcomer's perspective, it is a fully independent entity. For Toyota, Lexus was targeted at a specific market segment, sales to which might have been adversely impacted by using the Toyota name. The term I thought of for this was \"house brand\", but googling suggests that term's meaning is generally confined to supermarket generics like \"Sam's Choice\". Can someone please help me properly name this brand relationship?","answer":"Wikipedia's article on brand architecture suggests the term individual product brand for such cases: Individual branding, also called individual product branding or multibranding, is the marketing strategy of giving each product in a portfolio its own unique brand name. This contrasts with family branding, corporate branding, and umbrella branding in which the products in a product line are given a single overarching brand name. The advantage of individual branding is that each product has an image and identity that is unique. This facilitates the positioning of each product, by allowing a firm to position its brands differently.","output":"Wikipedia's article on brand architecture suggests the term individual product brand for such cases: Individual branding, also called individual product branding or multibranding, is the marketing strategy of giving each product in a portfolio its own unique brand name. This contrasts with family branding, corporate branding, and umbrella branding in which the products in a product line are given a single overarching brand name. The advantage of individual branding is that each product has an image and identity that is unique. This facilitates the positioning of each product, by allowing a firm to position its brands differently."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nFrom what I\u2019ve read on this site and elsewhere, the root \u201cman\u201d was originally sex-neutral; the sex-specific terms were \u201cwifman\u201d (which later became \u201cwoman\u201d) and either \u201cwerman\u201d or \u201cwepman\u201d. The male-specific prefix has long been lost in this context, but does it survive anywhere else? I.e., what would a modern reconstruction of the word \u201cwerman\u201d or \u201cwepman\u201d look like?","question":"From what I\u2019ve read on this site and elsewhere, the root \u201cman\u201d was originally sex-neutral; the sex-specific terms were \u201cwifman\u201d (which later became \u201cwoman\u201d) and either \u201cwerman\u201d or \u201cwepman\u201d. The male-specific prefix has long been lost in this context, but does it survive anywhere else? I.e., what would a modern reconstruction of the word \u201cwerman\u201d or \u201cwepman\u201d look like?","answer":"The Old English word wer survived into Middle English as \"were\" in both the senses of \"male human\" and \"husband\". Wer(e) is ultimately cognate not only with similar words in other Germanic languages but also with Latin \"vir\". The word wapman similarly survived into Middle English, meaning a male human being. Old English w\u01fdpnman was from w\u01fdpn meaning \"weapon\", but according to the OED, it was used here not in the sense of \"weapon\" but in the sense of \"penis\". FumbleFingers rightly mentions werewolf, which is thought to derive from wer, and since at least the 19th century writers have occasionally coined words such as wer-bear and werecalf, though it's not clear that they have had the word wer or any knowledge of etymology in mind when doing so. The OED (in an entry not fully updated since 1926) casts doubt on the etymology: The first element has usually been identified with Old English wer man were n.1, but the form were- in place of wer- (compare however were- and wergild wergild n.), and the variants in war-, var-, makes this somewhat doubtful. However, more recent etymologies from Oxford University Press sound a less sceptical note: ODO (echoing the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology) says \"the first element has usually been identified with Old English wer \u2018man\u2019\". Other dictionaries such as AHD and Collins accept the \"wer\" etymology - as does M-W, adding in a note that \"while some doubts about the word\u2019s etymology still remain\", \"wer\" is the most likely origin. The word wergild or wergeld also survives. According to the OED, it means: In ancient Teutonic and Old English law, the price set upon a man according to his rank, paid by way of compensation or fine in cases of homicide and certain other crimes to free the offender from further obligation or punishment. Here's a citation from 1902: F. Seebohm Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law i. 1 The Anglo-Saxon wergelds were stated, with perhaps one exception, in silver scillings. Between the 17th and 19th centuries, there are also examples of were or wer being used as an abbreviated name for wergeld: E. W. Robertson Hist. Ess. 236 (note) In later days it was a principle of Land-right that no free~man should be amerced \u2018above his wer\u2019.","output":"The Old English word wer survived into Middle English as \"were\" in both the senses of \"male human\" and \"husband\". Wer(e) is ultimately cognate not only with similar words in other Germanic languages but also with Latin \"vir\". The word wapman similarly survived into Middle English, meaning a male human being. Old English w\u01fdpnman was from w\u01fdpn meaning \"weapon\", but according to the OED, it was used here not in the sense of \"weapon\" but in the sense of \"penis\". FumbleFingers rightly mentions werewolf, which is thought to derive from wer, and since at least the 19th century writers have occasionally coined words such as wer-bear and werecalf, though it's not clear that they have had the word wer or any knowledge of etymology in mind when doing so. The OED (in an entry not fully updated since 1926) casts doubt on the etymology: The first element has usually been identified with Old English wer man were n.1, but the form were- in place of wer- (compare however were- and wergild wergild n.), and the variants in war-, var-, makes this somewhat doubtful. However, more recent etymologies from Oxford University Press sound a less sceptical note: ODO (echoing the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology) says \"the first element has usually been identified with Old English wer \u2018man\u2019\". Other dictionaries such as AHD and Collins accept the \"wer\" etymology - as does M-W, adding in a note that \"while some doubts about the word\u2019s etymology still remain\", \"wer\" is the most likely origin. The word wergild or wergeld also survives. According to the OED, it means: In ancient Teutonic and Old English law, the price set upon a man according to his rank, paid by way of compensation or fine in cases of homicide and certain other crimes to free the offender from further obligation or punishment. Here's a citation from 1902: F. Seebohm Tribal Custom in Anglo-Saxon Law i. 1 The Anglo-Saxon wergelds were stated, with perhaps one exception, in silver scillings. Between the 17th and 19th centuries, there are also examples of were or wer being used as an abbreviated name for wergeld: E. W. Robertson Hist. Ess. 236 (note) In later days it was a principle of Land-right that no free~man should be amerced \u2018above his wer\u2019."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHitchens wrote something in his god is not Great to confuse me again: Stalin then pedantically repeated the papal routine of making science conform to dogma, by insisting that the shaman and charlatan Trofim Lysenko had disclosed the key to genetics and promised extra harvests of specially inspired vegetables. (Millions of innocents died of gnawing internal pain as a consequence of this \u201crevelation.\u201d) I can't figure out what is the exact meaning of inspired here. Should I consider the meaning given by Oxford Dictionaries, which is: Of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse Or should I take the Merraim-Webster definition: having a particular cause or influence I don't know if I should consider any meaning(s) other than the above two. I would appreciate it if anyone could help me out with this. Thank you very much.","question":"Hitchens wrote something in his god is not Great to confuse me again: Stalin then pedantically repeated the papal routine of making science conform to dogma, by insisting that the shaman and charlatan Trofim Lysenko had disclosed the key to genetics and promised extra harvests of specially inspired vegetables. (Millions of innocents died of gnawing internal pain as a consequence of this \u201crevelation.\u201d) I can't figure out what is the exact meaning of inspired here. Should I consider the meaning given by Oxford Dictionaries, which is: Of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse Or should I take the Merraim-Webster definition: having a particular cause or influence I don't know if I should consider any meaning(s) other than the above two. I would appreciate it if anyone could help me out with this. Thank you very much.","answer":"The word \"inspired\" is often used of texts that believers accept as Divine Word. These texts are understood by believers to be \"divinely inspired\". So this adjective is used here to characterize acceptance of Lysenko's pseudo-science as mere belief; his words were another variety of empty \"revelation\". \"inspired vegetable\" is biting sarcasm.","output":"The word \"inspired\" is often used of texts that believers accept as Divine Word. These texts are understood by believers to be \"divinely inspired\". So this adjective is used here to characterize acceptance of Lysenko's pseudo-science as mere belief; his words were another variety of empty \"revelation\". \"inspired vegetable\" is biting sarcasm."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat does the writer mean by saying \"no worse than stealing?\" It is thought the scam, which stores say is no worse than stealing, is a product of our \u2018fast-fashion culture\u2019, where trends are popular for a short time then become outdated and therefore worthless. (Mail Online, 2013.11.3.)","question":"What does the writer mean by saying \"no worse than stealing?\" It is thought the scam, which stores say is no worse than stealing, is a product of our \u2018fast-fashion culture\u2019, where trends are popular for a short time then become outdated and therefore worthless. (Mail Online, 2013.11.3.)","answer":"The \"scam\" in question consists of buying fashionable clothes (which the article says have a very brief vogue during which a store can hope to sell them) with the intention of wearing them once and then returning them for a refund. Presumably the worst serial offenders wear an endless succession of new clothes at (effectively) no charge. For a particular instance of \"buy-wear-and-return\" to qualify as a scam\u2014that is (according to Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary), \"a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation\"\u2014the guilty party must intend all along to use the clothing without paying for it. Otherwise, the scam becomes indistinguishable from second-guessing or buyer's remorse. The observation that stores consider the practice \"no worse than stealing\" is, I think, ludicrously self-evident\u2014just as the observation that stores consider the practice \"no worse than firebombing an upscale fashion outlet\" or \"no worse than murdering a clerk\" would be. Of course it isn't worse, since at its most heinous the practice leaves the store with a slightly worn garment that is unsellable owing to the fickleness of fashionistas; in contrast, outright stealing leaves the store with a coat hanger. My guess is that the reporter meant to say that the practice \"is no better than stealing\"\u2014but she blew it. Initially I thought that \"no worse than stealing\" might be some sort of reversed-meaning idiom in the UK, but I was pleased to see that a commenter from Wiltshire responding to the story on the Daily Mail's Website succinctly wrote, \"Stores say it's no WORSE than stealing? Surely you mean no BETTER?\"\u2014and drew 41 up votes from other readers (versus 3 crabby down votes). The simple answer to your question is that \"no worse than stealing\" means exactly what you'd expect it to mean, but that the reporter in this case meant to say \"no better than stealing.\"","output":"The \"scam\" in question consists of buying fashionable clothes (which the article says have a very brief vogue during which a store can hope to sell them) with the intention of wearing them once and then returning them for a refund. Presumably the worst serial offenders wear an endless succession of new clothes at (effectively) no charge. For a particular instance of \"buy-wear-and-return\" to qualify as a scam\u2014that is (according to Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary), \"a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation\"\u2014the guilty party must intend all along to use the clothing without paying for it. Otherwise, the scam becomes indistinguishable from second-guessing or buyer's remorse. The observation that stores consider the practice \"no worse than stealing\" is, I think, ludicrously self-evident\u2014just as the observation that stores consider the practice \"no worse than firebombing an upscale fashion outlet\" or \"no worse than murdering a clerk\" would be. Of course it isn't worse, since at its most heinous the practice leaves the store with a slightly worn garment that is unsellable owing to the fickleness of fashionistas; in contrast, outright stealing leaves the store with a coat hanger. My guess is that the reporter meant to say that the practice \"is no better than stealing\"\u2014but she blew it. Initially I thought that \"no worse than stealing\" might be some sort of reversed-meaning idiom in the UK, but I was pleased to see that a commenter from Wiltshire responding to the story on the Daily Mail's Website succinctly wrote, \"Stores say it's no WORSE than stealing? Surely you mean no BETTER?\"\u2014and drew 41 up votes from other readers (versus 3 crabby down votes). The simple answer to your question is that \"no worse than stealing\" means exactly what you'd expect it to mean, but that the reporter in this case meant to say \"no better than stealing.\""}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhich one is correct? And do they have different meanings? Please let go of her. Please let her go.","question":"Which one is correct? And do they have different meanings? Please let go of her. Please let her go.","answer":"They are both grammatical but show up in slightly different usages: \"Let go of someone\" implies that someone is being physically held, as in directly restrained by hand. \"Let someone go\" could include a physical restraint, but could also refer to a any other sense of captivity or preventing from departure. It can also be metaphorical, suggesting that one be relieved of a relationship or job or other connection.","output":"They are both grammatical but show up in slightly different usages: \"Let go of someone\" implies that someone is being physically held, as in directly restrained by hand. \"Let someone go\" could include a physical restraint, but could also refer to a any other sense of captivity or preventing from departure. It can also be metaphorical, suggesting that one be relieved of a relationship or job or other connection."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhenever I think of a concrete noun, I think of something that can be perceived by the five senses. I was wondering, if I could see a particular practice taking place, as in a series of football drills, would the word 'practice' be a concrete noun? I can also see a 'lesson' taking place, so would that also be a concrete noun? Also, are sounds concrete nouns too? I can hear a 'bang', so would it be classed as a concrete noun? Thanks in advance for any answers to clarify this.","question":"Whenever I think of a concrete noun, I think of something that can be perceived by the five senses. I was wondering, if I could see a particular practice taking place, as in a series of football drills, would the word 'practice' be a concrete noun? I can also see a 'lesson' taking place, so would that also be a concrete noun? Also, are sounds concrete nouns too? I can hear a 'bang', so would it be classed as a concrete noun? Thanks in advance for any answers to clarify this.","answer":"The concept of concrete and abstract nouns does not hold up to serious scrutiny. In general, it seems that abstract noun describes an idea, a process, a state, or a group of things. Practice is probably an abstract noun because it describes a collection of actions, or processes, and each of those actions or processes is abstract. Ball, leg, foot, and shoe are all concrete, but the action of kicking a ball, the kick is abstract. Now, clearly you can see a kick - you can perceive that the leg has moved and the foot has collided with something. So maybe a kick is actually a concrete noun. Then let's try a more obviously abstract noun. When you look up descriptions of abstract nouns, one thing that you'll almost always see mentioned is emotion. A smile, they say, is concrete, but happiness, the thing that causes the person to smile, is abstract. With happiness, there seems to be nothing we can perceive - unless you define happiness as a mental state that is caused by an increase in certain chemicals in the brain. Brain chemistry can't be seen with the naked eye, but it can be perceived using special tools. And being visible to the naked eye must not really be the definition of concrete, since in that case, microorganisms would always be abstract. Or, let's come at it from the other direction, with an example of a concrete noun. A house seems like a nice, solid object. So what is a house? It seems to be a structure that someone lives in. But in that case, we're attributing a purpose (to be lived in), or a condition of existence (it is a house so long as someone lives in it) and purposes and conditions are definitely abstract. When it comes down to it, there's no entirely satisfying way to define concrete and abstract. Fortunately, it shouldn't matter. To be frank, I don't know why anyone teaches this concept. Before answering this question, I read all the results that apapeared on the first page of a Google search and none even began to explain why it would matter whether a noun were concrete or abstract. Grammatically, there is no difference between a concrete and an abstract noun.","output":"The concept of concrete and abstract nouns does not hold up to serious scrutiny. In general, it seems that abstract noun describes an idea, a process, a state, or a group of things. Practice is probably an abstract noun because it describes a collection of actions, or processes, and each of those actions or processes is abstract. Ball, leg, foot, and shoe are all concrete, but the action of kicking a ball, the kick is abstract. Now, clearly you can see a kick - you can perceive that the leg has moved and the foot has collided with something. So maybe a kick is actually a concrete noun. Then let's try a more obviously abstract noun. When you look up descriptions of abstract nouns, one thing that you'll almost always see mentioned is emotion. A smile, they say, is concrete, but happiness, the thing that causes the person to smile, is abstract. With happiness, there seems to be nothing we can perceive - unless you define happiness as a mental state that is caused by an increase in certain chemicals in the brain. Brain chemistry can't be seen with the naked eye, but it can be perceived using special tools. And being visible to the naked eye must not really be the definition of concrete, since in that case, microorganisms would always be abstract. Or, let's come at it from the other direction, with an example of a concrete noun. A house seems like a nice, solid object. So what is a house? It seems to be a structure that someone lives in. But in that case, we're attributing a purpose (to be lived in), or a condition of existence (it is a house so long as someone lives in it) and purposes and conditions are definitely abstract. When it comes down to it, there's no entirely satisfying way to define concrete and abstract. Fortunately, it shouldn't matter. To be frank, I don't know why anyone teaches this concept. Before answering this question, I read all the results that apapeared on the first page of a Google search and none even began to explain why it would matter whether a noun were concrete or abstract. Grammatically, there is no difference between a concrete and an abstract noun."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"On one of the mornings of disposal, a man from a second-hand bookstore visited us, bought several hundred books, and told us of the death of his brother, the word cancer exploding in the living room like a time bomb detonated by his grief\" E.B. White, The Points of My Compass, Goodbye to 48th Street, Turtle Bay, November 12, 1957 Is cancer an appositive of \"the word\"? If not then what?","question":"\"On one of the mornings of disposal, a man from a second-hand bookstore visited us, bought several hundred books, and told us of the death of his brother, the word cancer exploding in the living room like a time bomb detonated by his grief\" E.B. White, The Points of My Compass, Goodbye to 48th Street, Turtle Bay, November 12, 1957 Is cancer an appositive of \"the word\"? If not then what?","answer":"This is from the 1957 essay \"Good-bye to Forty-eighth Street\" by E. B. White. The final phrase is actually ..., the word \"cancer\" exploding in the living room .... The quotes are there to indicate that the reference is to the word for the disease and not the disease itself. This makes the quoted text an appositive since it identifies or renames the immediately preceding word \"word.\"","output":"This is from the 1957 essay \"Good-bye to Forty-eighth Street\" by E. B. White. The final phrase is actually ..., the word \"cancer\" exploding in the living room .... The quotes are there to indicate that the reference is to the word for the disease and not the disease itself. This makes the quoted text an appositive since it identifies or renames the immediately preceding word \"word.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI am quoting from The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the Stockbroker's clerk, by Arthur Conan Doyle. It says: \"I used to have a billet at Coxon and Woodhouse's, of Drapers' Gardens, but they were let in in early in the spring through the Venezuelan loan, as no doubt you remember, and came a nasty cropper\". I am wondering where was the company let in and what is the Venezuelan loan Hall Pycroft is refering to, It seems to me to be common knowledge since Pycroft and Waston have just met and Pycroft says \"as no doubt you remember\", but I still couldn't find such a thing as the Venezuelan loan, unless it's just imaginary.","question":"I am quoting from The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the Stockbroker's clerk, by Arthur Conan Doyle. It says: \"I used to have a billet at Coxon and Woodhouse's, of Drapers' Gardens, but they were let in in early in the spring through the Venezuelan loan, as no doubt you remember, and came a nasty cropper\". I am wondering where was the company let in and what is the Venezuelan loan Hall Pycroft is refering to, It seems to me to be common knowledge since Pycroft and Waston have just met and Pycroft says \"as no doubt you remember\", but I still couldn't find such a thing as the Venezuelan loan, unless it's just imaginary.","answer":"In this story, Coxon & Woodhouse was a firm of stockbrokers or similar financial business. Doyle implies that it was involved in the finances of a loan associated with Venezuela. Doyle uses \"Venezuelan loan\" as a fictional proxy for a real-life large loan associated with some distant (and in those days, either by implication or by public knowledge, risky) national business. The consequence of involvement in such a loan, risky and probably fraudulent, ruined Coxon & Woodhouse. The firm was \"let in\" in the sense of: \"let in\" = to involve or commit unfavorably \"the provisions \u2026 could still let us in for trouble\" \u2014 Elmer Davis \" ... smiled at all her schemes, little dreaming that \u2026 she was letting him in for some \u00a320,000\" Merriam Webster","output":"In this story, Coxon & Woodhouse was a firm of stockbrokers or similar financial business. Doyle implies that it was involved in the finances of a loan associated with Venezuela. Doyle uses \"Venezuelan loan\" as a fictional proxy for a real-life large loan associated with some distant (and in those days, either by implication or by public knowledge, risky) national business. The consequence of involvement in such a loan, risky and probably fraudulent, ruined Coxon & Woodhouse. The firm was \"let in\" in the sense of: \"let in\" = to involve or commit unfavorably \"the provisions \u2026 could still let us in for trouble\" \u2014 Elmer Davis \" ... smiled at all her schemes, little dreaming that \u2026 she was letting him in for some \u00a320,000\" Merriam Webster"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIf I want to say that there are two people and each one of them is found in other side of the house. What is the correct way to say it? 1) There are two people in each side of the house 2) There are two people in each sides of the house And by the way (in the same topic), are the two following sentences equal to the previous two - in the aspect of the meaning? 1) There is one person in each side of the house. 2) There is one person in each sides of the house.","question":"If I want to say that there are two people and each one of them is found in other side of the house. What is the correct way to say it? 1) There are two people in each side of the house 2) There are two people in each sides of the house And by the way (in the same topic), are the two following sentences equal to the previous two - in the aspect of the meaning? 1) There is one person in each side of the house. 2) There is one person in each sides of the house.","answer":"Two people on each side means two people on this side and two people on that side\u2014four people in all (if there are two sides). What you mean is one person on each side, one on this side and one on that. If you have not already explained that two sides are involved, you need to say so explicitly: There is one person on each of the two sides. OR There are two people, one on each of the two sides.","output":"Two people on each side means two people on this side and two people on that side\u2014four people in all (if there are two sides). What you mean is one person on each side, one on this side and one on that. If you have not already explained that two sides are involved, you need to say so explicitly: There is one person on each of the two sides. OR There are two people, one on each of the two sides."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhy does the place of the apostrophes differ in the following two titles? en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Two's_complement en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ones'_complement Which one is the correct?","question":"Why does the place of the apostrophes differ in the following two titles? en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Two's_complement en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ones'_complement Which one is the correct?","answer":"Grammatically all the following are correct: Two's complement = complement of a single 2 Twos' complement = complement of a number of twos (plural) One's complement = complement of a single 1 Ones' complement = complement of a number of ones (plural) The wikipedia articles describe two's complement and ones' complement as 2 different mathematical operations. Two's complement is related to a single 2 (to the power of another number) while ones' complement is related to a number of 1s so both are correct.","output":"Grammatically all the following are correct: Two's complement = complement of a single 2 Twos' complement = complement of a number of twos (plural) One's complement = complement of a single 1 Ones' complement = complement of a number of ones (plural) The wikipedia articles describe two's complement and ones' complement as 2 different mathematical operations. Two's complement is related to a single 2 (to the power of another number) while ones' complement is related to a number of 1s so both are correct."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\n\"What does she do?\" I asked. ... \"She gives luncheon-parties. You've only got to roar a little, and she'll ask you.\" If more context is required the novel is freely available on gutenberg Does it mean figuratively to make a small bit of effort (noise) to make yourself noticed?","question":"\"What does she do?\" I asked. ... \"She gives luncheon-parties. You've only got to roar a little, and she'll ask you.\" If more context is required the novel is freely available on gutenberg Does it mean figuratively to make a small bit of effort (noise) to make yourself noticed?","answer":"This recalls a rather rare expression \"A literary lion\", which means a famous writer a celebrity among authors. You only have to roar a little Suggests that he only has to act like a famous author and he will get invited to the lunch parties that Mrs Chadwick gives. The expression \"a literary lion\" is now rather dated, but I've heard (for example) C.S.Lewis described as a literary lion (with the obvious joke, as his books all feature a large talking lion).","output":"This recalls a rather rare expression \"A literary lion\", which means a famous writer a celebrity among authors. You only have to roar a little Suggests that he only has to act like a famous author and he will get invited to the lunch parties that Mrs Chadwick gives. The expression \"a literary lion\" is now rather dated, but I've heard (for example) C.S.Lewis described as a literary lion (with the obvious joke, as his books all feature a large talking lion)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the idiom for a situation that \"If people-in-authority don't follow their own set rules, then what can one expect from rest of us\" in similar examples given below in different settings: When HR themselves are tardy, undisciplined then what can you expect from the employees (punctuality and discipline)? When traffic police themselves are offending (driving without belts, smoking while driving) what can you expect from the vehicle driving community in the city? When parents themselves are undisciplined (smoking in front of children), what can you expect from the children themselves? When the management is insincere, what can you expect from their staff?","question":"What is the idiom for a situation that \"If people-in-authority don't follow their own set rules, then what can one expect from rest of us\" in similar examples given below in different settings: When HR themselves are tardy, undisciplined then what can you expect from the employees (punctuality and discipline)? When traffic police themselves are offending (driving without belts, smoking while driving) what can you expect from the vehicle driving community in the city? When parents themselves are undisciplined (smoking in front of children), what can you expect from the children themselves? When the management is insincere, what can you expect from their staff?","answer":"While not an exact fit (because it doesn't necessarily involve figures of authority), what about the following: If they don't practice what they preach why should we? from def: To do the things that you advise other people to do: He's such a hypocrite! He never practises what he preaches. (Cambridge) Also, while not an idiom, hypocrite fits as well.","output":"While not an exact fit (because it doesn't necessarily involve figures of authority), what about the following: If they don't practice what they preach why should we? from def: To do the things that you advise other people to do: He's such a hypocrite! He never practises what he preaches. (Cambridge) Also, while not an idiom, hypocrite fits as well."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have a question. I know 'a number of ' means 'a lot', and 'the number of' means 'the quantity of'. so.. I say, 'a number of apples.' and then, I want to repeat the phrase 'a number of apples' wherein the apples are the same apples. Then should I say 'a number of the apples' or \"the number of the apples.' I mean, when repeating the same thing, definite article is used, like an apple-> the apple. should I put 'the' in front of 'apples'? or should I change 'a' to 'the'? Thanks in advance","question":"I have a question. I know 'a number of ' means 'a lot', and 'the number of' means 'the quantity of'. so.. I say, 'a number of apples.' and then, I want to repeat the phrase 'a number of apples' wherein the apples are the same apples. Then should I say 'a number of the apples' or \"the number of the apples.' I mean, when repeating the same thing, definite article is used, like an apple-> the apple. should I put 'the' in front of 'apples'? or should I change 'a' to 'the'? Thanks in advance","answer":"A number of apples means an indefinite quantity of apples, roughly equivalent to quite a few apples or several apples. I have a number of apples in this bag. The number of apples, however, means a definite quantity of apples: the exact number of apples under discussion. The number of apples in this bag is seven. In both, the article (a or the) refers to number, not to apples; but while a-number-of acts is a multiword quantifier which acts as a determiner on apples, the-number is a standalone noun phrase which is modified by the preposition phrase of apples. Consequently, you cannot treat the two expressions as 'co-referential' like bare a and the, which can be used as determiners of the same entity at different stages of a discourse, because only one of them is used as a determiner. Thus, although these two pairs of statements work well enough: I have an apple in this bag. okThe apple is a Red Delicious. and I have seven apples in this bag. okThe seven apples are all Red Delicious. ... this pair of statements is impossible: I have a number of apples in this bag. \u2217The number of apples are all Red Delicious. If you want to do something like this, you have to use some other expression instead of a number of: I have several apples in this bag. okThe several apples are all Red Delicious. \u2217 marks an utterance as ungrammatical","output":"A number of apples means an indefinite quantity of apples, roughly equivalent to quite a few apples or several apples. I have a number of apples in this bag. The number of apples, however, means a definite quantity of apples: the exact number of apples under discussion. The number of apples in this bag is seven. In both, the article (a or the) refers to number, not to apples; but while a-number-of acts is a multiword quantifier which acts as a determiner on apples, the-number is a standalone noun phrase which is modified by the preposition phrase of apples. Consequently, you cannot treat the two expressions as 'co-referential' like bare a and the, which can be used as determiners of the same entity at different stages of a discourse, because only one of them is used as a determiner. Thus, although these two pairs of statements work well enough: I have an apple in this bag. okThe apple is a Red Delicious. and I have seven apples in this bag. okThe seven apples are all Red Delicious. ... this pair of statements is impossible: I have a number of apples in this bag. \u2217The number of apples are all Red Delicious. If you want to do something like this, you have to use some other expression instead of a number of: I have several apples in this bag. okThe several apples are all Red Delicious. \u2217 marks an utterance as ungrammatical"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was reading the about me page on an author of a poker strategy website and on one of the passages he describes himself as a pretty cool guy: This is the page where you get to read a little more about me and subsequently find out that the guy behind such a sophisticated Texas Hold em website is actually really cool. I looked up the meaning of cool and it seems like when it's used to describe a person, its meaning is negative. From OALD cool used with persons means: not friendly, interested or enthusiastic calm and confident in a way that lacks respect for other people, but makes people admire you as well as disapprove So what does he mean when he describes himself as \"cool\"?","question":"I was reading the about me page on an author of a poker strategy website and on one of the passages he describes himself as a pretty cool guy: This is the page where you get to read a little more about me and subsequently find out that the guy behind such a sophisticated Texas Hold em website is actually really cool. I looked up the meaning of cool and it seems like when it's used to describe a person, its meaning is negative. From OALD cool used with persons means: not friendly, interested or enthusiastic calm and confident in a way that lacks respect for other people, but makes people admire you as well as disapprove So what does he mean when he describes himself as \"cool\"?","answer":"He means definition 3. from Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Specifically, see their second example. 3 (informal) used to show that you admire or approve of something or someone because they are fashionable, attractive, and often different You look pretty cool with that new haircut. Dave's a really cool guy. It's a cool movie. When applied to people (e.g. \"pretty cool guy\"), I would say it is more likely to mean interesting and different than fashionable and attractive.","output":"He means definition 3. from Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Specifically, see their second example. 3 (informal) used to show that you admire or approve of something or someone because they are fashionable, attractive, and often different You look pretty cool with that new haircut. Dave's a really cool guy. It's a cool movie. When applied to people (e.g. \"pretty cool guy\"), I would say it is more likely to mean interesting and different than fashionable and attractive."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI was watching movie John Carter where there was some dialogue like this: \u2014 What happened here? \u2014 Zodanga happened. Here Zodanga was a bad guy in the movie. I don't understand how a guy can happen at some place, like it was said in that conversation? We generally use happened like this: \u2014 What happened to you? \u2014 Oh! I have been suffering from a head ache or met an accident or I haven't been sleeping lately, but we never say \"Silvia happened to me\" (as if Silvia was a bad person here).","question":"I was watching movie John Carter where there was some dialogue like this: \u2014 What happened here? \u2014 Zodanga happened. Here Zodanga was a bad guy in the movie. I don't understand how a guy can happen at some place, like it was said in that conversation? We generally use happened like this: \u2014 What happened to you? \u2014 Oh! I have been suffering from a head ache or met an accident or I haven't been sleeping lately, but we never say \"Silvia happened to me\" (as if Silvia was a bad person here).","answer":"Formally this can be analysed as an example of metonymy, a figure of speech in which a term that denotes one thing is used to refer to a related thing [Wikipedia]. Here, the name Zodanga (which normally refers to a person) is used to refer to his actions (which are a related thing). \u2014 What happened here? \u2014 Zodanga arrived and caused mayhem. The \u201ccausing mayhem\u201d is what happened; Zodanga is so closely related to that (as he was the cause) that his name is used to refer to the whole situation. Similarly with Silvia in your example. It\u2019s actually perfectly possible to use that construction if Silvia has a reputation for doing something particular. You refer to the person, and imply that what has happened is what they are famous for. It is correct (as you note in the question) that it\u2019s normally limited to bad events, and becomes slightly humorous when applied unexpectedly to someone\u2019s good reputation: \u2014 What happened here? \u2014 J. Paul Getty happened. That\u2019s why they\u2019re all waving $50 bills. Even when used of bad events, this particular construction\u2014using a person\u2019s name metonymically with the verb happen\u2014is rather informal and should be used mainly in informal contexts. Other types of metonymy naturally have their own level of formality, with some being very frequent in more formal or technical contexts; for example: HSBC dropped nearly ten points yesterday \u2013 is something you\u2019re quite likely to hear in a business meeting discussing stock prices. It is metonymy because HSBC here refers not to the bank or the corporation itself, but to the price of HSBC shares.","output":"Formally this can be analysed as an example of metonymy, a figure of speech in which a term that denotes one thing is used to refer to a related thing [Wikipedia]. Here, the name Zodanga (which normally refers to a person) is used to refer to his actions (which are a related thing). \u2014 What happened here? \u2014 Zodanga arrived and caused mayhem. The \u201ccausing mayhem\u201d is what happened; Zodanga is so closely related to that (as he was the cause) that his name is used to refer to the whole situation. Similarly with Silvia in your example. It\u2019s actually perfectly possible to use that construction if Silvia has a reputation for doing something particular. You refer to the person, and imply that what has happened is what they are famous for. It is correct (as you note in the question) that it\u2019s normally limited to bad events, and becomes slightly humorous when applied unexpectedly to someone\u2019s good reputation: \u2014 What happened here? \u2014 J. Paul Getty happened. That\u2019s why they\u2019re all waving $50 bills. Even when used of bad events, this particular construction\u2014using a person\u2019s name metonymically with the verb happen\u2014is rather informal and should be used mainly in informal contexts. Other types of metonymy naturally have their own level of formality, with some being very frequent in more formal or technical contexts; for example: HSBC dropped nearly ten points yesterday \u2013 is something you\u2019re quite likely to hear in a business meeting discussing stock prices. It is metonymy because HSBC here refers not to the bank or the corporation itself, but to the price of HSBC shares."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn a novel called \"Pattern Recognition\" by William Gibson is the paragraph: Seated, not bothering with the menu, Cayce orders coffee, eggs, and sausage, all in her best bad French. The girl looks at her in amazed revulsion, as though Cayce were a cat bringing up a particularly repellant hairball. \"All right,\" says Cayce, under her breath, to the girl's receding back, \"be French.\" What does \"be French\" mean here?","question":"In a novel called \"Pattern Recognition\" by William Gibson is the paragraph: Seated, not bothering with the menu, Cayce orders coffee, eggs, and sausage, all in her best bad French. The girl looks at her in amazed revulsion, as though Cayce were a cat bringing up a particularly repellant hairball. \"All right,\" says Cayce, under her breath, to the girl's receding back, \"be French.\" What does \"be French\" mean here?","answer":"More context would be useful. I see that the entire paragraph goes like this: Seated, not bothering with the menu, Cayce orders coffee, eggs, and sausage, all in her best bad French. The girl looks at her in amazed revulsion, as though Cayce were a cat bringing up a particularly repellant hairball.\"All right,\" says Cayce, under her breath, to the girl's receding back, \"be French.\" Put briefly: Cayce orders breakfast in bad French The girl looks disgusted Cayce says \"All right, be French.\" This is referring to a stereotype about French people, specifically, that they do not respect anyone who doesn't speak good French. The girl looks disgusted that Cayce is speaking bad French, and Cayce says, loosely, \"OK, then, obey the stereotype of French people if you want to.\"","output":"More context would be useful. I see that the entire paragraph goes like this: Seated, not bothering with the menu, Cayce orders coffee, eggs, and sausage, all in her best bad French. The girl looks at her in amazed revulsion, as though Cayce were a cat bringing up a particularly repellant hairball.\"All right,\" says Cayce, under her breath, to the girl's receding back, \"be French.\" Put briefly: Cayce orders breakfast in bad French The girl looks disgusted Cayce says \"All right, be French.\" This is referring to a stereotype about French people, specifically, that they do not respect anyone who doesn't speak good French. The girl looks disgusted that Cayce is speaking bad French, and Cayce says, loosely, \"OK, then, obey the stereotype of French people if you want to.\""}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI've written: (1) Taking action on climate change, is, if anything, the opposite of nimbyism. But there are other ways I could have written the exact same words, in regards to punctuation: (2) Taking action on climate change is, if anything, the opposite of nimbyism. (3) Taking action on climate change, is if anything, the opposite of nimbyism. The way I read this, the commas just represent where I would put pauses in if I were saying it out loud. For example (2) seems to emphasise the 'taking action' part. Whereas (3) seems to emphasis 'it might not be anything'. Is there any guidelines or rules surrounding how the usage of commas affects the meaning?","question":"I've written: (1) Taking action on climate change, is, if anything, the opposite of nimbyism. But there are other ways I could have written the exact same words, in regards to punctuation: (2) Taking action on climate change is, if anything, the opposite of nimbyism. (3) Taking action on climate change, is if anything, the opposite of nimbyism. The way I read this, the commas just represent where I would put pauses in if I were saying it out loud. For example (2) seems to emphasise the 'taking action' part. Whereas (3) seems to emphasis 'it might not be anything'. Is there any guidelines or rules surrounding how the usage of commas affects the meaning?","answer":"No comma between subject and predicate. You didn't write \"The way I, read this.\" You didn't write, \"the commas just, represent\". So why do, you want to write \"taking, is the opposite\"? This, is not the Declaration of Independence. Nowadays nobody, writes like that. Not even in YouTube comments will, you find such punctuation. One and three, are not an option. (And on a more general note, commas, do not \"just represent where I, would put pauses\".) If anything is a parenthetical and as such can be offset with a pair of parentheses, a pair of commas, or a pair of dashes (not hyphens). And that is all there is to it.","output":"No comma between subject and predicate. You didn't write \"The way I, read this.\" You didn't write, \"the commas just, represent\". So why do, you want to write \"taking, is the opposite\"? This, is not the Declaration of Independence. Nowadays nobody, writes like that. Not even in YouTube comments will, you find such punctuation. One and three, are not an option. (And on a more general note, commas, do not \"just represent where I, would put pauses\".) If anything is a parenthetical and as such can be offset with a pair of parentheses, a pair of commas, or a pair of dashes (not hyphens). And that is all there is to it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nThey are studying","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"They are not studying"}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm searching for slang or informal words that describe person who is bad at language, especially English. Is there anything like this in British English or American? I think about people who had moved to - for example - UK, have lived there for years, but their language skills are still low and full of grammar mistakes. I would be really thankful if you could answer.","question":"I'm searching for slang or informal words that describe person who is bad at language, especially English. Is there anything like this in British English or American? I think about people who had moved to - for example - UK, have lived there for years, but their language skills are still low and full of grammar mistakes. I would be really thankful if you could answer.","answer":"There is the rather sarcastic\u2026 He speaks accent with a trace of English .. a wordplay joke on He speaks English with a trace of an accent which would be complimentary.","output":"There is the rather sarcastic\u2026 He speaks accent with a trace of English .. a wordplay joke on He speaks English with a trace of an accent which would be complimentary."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for the word for a room, part of an apartment house, that would be used to do laundry. In Germany there are sometimes these \"tenants' laundromats\" \u2013 and also in Scandinavia I have seen rooms shared by the tenants, usually equipped with a couple of washing machines. Sometimes there is also a drying room, where you can hang the laundry. Any pointers appreciated! Thanks!","question":"I'm looking for the word for a room, part of an apartment house, that would be used to do laundry. In Germany there are sometimes these \"tenants' laundromats\" \u2013 and also in Scandinavia I have seen rooms shared by the tenants, usually equipped with a couple of washing machines. Sometimes there is also a drying room, where you can hang the laundry. Any pointers appreciated! Thanks!","answer":"This is usually just called the \"laundry room\". It could be for a single apartment or house, or it could be a communal space with several washers and dryers.","output":"This is usually just called the \"laundry room\". It could be for a single apartment or house, or it could be a communal space with several washers and dryers."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs it at all correct to say let me by or let me past? If so, is it a common expression or an old-fashioned or rare one? I guess most people would say make way to indicate (maybe a bit rudely) that they want to go past someone who blocks the way. Am I right? Is could you please let me past a good and acceptable way of saying this more politely?","question":"Is it at all correct to say let me by or let me past? If so, is it a common expression or an old-fashioned or rare one? I guess most people would say make way to indicate (maybe a bit rudely) that they want to go past someone who blocks the way. Am I right? Is could you please let me past a good and acceptable way of saying this more politely?","answer":"Make way sounds archaic, I wouldn't expect it in ordinary speech, only in historical\/pseudohistorical contexts or in regard to royalty (in case it matters, I speak American English). The rest of these are pretty much synonymous, if differing in politeness. These are pretty polite: Excuse me, could (or can) I get by you? Could you please let me pass (or past)? Excuse me Could (or can) I get by you? While there are somewhat rude, especially without a please at the end: Let me by Let me pass (or past) I use excuse me most often out of these, when passing by a person or through a crowd of people, sometimes coupled with a sorry for inconveniencing them (however slightly). You could add please to the end of any of these to raise the politeness a bit. Adding a thanks after someone moves for you would be appropriate, too. Excuse me can mean many things, but in this context, it's usually clear.","output":"Make way sounds archaic, I wouldn't expect it in ordinary speech, only in historical\/pseudohistorical contexts or in regard to royalty (in case it matters, I speak American English). The rest of these are pretty much synonymous, if differing in politeness. These are pretty polite: Excuse me, could (or can) I get by you? Could you please let me pass (or past)? Excuse me Could (or can) I get by you? While there are somewhat rude, especially without a please at the end: Let me by Let me pass (or past) I use excuse me most often out of these, when passing by a person or through a crowd of people, sometimes coupled with a sorry for inconveniencing them (however slightly). You could add please to the end of any of these to raise the politeness a bit. Adding a thanks after someone moves for you would be appropriate, too. Excuse me can mean many things, but in this context, it's usually clear."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI checked the dictionary for the meaning of this expression. It means \"not very many or not appearing very frequently\". Can anybody decompose this structure and justify why the expression gets this meaning? Especially, what is the \"far between\" part meaning here? Thanks","question":"I checked the dictionary for the meaning of this expression. It means \"not very many or not appearing very frequently\". Can anybody decompose this structure and justify why the expression gets this meaning? Especially, what is the \"far between\" part meaning here? Thanks","answer":"This sentence: In the desert, gas stations are few and far between. means that there are few gas stations in the desert, and there is a lot of space between any two gas stations. In other words, there are few gas stations and they are widely dispersed. Far between refers to the distance between the gas stations. I'm a native speaker, and I found this expression confusing for many years. But it does make sense.","output":"This sentence: In the desert, gas stations are few and far between. means that there are few gas stations in the desert, and there is a lot of space between any two gas stations. In other words, there are few gas stations and they are widely dispersed. Far between refers to the distance between the gas stations. I'm a native speaker, and I found this expression confusing for many years. But it does make sense."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nI go to school","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"I went to school"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat has changed with this tragedy is people\u2019s willingness to recognize that religion really does make people do terrible things. This is from the latest New Republic, the author means that as the Charlie Hebdo slaughter happened, our opinion changed with regard to the relation between religion and terrible behavior. I can figure out his meaning, but am not sure about its semantic sense. How can the \u201cis\u201d link up the subject of change with the result of change. It seems to me what he exactly means is like \u201cwhat comes into being because of the tragedy is..\u201d. Does \u201cchange\u201d also means \u201ccome into being\u201d?","question":"What has changed with this tragedy is people\u2019s willingness to recognize that religion really does make people do terrible things. This is from the latest New Republic, the author means that as the Charlie Hebdo slaughter happened, our opinion changed with regard to the relation between religion and terrible behavior. I can figure out his meaning, but am not sure about its semantic sense. How can the \u201cis\u201d link up the subject of change with the result of change. It seems to me what he exactly means is like \u201cwhat comes into being because of the tragedy is..\u201d. Does \u201cchange\u201d also means \u201ccome into being\u201d?","answer":"Before the tragedy, people's willingness was low. The tragedy raised their willingness. Since the tragedy, what has changed? Their willingness. Their willingness is the the thing that has changed. If you replace \"What has changed\" with \"The thing that has changed\" in the sentence, it might be clearer.","output":"Before the tragedy, people's willingness was low. The tragedy raised their willingness. Since the tragedy, what has changed? Their willingness. Their willingness is the the thing that has changed. If you replace \"What has changed\" with \"The thing that has changed\" in the sentence, it might be clearer."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere's an old article from the New Yorker, called \"Eleven Blue Men\" (Berton Roueche, 1947), about an outbreak of cyanosis in Manhattan, which public health officials traced back to a mislabeled can of saltpetre at a dingy cafeteria called the Eclipse. One of the officials, describing the Eclipse, says, [It was] strictly a horse market, and dirtier than most. Does \"horse market\" have a specific meaning in this context? Is it just a poetic way of saying the place was dirty? Is he suggesting they served horse meat? Or maybe that junkies liked to hang out there (since \"horse\" can sometimes mean heroin)?","question":"There's an old article from the New Yorker, called \"Eleven Blue Men\" (Berton Roueche, 1947), about an outbreak of cyanosis in Manhattan, which public health officials traced back to a mislabeled can of saltpetre at a dingy cafeteria called the Eclipse. One of the officials, describing the Eclipse, says, [It was] strictly a horse market, and dirtier than most. Does \"horse market\" have a specific meaning in this context? Is it just a poetic way of saying the place was dirty? Is he suggesting they served horse meat? Or maybe that junkies liked to hang out there (since \"horse\" can sometimes mean heroin)?","answer":"I found an interesting reference here that leads me to conclude that, differently from cattle markets or other meat markets, horse markets were particularly known as hangouts of ne'er do wells and scammers \u2014 largely due to the prevalence of horse thievery and the subsequent need to sell stolen horses quickly. Reading your quote, I interpret the official to be saying that the place was overrun with undesireables and was filthy.","output":"I found an interesting reference here that leads me to conclude that, differently from cattle markets or other meat markets, horse markets were particularly known as hangouts of ne'er do wells and scammers \u2014 largely due to the prevalence of horse thievery and the subsequent need to sell stolen horses quickly. Reading your quote, I interpret the official to be saying that the place was overrun with undesireables and was filthy."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nAccording to this article, \"[a]ir-conditioningitis occurs when the body cannot adjust properly to the sharp differences in temperature between the cool air-conditioned indoors and the warm outdoors.\" But I've never heard any native speaker use this term or any other term even remotely related to this sort of \"disease\". How familiar are you, as a native speaker, with this term or this type of disease itself? Is this something you'd consider a disease at all? Edit: If the disease itself is legit, what would you call it?","question":"According to this article, \"[a]ir-conditioningitis occurs when the body cannot adjust properly to the sharp differences in temperature between the cool air-conditioned indoors and the warm outdoors.\" But I've never heard any native speaker use this term or any other term even remotely related to this sort of \"disease\". How familiar are you, as a native speaker, with this term or this type of disease itself? Is this something you'd consider a disease at all? Edit: If the disease itself is legit, what would you call it?","answer":"The -itis suffix is sometimes used informally make up a name for something that has perceived disease like qualities. In some cases the speaker may be joking or simply using the term to make a point. In other cases the speaker may believe that they are describing a genuine malady but lacks a better or \"official\" word to describe it. While medically -itis denotes inflammation, in cases such as the example given it should be taken to mean the problem (i.e. disease) is caused by or related to the word being modified. In other words, the term air-conditioningitis is not in common usage by native speakers, but the manner in which it is constructed is not uncommon. As to the condition itself, I have no idea of it's a real thing and the name given sounds as good as any to me.","output":"The -itis suffix is sometimes used informally make up a name for something that has perceived disease like qualities. In some cases the speaker may be joking or simply using the term to make a point. In other cases the speaker may believe that they are describing a genuine malady but lacks a better or \"official\" word to describe it. While medically -itis denotes inflammation, in cases such as the example given it should be taken to mean the problem (i.e. disease) is caused by or related to the word being modified. In other words, the term air-conditioningitis is not in common usage by native speakers, but the manner in which it is constructed is not uncommon. As to the condition itself, I have no idea of it's a real thing and the name given sounds as good as any to me."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThe Stack Exchange Winter Bash 2013 has me thinking about hats, as my collection is growing. I know that the terms for people who collect specific things are generally obscure, but they do exist. Perhaps the most common of those types of words is \"philatelist\"\u2014 a person who collects stamps. Is there a similar word for a person who collects hats?","question":"The Stack Exchange Winter Bash 2013 has me thinking about hats, as my collection is growing. I know that the terms for people who collect specific things are generally obscure, but they do exist. Perhaps the most common of those types of words is \"philatelist\"\u2014 a person who collects stamps. Is there a similar word for a person who collects hats?","answer":"There isn't really a specific word for someone who likes\/collects hats (i.e. - you won't find one in a dictionary). But people who are interested in hats may well know that... A hat maker is called a milliner. ...in which case they would doubtless understand this coinage that I found in Google Books... Sadly, living in sunny, funny LA, l have to wait for bad weather to visit the milliner. lf you're a millinophile like me, don't miss The Millionairess. Since wealthy people could more easily afford to buy lots of expensive hats, it's at least possible that \"The Millionairess\" is a deliberate play on words there, but probably it's just a coincidence.","output":"There isn't really a specific word for someone who likes\/collects hats (i.e. - you won't find one in a dictionary). But people who are interested in hats may well know that... A hat maker is called a milliner. ...in which case they would doubtless understand this coinage that I found in Google Books... Sadly, living in sunny, funny LA, l have to wait for bad weather to visit the milliner. lf you're a millinophile like me, don't miss The Millionairess. Since wealthy people could more easily afford to buy lots of expensive hats, it's at least possible that \"The Millionairess\" is a deliberate play on words there, but probably it's just a coincidence."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn Romeo and Juliet, Capulet delivers a speech to Paris about his consent for him to court Juliet. With the exception of the first three lines, his speech would follow a coupled rhyme scheme... 16 But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart. My will to her consent is but a part. An she agreed within her scope of choice, Lies my consent and fair according voice. 20 This night, I hold an old accustomed feast, Whereto I have invited many a guest Such as I love. And you among the store, One more, most welcome, makes my numbers more. At my poor house look to behold this night 25 Earth-treading stars that make dark heaven light. However, this pattern is broken with the third couplet feast and guest. This happens again towards the end of the scene, which leads me to believe that feast should be pronounced \/fest\/. Is there any other evidence of feast being pronounced as such during this time period? The etymology shows that feast was derived from the French, feste, in the 13th century, but that was 300 years before Shakespeare was born...","question":"In Romeo and Juliet, Capulet delivers a speech to Paris about his consent for him to court Juliet. With the exception of the first three lines, his speech would follow a coupled rhyme scheme... 16 But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart. My will to her consent is but a part. An she agreed within her scope of choice, Lies my consent and fair according voice. 20 This night, I hold an old accustomed feast, Whereto I have invited many a guest Such as I love. And you among the store, One more, most welcome, makes my numbers more. At my poor house look to behold this night 25 Earth-treading stars that make dark heaven light. However, this pattern is broken with the third couplet feast and guest. This happens again towards the end of the scene, which leads me to believe that feast should be pronounced \/fest\/. Is there any other evidence of feast being pronounced as such during this time period? The etymology shows that feast was derived from the French, feste, in the 13th century, but that was 300 years before Shakespeare was born...","answer":"TLDR: For John Donne, who was a contemporary of Shakespeare, it appears they weren't perfect rhymes, but good near-rhymes. Looking at what words John Donne rhymed with feast, guest, and rest, in his poetry, John Donne usually rhymed feast with beast, while he rhymed guest with words like breast, chest, possest, and rest, that we would think of rhyming today. However, he occasionally used a rhyme between these two sets of words, like beast and rest. How were these words actually pronounced by Shakespeare? Guest had a short vowel in Middle English and has the same short vowel today, so it presumably was pronounced [g\u025bst]. Feast started out in Middle English with the long vowel [\u025b\u02d0], but the Great Vowel Shift, which was well underway when Shakespeare wrote, raised [\u025b\u02d0] to the value it has today, [i\u02d0]. So it would have been pronounced somewhere between these two, maybe as [fe\u02d0st]. Since they were good near-rhymes, it seems unlikely that feast had the vowel it does today. John Donne (1572\u20141631), who wrote his poems at approximately the same time as Shakespeare, rhymed feast with beast four times, and did not rhyme it with anything else. And let his carrion coarse be a longer feast To the Kings dogges, then any other beast. The tables groane, as though this feast Would, as the flood, destroy all fowle and beast. You, and not only you, but all toyl'd beasts Rest duly; at night all their toyles are dispensed; But in their beds commenced Are other labours, and more dainty feasts; So may thy pastures with their flowery feasts, As suddenly as Lard, fat thy leane beasts; However, he rhymes beast with jest and rest, as well as feast. We will not strive with Love that's a shee beaste; But playinge wee are bounde, and yeald in Jest; Can use his horse, goate, wolfe, and every beast, And is not Asse himselfe to all the rest. And looking at what Donne rhymes with guest, we have That they did harbour Christ himself, a Guest, Harbour these Hymns, to his dear name addrest. this bowre vnfit for such a gueste, but since she makes it now her Inn, Would god twere like her sacred breast most fayre without, most rich within. TIS lost, to trust a Tombe with such a guest, Or to confine her in a marble chest. So, of a lone unhaunted place possest, Did this soules second Inne, built by the guest, This living buried man, this quiet mandrake, rest. Looking at what he rhymes with rest, while he does rhyme it with beast, most of the time he rhymes rest with a word like best, blest, breast, devest, digest, possest, protest, west, which we would think of as rhyming in modern English. From this, I would conclude feast did not rhyme with guest in Elizabethan English (at least, the variety that John Donne spoke), but was a good near-rhyme.","output":"TLDR: For John Donne, who was a contemporary of Shakespeare, it appears they weren't perfect rhymes, but good near-rhymes. Looking at what words John Donne rhymed with feast, guest, and rest, in his poetry, John Donne usually rhymed feast with beast, while he rhymed guest with words like breast, chest, possest, and rest, that we would think of rhyming today. However, he occasionally used a rhyme between these two sets of words, like beast and rest. How were these words actually pronounced by Shakespeare? Guest had a short vowel in Middle English and has the same short vowel today, so it presumably was pronounced [g\u025bst]. Feast started out in Middle English with the long vowel [\u025b\u02d0], but the Great Vowel Shift, which was well underway when Shakespeare wrote, raised [\u025b\u02d0] to the value it has today, [i\u02d0]. So it would have been pronounced somewhere between these two, maybe as [fe\u02d0st]. Since they were good near-rhymes, it seems unlikely that feast had the vowel it does today. John Donne (1572\u20141631), who wrote his poems at approximately the same time as Shakespeare, rhymed feast with beast four times, and did not rhyme it with anything else. And let his carrion coarse be a longer feast To the Kings dogges, then any other beast. The tables groane, as though this feast Would, as the flood, destroy all fowle and beast. You, and not only you, but all toyl'd beasts Rest duly; at night all their toyles are dispensed; But in their beds commenced Are other labours, and more dainty feasts; So may thy pastures with their flowery feasts, As suddenly as Lard, fat thy leane beasts; However, he rhymes beast with jest and rest, as well as feast. We will not strive with Love that's a shee beaste; But playinge wee are bounde, and yeald in Jest; Can use his horse, goate, wolfe, and every beast, And is not Asse himselfe to all the rest. And looking at what Donne rhymes with guest, we have That they did harbour Christ himself, a Guest, Harbour these Hymns, to his dear name addrest. this bowre vnfit for such a gueste, but since she makes it now her Inn, Would god twere like her sacred breast most fayre without, most rich within. TIS lost, to trust a Tombe with such a guest, Or to confine her in a marble chest. So, of a lone unhaunted place possest, Did this soules second Inne, built by the guest, This living buried man, this quiet mandrake, rest. Looking at what he rhymes with rest, while he does rhyme it with beast, most of the time he rhymes rest with a word like best, blest, breast, devest, digest, possest, protest, west, which we would think of as rhyming in modern English. From this, I would conclude feast did not rhyme with guest in Elizabethan English (at least, the variety that John Donne spoke), but was a good near-rhyme."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nCan the word formatting be used as a noun like in the following sentence: Consider the formatting of this JavaScript code... Or is it a gerund which should be used without an article: Consider formatting of this JavaScript code... Here is the context of the example sentence.","question":"Can the word formatting be used as a noun like in the following sentence: Consider the formatting of this JavaScript code... Or is it a gerund which should be used without an article: Consider formatting of this JavaScript code... Here is the context of the example sentence.","answer":"Yes. Formatting can be used as a noun. In American English, the article signals that that the next word is a noun. Leave out the \"the\" and your sentence becomes an aborted present participle. IOW the phrase \"Consider formatting...\" is in the imperative case\u2014you are ordering the reader to write the code in an alternate way.","output":"Yes. Formatting can be used as a noun. In American English, the article signals that that the next word is a noun. Leave out the \"the\" and your sentence becomes an aborted present participle. IOW the phrase \"Consider formatting...\" is in the imperative case\u2014you are ordering the reader to write the code in an alternate way."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI work in a bank and I have always wondered why our relationship managers, i.e. sales representatives, are commonly referred to as \"the platforms,\" or \"the platform officers.\"","question":"I work in a bank and I have always wondered why our relationship managers, i.e. sales representatives, are commonly referred to as \"the platforms,\" or \"the platform officers.\"","answer":"A platform officer is a banker who advises the public with the bank's accounts and services, and helps arrange them. The term dates back to at least the early 20th century. AllBusiness.com's Business Glossary says: The term platform originated in the period when banking officers sat at desks on a platform slightly elevated above the main banking floor, but today is used to describe the customer service area in a bank's lobby. These officers are also known as platform officers, or as in your bank, platforms for short. Here's a job ad from The Miami News, Feb 13, 1971 showing it's a front-of-house customer-services job: BANK PLATFORM OFFICER A local national bank has immediate need for experienced general banker. To qualify for this position applicants should nave of 5 years experience and be adept at meeting and dealing with public. From the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Jan 23, 1969: Patricia Davis has been promoted to assistant cashier and will serve as a platform officer. The following are Google Books snippets and the years may be wrong but they look plausible. Banking: Journal of the American Bankers Association, Volume 50, Part 2, 1958 PLATFORM OFFICER SERVICE \u2014 Opens new account. Advises as to, and arranges for any service. The Bankers Magazine - Volume 128 - Page viii, 1934: ... bank employee who wonders if he will ever get to be a platform officer, his struggles towards that end notwithstanding. Trust Companies - Volume 67 - Page 25, 1938: ... for direct mail, or armed with letters of introduction from the \"front platform\" officer who \"contacts\" the big loan applicant. Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of St. Paul - Page 533, 1917: ... Expense to be charged to Health Fund Public Paths Account Salary Account: 1 Platform officer at $900.00 per year, ... Annual Report - Page 29, Saint Paul (Minn.). Bureau of Health, \u200eSaint Paul (Minn.). Dept. of Health, \u200eSaint Paul (Minn.). Commissioner of Health - 1915: Watchmen and policemen 1,702.00 Laborers 2.531.92 Carpenter 214.00 Painters 693.87 Concrete inspector 15.00 General superintendent of pavilion 455.00 Three cashiers 312.17 Electrician 490.00 Engineer 272.00 Platform officer 257.50 ...","output":"A platform officer is a banker who advises the public with the bank's accounts and services, and helps arrange them. The term dates back to at least the early 20th century. AllBusiness.com's Business Glossary says: The term platform originated in the period when banking officers sat at desks on a platform slightly elevated above the main banking floor, but today is used to describe the customer service area in a bank's lobby. These officers are also known as platform officers, or as in your bank, platforms for short. Here's a job ad from The Miami News, Feb 13, 1971 showing it's a front-of-house customer-services job: BANK PLATFORM OFFICER A local national bank has immediate need for experienced general banker. To qualify for this position applicants should nave of 5 years experience and be adept at meeting and dealing with public. From the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Jan 23, 1969: Patricia Davis has been promoted to assistant cashier and will serve as a platform officer. The following are Google Books snippets and the years may be wrong but they look plausible. Banking: Journal of the American Bankers Association, Volume 50, Part 2, 1958 PLATFORM OFFICER SERVICE \u2014 Opens new account. Advises as to, and arranges for any service. The Bankers Magazine - Volume 128 - Page viii, 1934: ... bank employee who wonders if he will ever get to be a platform officer, his struggles towards that end notwithstanding. Trust Companies - Volume 67 - Page 25, 1938: ... for direct mail, or armed with letters of introduction from the \"front platform\" officer who \"contacts\" the big loan applicant. Proceedings of the Common Council of the City of St. Paul - Page 533, 1917: ... Expense to be charged to Health Fund Public Paths Account Salary Account: 1 Platform officer at $900.00 per year, ... Annual Report - Page 29, Saint Paul (Minn.). Bureau of Health, \u200eSaint Paul (Minn.). Dept. of Health, \u200eSaint Paul (Minn.). Commissioner of Health - 1915: Watchmen and policemen 1,702.00 Laborers 2.531.92 Carpenter 214.00 Painters 693.87 Concrete inspector 15.00 General superintendent of pavilion 455.00 Three cashiers 312.17 Electrician 490.00 Engineer 272.00 Platform officer 257.50 ..."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nDespite a provoking title, I am looking for a word, phrase or eloquent sentence to describe the process a male performs after taking a piss, that is, shaking off remaining pee off the tip of his penis. I apologize for being vague, and I am sure you're getting the drift.","question":"Despite a provoking title, I am looking for a word, phrase or eloquent sentence to describe the process a male performs after taking a piss, that is, shaking off remaining pee off the tip of his penis. I apologize for being vague, and I am sure you're getting the drift.","answer":"Only word I have ever heard is Shake - as in the well known proverb: No matter how you shake and dance, the last few drops go in your pants","output":"Only word I have ever heard is Shake - as in the well known proverb: No matter how you shake and dance, the last few drops go in your pants"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhat is the word for someone who checks ID cards (to verify a person's age) before permitting entry to an event or venue? Obviously, the word most commonly used in the context of a bar is \"bouncer\", but that seems very specific to bars\/clubs and the word carries its own baggage. What about in non-bar contexts? In San Francisco, the Sundance Kabuki is an upscale movie theater that serves alcohol for some screens, and they have a person checking IDs at a checkpoint. The word \"bouncer\" just sounds wrong to me in that context, but the only alternative I can come up with is \"ID checker\" (which sounds equally odd to me). Is there a better word for the person who does this job?","question":"What is the word for someone who checks ID cards (to verify a person's age) before permitting entry to an event or venue? Obviously, the word most commonly used in the context of a bar is \"bouncer\", but that seems very specific to bars\/clubs and the word carries its own baggage. What about in non-bar contexts? In San Francisco, the Sundance Kabuki is an upscale movie theater that serves alcohol for some screens, and they have a person checking IDs at a checkpoint. The word \"bouncer\" just sounds wrong to me in that context, but the only alternative I can come up with is \"ID checker\" (which sounds equally odd to me). Is there a better word for the person who does this job?","answer":"Doorman : http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Doorman","output":"Doorman : http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Doorman"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWhen I translate an Italian sentence, I often use the \"dummy it\" to keep the same structure of the Italian sentence. For example, translating \u00e8 stato difficile trovare il colpevole, I would say \"it has been difficult to find who is guilty\" instead of \"finding who is guilty has been difficult\" or \"to find who is guilty has been difficult.\" The Italian equivalent of the last sentence is trovare il colpevole \u00e8 stato difficile, which is not different from \u00e8 stato difficile trovare il colpevole. The only difference is that I inverted the order of trovare il colpevole, and \u00e8 stato difficile, and I am probably highlighting the fact it has been difficult. In this case, using it has a purpose. Imagine speaking with somebody that uses a sentence similar to the one I used as example every time a new topic is introduced. Can using a sentence with the same structure of the sentence I used as example be seen as overusing a construct, such as in the case I would keep saying this very moment instead of this moment, or \"I do like it\" instead of \"I like it\"?","question":"When I translate an Italian sentence, I often use the \"dummy it\" to keep the same structure of the Italian sentence. For example, translating \u00e8 stato difficile trovare il colpevole, I would say \"it has been difficult to find who is guilty\" instead of \"finding who is guilty has been difficult\" or \"to find who is guilty has been difficult.\" The Italian equivalent of the last sentence is trovare il colpevole \u00e8 stato difficile, which is not different from \u00e8 stato difficile trovare il colpevole. The only difference is that I inverted the order of trovare il colpevole, and \u00e8 stato difficile, and I am probably highlighting the fact it has been difficult. In this case, using it has a purpose. Imagine speaking with somebody that uses a sentence similar to the one I used as example every time a new topic is introduced. Can using a sentence with the same structure of the sentence I used as example be seen as overusing a construct, such as in the case I would keep saying this very moment instead of this moment, or \"I do like it\" instead of \"I like it\"?","answer":"We can't really say if you're \"overusing\" the dummy it from a single example. But I think it's highly unlikely, because it's such a standard feature of English. Firstly, notice that in the previous sentence, I've used a second pronoun it to reference the initial dummy it. There's nothing unusual about that; we use dummy it all over the place. Secondly, I'd suggest OP's other habits (\"this very moment\", \"I do like it\") aren't really comparable, because they're both emphatic forms. A native speaker is bound to notice if you keep emphasising everything you say, but they're not going to notice if you just happen to use dummy it a lot. EDIT: I can't resist pointing out that in my final sentence above, I could quite reasonably have written \"...they're not going to notice it if you just happen to...\". And adding a useful link describing\/explaining the dummy \"it\" and related sentence structures.","output":"We can't really say if you're \"overusing\" the dummy it from a single example. But I think it's highly unlikely, because it's such a standard feature of English. Firstly, notice that in the previous sentence, I've used a second pronoun it to reference the initial dummy it. There's nothing unusual about that; we use dummy it all over the place. Secondly, I'd suggest OP's other habits (\"this very moment\", \"I do like it\") aren't really comparable, because they're both emphatic forms. A native speaker is bound to notice if you keep emphasising everything you say, but they're not going to notice if you just happen to use dummy it a lot. EDIT: I can't resist pointing out that in my final sentence above, I could quite reasonably have written \"...they're not going to notice it if you just happen to...\". And adding a useful link describing\/explaining the dummy \"it\" and related sentence structures."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nA person who is obsessed with British culture is an Anglophile. Is there a word for a person who is obsessed with American culture (that is, the United States)?","question":"A person who is obsessed with British culture is an Anglophile. Is there a word for a person who is obsessed with American culture (that is, the United States)?","answer":"Americanophile, according to Merriam Webster: a person who greatly admires or favors America or things from American culture The word is also listen in the Oxford Dictionary Online. Attribution:\"Americanophile.\" Merriam-Webster. Accessed April 09, 2018. https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/Americanophile.","output":"Americanophile, according to Merriam Webster: a person who greatly admires or favors America or things from American culture The word is also listen in the Oxford Dictionary Online. Attribution:\"Americanophile.\" Merriam-Webster. Accessed April 09, 2018. https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/Americanophile."}
{"instruction":"Kapan kita menggunakan do dan does?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Do' digunakan untuk subjek I, you, we, they. 'Does' untuk he, she, it."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn contemporary American English, what do you call a person you\u2019ve temporarily forgotten the name of? Let\u2019s suppose the following scenario. What would you use to fill in the blank? Bill: Hey, Jack, do you remember our high school days? Jack: Yea, Bill. Those were the days. Bill: We have a lot of memories together. Jack: Heh\u2014do you remember last year's math teacher? Mr. umm. . . you say his name. . . shoot, I cannot remember his name. . . Mr. ____________ . . . Aha! Mr. Smith. doodah thingy My guess is that only option 1 works here. Is there any other common choice for this concept in AmE? I need to know the most common one.","question":"In contemporary American English, what do you call a person you\u2019ve temporarily forgotten the name of? Let\u2019s suppose the following scenario. What would you use to fill in the blank? Bill: Hey, Jack, do you remember our high school days? Jack: Yea, Bill. Those were the days. Bill: We have a lot of memories together. Jack: Heh\u2014do you remember last year's math teacher? Mr. umm. . . you say his name. . . shoot, I cannot remember his name. . . Mr. ____________ . . . Aha! Mr. Smith. doodah thingy My guess is that only option 1 works here. Is there any other common choice for this concept in AmE? I need to know the most common one.","answer":"I think your examples would be understandable to contemporary speakers of AmE, but they are usually reserved for objects with forgotten identities. That being said, comments and synonyms of the terms below have shown me that there is a lot of carryover from object name placeholders to those for people. This is probably due to the fact that the person\u2019s name itself could function as the forgotten object. Some commonly used alternatives are: what\u2019s-his-name also: what\u2019s-his-face with the same meaning, but more casual\/irreverent These two are very common The phrase is treated almost like one word. When written, the spaces are usually removed or replaced with hyphens. The pronunciation also shifts. The \"h\" becomes silent, the s merges into the next word, and everything flows like one word. The stress is on the first syllable. What'siz-name, what'ser-name, what'siz-face or what'ser-face. who\u2019s-it also: what\u2019s-it (carried over from object name placeholders) Mr. \u2018S\u2019-something Another common tactic is to vocalize whatever scraps of the person\u2019s name you remember, interspersed with instances of the word \u201csomething\u201d for missing parts This can be combined with intentionally unintelligible mumbling, extending the last sound of the portion your remember (Mr. Smmm. . .), or include guesses that you know sound similar to the intended name even though you know they are wrong, such as Mr. Smiley or Mr. Schmidt so-and-so This one doesn\u2019t really fit for your example, but would be used in cases where the speaker doesn\u2019t care what the person\u2019s name is or deems it irrelevant to the statement This has been used as a euphemism for stronger insults in the past, so it is occasionally used these days as a form of quaint derision: You old so-and-so! All of these are informal, and can be humorous in the right context. As for which is the most common, my guess would be what\u2019s-his-face\u2014based solely on my own experience. This is also the least formal option on the list, so maybe it makes sense that I would hear it more than the others during the informal conversations that permeate my informal American life.","output":"I think your examples would be understandable to contemporary speakers of AmE, but they are usually reserved for objects with forgotten identities. That being said, comments and synonyms of the terms below have shown me that there is a lot of carryover from object name placeholders to those for people. This is probably due to the fact that the person\u2019s name itself could function as the forgotten object. Some commonly used alternatives are: what\u2019s-his-name also: what\u2019s-his-face with the same meaning, but more casual\/irreverent These two are very common The phrase is treated almost like one word. When written, the spaces are usually removed or replaced with hyphens. The pronunciation also shifts. The \"h\" becomes silent, the s merges into the next word, and everything flows like one word. The stress is on the first syllable. What'siz-name, what'ser-name, what'siz-face or what'ser-face. who\u2019s-it also: what\u2019s-it (carried over from object name placeholders) Mr. \u2018S\u2019-something Another common tactic is to vocalize whatever scraps of the person\u2019s name you remember, interspersed with instances of the word \u201csomething\u201d for missing parts This can be combined with intentionally unintelligible mumbling, extending the last sound of the portion your remember (Mr. Smmm. . .), or include guesses that you know sound similar to the intended name even though you know they are wrong, such as Mr. Smiley or Mr. Schmidt so-and-so This one doesn\u2019t really fit for your example, but would be used in cases where the speaker doesn\u2019t care what the person\u2019s name is or deems it irrelevant to the statement This has been used as a euphemism for stronger insults in the past, so it is occasionally used these days as a form of quaint derision: You old so-and-so! All of these are informal, and can be humorous in the right context. As for which is the most common, my guess would be what\u2019s-his-face\u2014based solely on my own experience. This is also the least formal option on the list, so maybe it makes sense that I would hear it more than the others during the informal conversations that permeate my informal American life."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have seen the following sentences: Let's see who wins. Why not \"who will win\"? Let it be decided tomorrow who will win. Why not present here, then?","question":"I have seen the following sentences: Let's see who wins. Why not \"who will win\"? Let it be decided tomorrow who will win. Why not present here, then?","answer":"I think that both are possible. I feel that there is a small nuance difference though: Let's see who wins The action is about to take place very soon. Let it be decided tomorrow who will win The action is delayed or postponed (by the speaker).","output":"I think that both are possible. I feel that there is a small nuance difference though: Let's see who wins The action is about to take place very soon. Let it be decided tomorrow who will win The action is delayed or postponed (by the speaker)."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nWould that be correct ? I finished eating at 7:30 AM. = I have eaten at 7:30 AM.","question":"Would that be correct ? I finished eating at 7:30 AM. = I have eaten at 7:30 AM.","answer":"Without further context, \"I have eaten at 7:30 AM\" indicates that at some time in the past, at least once, you have eaten at that time. A statement closer in meaning to your first, and similar in form to your second, would be \"I had eaten by 7:30 AM\", indicating that you had completed the process of stuffing food into your gullet by that time.","output":"Without further context, \"I have eaten at 7:30 AM\" indicates that at some time in the past, at least once, you have eaten at that time. A statement closer in meaning to your first, and similar in form to your second, would be \"I had eaten by 7:30 AM\", indicating that you had completed the process of stuffing food into your gullet by that time."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nMost of us who have gardens* and are fond of nature and animals have outside shelters for them... birdhouse dog house green house cat house? 'Cathouse' seems off to many Americans because of the usage as a slang term for brothel, and will probably draw a snicker or two.. I participate on Pets.SE, and can find only 1 reference to 'cat-house' \"Cattery\" has been suggested on Wikipedia and Quora, but that sounds like a kennel for cats. In other words, similar to an 'aviary'. 'Shelter' sounds like a place for adoption of strays. Is there a less-suggestive word for the house of a single cat, that works like 'doghouse'? SWR:My cat lay comfortably dry inside her ______, watching the rain fall on the patio below her. *My usage of garden here is more the European or Latin-American idea. Garden for Americans often evokes the image of tidy rows of vegetables ripening on the vine and close to hand of the home cook, or a bed of seasonal flowers. By way of contrast, for the rest of the English-speaking world , it usually indicates trees, flowers, bushes, grassy patches, etc. The perfect environment for birds, rodents, and various creepy-crawlies... In other words, paradise for a cat.","question":"Most of us who have gardens* and are fond of nature and animals have outside shelters for them... birdhouse dog house green house cat house? 'Cathouse' seems off to many Americans because of the usage as a slang term for brothel, and will probably draw a snicker or two.. I participate on Pets.SE, and can find only 1 reference to 'cat-house' \"Cattery\" has been suggested on Wikipedia and Quora, but that sounds like a kennel for cats. In other words, similar to an 'aviary'. 'Shelter' sounds like a place for adoption of strays. Is there a less-suggestive word for the house of a single cat, that works like 'doghouse'? SWR:My cat lay comfortably dry inside her ______, watching the rain fall on the patio below her. *My usage of garden here is more the European or Latin-American idea. Garden for Americans often evokes the image of tidy rows of vegetables ripening on the vine and close to hand of the home cook, or a bed of seasonal flowers. By way of contrast, for the rest of the English-speaking world , it usually indicates trees, flowers, bushes, grassy patches, etc. The perfect environment for birds, rodents, and various creepy-crawlies... In other words, paradise for a cat.","answer":"I find plenty of hits on Amazon and other sites for Cat kennel. https:\/\/www.thepetexpress.co.uk\/outdoor-cat-kennels-shelters\/ https:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/s?k=Cat+Kennel&ref=nb_sb_noss_2","output":"I find plenty of hits on Amazon and other sites for Cat kennel. https:\/\/www.thepetexpress.co.uk\/outdoor-cat-kennels-shelters\/ https:\/\/www.amazon.co.uk\/s?k=Cat+Kennel&ref=nb_sb_noss_2"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nImagine two electrical wires have layd over on each other and both of them have some naked parts. Or there is such a situation in a pug or in a socket. It has caused some problems for the connected devices and those electrical equipment. How one can describe such a situation: There is an electrical malfunction with this (plug \/ socket \/ wire). This (plug \/ socket \/ wire) has an electrical malfunction. Which one of the above sentences sound natural to a native speaker?","question":"Imagine two electrical wires have layd over on each other and both of them have some naked parts. Or there is such a situation in a pug or in a socket. It has caused some problems for the connected devices and those electrical equipment. How one can describe such a situation: There is an electrical malfunction with this (plug \/ socket \/ wire). This (plug \/ socket \/ wire) has an electrical malfunction. Which one of the above sentences sound natural to a native speaker?","answer":"Both are grammatically correct, and either could be used to describe the situation you've laid out. However, it's quite a cumbersome turn of phrase, and a more natural way of expressing this might be to use the expression short circuit - an electrical connection made between points in an electric circuit between which current does not normally flow, for example, if the insulation had become worn away in two wires, as you describe. To give an example of usage: There is a short circuit in this plug\/socket\/wire. This plug\/socket\/wire has a short circuit. More informally one might say: This plug\/socket\/wire has shorted out.","output":"Both are grammatically correct, and either could be used to describe the situation you've laid out. However, it's quite a cumbersome turn of phrase, and a more natural way of expressing this might be to use the expression short circuit - an electrical connection made between points in an electric circuit between which current does not normally flow, for example, if the insulation had become worn away in two wires, as you describe. To give an example of usage: There is a short circuit in this plug\/socket\/wire. This plug\/socket\/wire has a short circuit. More informally one might say: This plug\/socket\/wire has shorted out."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHe run fast","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He runs fast"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nEverything is in the question, so I copy\/paste: Das Keyboard Refurbished Professional Model S: what does \"Refurbished\" mean?","question":"Everything is in the question, so I copy\/paste: Das Keyboard Refurbished Professional Model S: what does \"Refurbished\" mean?","answer":"Refurbished means \"returned and\/or used item which the factory has spruced up to like-new condition, or so they would have you believe\". It's different from second-hand in that generally, it comes with a manufacturer's warranty. None of the dictionaries I checked have this meaning \u2014 they only give the more literal \"renovated, restored\" definitions.","output":"Refurbished means \"returned and\/or used item which the factory has spruced up to like-new condition, or so they would have you believe\". It's different from second-hand in that generally, it comes with a manufacturer's warranty. None of the dictionaries I checked have this meaning \u2014 they only give the more literal \"renovated, restored\" definitions."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nHow do you describe the difference between consumable and non-consumable electronic items?","question":"How do you describe the difference between consumable and non-consumable electronic items?","answer":"I'm not sure what the question is. Would you give some examples of where or on what occasions you see the phrase 'consumable\/non-consumable electronic items'? Electronic items are generally considered consumer products , rather than being classified as 'consumable' or 'non-consumable'. If we adopt Webster's definition as quoted by Thursagen, then electronic items are just consumable, as they can be destroyed, used beyond repair or discarded. I don't really recall seeing any electronic item labelled as 'non-consumable'. Some electronic products, e.g. office copier machines, may generally last longer or get replaced less frequently than others, e.g. personal mobile phones. That might give you a sense that personal mobile phones are 'consumable' but copier machines are 'non-consumable', but that's really not the difference between 'consumable' and 'non-consumable'. Also, as Thursagen has pointed out, many accessories of electronic items are 'consumables', for example photo printer paper, catridges and toners, digital camera batteries - but these are not exactly electronic items themselves (maybe except the batteries). So I'm not sure if you're actually referring to the consumable accessories for electronic items when you say 'consumable electronic items'.","output":"I'm not sure what the question is. Would you give some examples of where or on what occasions you see the phrase 'consumable\/non-consumable electronic items'? Electronic items are generally considered consumer products , rather than being classified as 'consumable' or 'non-consumable'. If we adopt Webster's definition as quoted by Thursagen, then electronic items are just consumable, as they can be destroyed, used beyond repair or discarded. I don't really recall seeing any electronic item labelled as 'non-consumable'. Some electronic products, e.g. office copier machines, may generally last longer or get replaced less frequently than others, e.g. personal mobile phones. That might give you a sense that personal mobile phones are 'consumable' but copier machines are 'non-consumable', but that's really not the difference between 'consumable' and 'non-consumable'. Also, as Thursagen has pointed out, many accessories of electronic items are 'consumables', for example photo printer paper, catridges and toners, digital camera batteries - but these are not exactly electronic items themselves (maybe except the batteries). So I'm not sure if you're actually referring to the consumable accessories for electronic items when you say 'consumable electronic items'."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm wondering if it is Sellotape or Cellotape, or anything else(Sello tape or cello tape). I'm talking about the general name of that roll of sticking tape.","question":"I'm wondering if it is Sellotape or Cellotape, or anything else(Sello tape or cello tape). I'm talking about the general name of that roll of sticking tape.","answer":"The brand name is Sellotape. It is commonly written sellotape in places where the name has become genericized (i.e., is no longer an exclusive trademark). Note that not all parts of the English-speaking world use or understand this word; here in the U.S., we say scotch tape (which also originated as a brand name). In fact, I had never heard \"sellotape\" until a few years ago, when an Indian coworker used it, and I had to ask her what she meant by it. (That's also when I realized that the Spello-tape brand in the Harry Potter series of novels is a pun.)","output":"The brand name is Sellotape. It is commonly written sellotape in places where the name has become genericized (i.e., is no longer an exclusive trademark). Note that not all parts of the English-speaking world use or understand this word; here in the U.S., we say scotch tape (which also originated as a brand name). In fact, I had never heard \"sellotape\" until a few years ago, when an Indian coworker used it, and I had to ask her what she meant by it. (That's also when I realized that the Spello-tape brand in the Harry Potter series of novels is a pun.)"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI have two sentences here : The problem is hard to solve The table is too heavy to lift To the best of my knowledge, the former is an example of tough movement, in which the subject in the main clause is the implied object in the infinitival clause. The problem is hard to solve the problem As far as I know, this construction is permitted by the tough adjective (hard). But I yesterday came across the latter sentence (I don't remember where, unfortunately). It sounds fine to me, but I got the urge to rephrase it to The table is too heavy to be lifted because I'm not sure about its grammaticality.I think it's ungrammatical because the adjective heavy is not a tough adjective. More interestingly, the sentence becomes unnatural (and potentially ungrammatical) when the too is omitted. \u2733The table is heavy to lift Does anyone have an explanation about this?","question":"I have two sentences here : The problem is hard to solve The table is too heavy to lift To the best of my knowledge, the former is an example of tough movement, in which the subject in the main clause is the implied object in the infinitival clause. The problem is hard to solve the problem As far as I know, this construction is permitted by the tough adjective (hard). But I yesterday came across the latter sentence (I don't remember where, unfortunately). It sounds fine to me, but I got the urge to rephrase it to The table is too heavy to be lifted because I'm not sure about its grammaticality.I think it's ungrammatical because the adjective heavy is not a tough adjective. More interestingly, the sentence becomes unnatural (and potentially ungrammatical) when the too is omitted. \u2733The table is heavy to lift Does anyone have an explanation about this?","answer":"The term you want is tough, not though, because the linguist who first analyzed the construction used tough as the prototypical adjective. Wikipedia gives a list of 'tough' adjectives which includes hard in the sense \"difficult\": [...] amusing, annoying, awkward, bad, beautiful, beneficial, boring, comfortable, confusing, convenient, cumbersome, dangerous, delightful, depressing, desirable, difficult, dull, easy, educational, embarrassing, essential, excellent, exhausting, expensive, fashionable, fine, fun, good, great, hard, horrible, ideal, illegal, important, impossible, impressive, instructive, interesting, irritating, loathsome, necessary, nice, odd, painful, pleasant, pleasurable, rare, risky, safe, simple, strange, tedious, terrible, tiresome, tough, tricky, unpleasant, useful, and weird. This construction is also possible with noun phrases like a pleasure, a breeze, or a cinch. It is also pointed out at that link that The tough movement construction is similar to but distinct from pretty constructions and adjectives modified by too or enough: These pictures are pretty to look at. Lee's mattress is too lumpy to sleep on. For one, these latter constructions do not allow an alternate form with an unraised object: *It is pretty to look at these pictures. *It is too lumpy to sleep on Lee's mattress. or fronted infinitive: *To look at these pictures is pretty. *To sleep on Lee's mattress is too lumpy. Constructions with too are 'comparatives', where the infinitival is the complement of the 'comparator' too.","output":"The term you want is tough, not though, because the linguist who first analyzed the construction used tough as the prototypical adjective. Wikipedia gives a list of 'tough' adjectives which includes hard in the sense \"difficult\": [...] amusing, annoying, awkward, bad, beautiful, beneficial, boring, comfortable, confusing, convenient, cumbersome, dangerous, delightful, depressing, desirable, difficult, dull, easy, educational, embarrassing, essential, excellent, exhausting, expensive, fashionable, fine, fun, good, great, hard, horrible, ideal, illegal, important, impossible, impressive, instructive, interesting, irritating, loathsome, necessary, nice, odd, painful, pleasant, pleasurable, rare, risky, safe, simple, strange, tedious, terrible, tiresome, tough, tricky, unpleasant, useful, and weird. This construction is also possible with noun phrases like a pleasure, a breeze, or a cinch. It is also pointed out at that link that The tough movement construction is similar to but distinct from pretty constructions and adjectives modified by too or enough: These pictures are pretty to look at. Lee's mattress is too lumpy to sleep on. For one, these latter constructions do not allow an alternate form with an unraised object: *It is pretty to look at these pictures. *It is too lumpy to sleep on Lee's mattress. or fronted infinitive: *To look at these pictures is pretty. *To sleep on Lee's mattress is too lumpy. Constructions with too are 'comparatives', where the infinitival is the complement of the 'comparator' too."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nSentence is \"He was deterred by the thought that not one of his sufferings but was common to all the others and that in a world where sorrow is so often lonely this was an advantage\". I don't understand this 'but' use. I know he wants to say all of his sufferings were common but what exactly is this usage of 'but'. Is it an error? TIA","question":"Sentence is \"He was deterred by the thought that not one of his sufferings but was common to all the others and that in a world where sorrow is so often lonely this was an advantage\". I don't understand this 'but' use. I know he wants to say all of his sufferings were common but what exactly is this usage of 'but'. Is it an error? TIA","answer":"This feels like a strain in the translation. In order to make it work in my mind, I have to process it further: He was deterred by the thought that [there was] not one of his sufferings [except that it] was common to all the others ... That's still rather a precious and poorly put together statement in modern English, but at least now it has a bit more glue holding it together. In plainer words, it means There existed not a single one of his sufferings that was not like all the others. and, even plainer: All his problems were more or less the same. This relies on the use of but meaning except that: but conj 4. With the exception that; except that. Often used with that: would have joined the band but he couldn't spare the time; would have resisted but that they lacked courage. TFD Online","output":"This feels like a strain in the translation. In order to make it work in my mind, I have to process it further: He was deterred by the thought that [there was] not one of his sufferings [except that it] was common to all the others ... That's still rather a precious and poorly put together statement in modern English, but at least now it has a bit more glue holding it together. In plainer words, it means There existed not a single one of his sufferings that was not like all the others. and, even plainer: All his problems were more or less the same. This relies on the use of but meaning except that: but conj 4. With the exception that; except that. Often used with that: would have joined the band but he couldn't spare the time; would have resisted but that they lacked courage. TFD Online"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI'm looking for the word to call a person that works in the registration counter for an audition. Their job scopes are to confirm the auditees' attendance, double check if they need special requirements from the organiser for the audition. Can anyone help me with this please?","question":"I'm looking for the word to call a person that works in the registration counter for an audition. Their job scopes are to confirm the auditees' attendance, double check if they need special requirements from the organiser for the audition. Can anyone help me with this please?","answer":"I'm not sure what sort of audition you're going to but I worked for a casting director for commercials and films and I was that person. My official title was \"assistant\" as in \"casting assistant\". Quite often, we'd give this job to our interns, too... For us, there was no one \"right\" name for this person as it could likely be anyone within the casting company. Also remember that this person likely does much more than only check people in and make sure they have their headshots and scripts etc... for me, I also helped create the schedules, interacted with agents to book or request talent to attend casting calls, wrote press releases... my duties depended on the day of the week and whether we held a casting session that day. If you really need to call them something, call them an \"assistant\". Yes, it's generic but, even for our interns, the term fits.","output":"I'm not sure what sort of audition you're going to but I worked for a casting director for commercials and films and I was that person. My official title was \"assistant\" as in \"casting assistant\". Quite often, we'd give this job to our interns, too... For us, there was no one \"right\" name for this person as it could likely be anyone within the casting company. Also remember that this person likely does much more than only check people in and make sure they have their headshots and scripts etc... for me, I also helped create the schedules, interacted with agents to book or request talent to attend casting calls, wrote press releases... my duties depended on the day of the week and whether we held a casting session that day. If you really need to call them something, call them an \"assistant\". Yes, it's generic but, even for our interns, the term fits."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nWe has a car","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"We have a car"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nShe eats lunch","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She does not eat lunch"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu noun?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Noun adalah kata benda seperti orang, tempat, atau benda. Contoh: book, teacher, city."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu simple past tense?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Simple past tense digunakan untuk menyatakan kejadian yang terjadi dan selesai di masa lalu. Contoh: I ate lunch yesterday."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIt just occurred to me that in English, when we use what Spanish would refer to as the \"imperfect tense\", we are actually adding a mode of termination to the action. Whereas in Spanish, there is no termination of time. For example I used to eat pennies When you hear this phrase, most people interpret it as, ... you don't still eat pennies. Sure, someone might be inclined to ask them, \"Do you still eat pennies?\" But, the speaker used the \"imperfect\" tense for a reason, and that was to indicate that they don't still eat pennies. In Spanish, it would read Yo com\u00eda centavos This has three interpretations. I used to eat pennies I was eating pennies I ate pennies But, the spanish sentence is not complete without context. Without another action or state, no one reading that sentence would know when, where, why, who, etc... In order to have the sentence make sense, you would need to add this missing context Yo com\u00eda centavos cuando era joven I used to eat pennies when I was young A better example of this anomaly being demonstrated is in a quote by Mitch Hedburg. I used to do drugs; I still do, but I used to too. He extends and negates the \"termination\" of doing drugs into the present, simply by saying \"I still do\". What I'm getting at is that, in English, we can get away without adding context, and when that context is absent, it implies termination. Examples: I used to run in the park He used to pick his nose They used to beat me You used to swim naked These all imply that the action is not happening anymore. It's almost as if the English version of the imperfect tense is... ditransitive? I believe this question has been addressed before, but I feel as though I needed to gather more insight to what is going on. Why is our imperfect so... non-existent? English translation of Spanish imperfect tenses","question":"It just occurred to me that in English, when we use what Spanish would refer to as the \"imperfect tense\", we are actually adding a mode of termination to the action. Whereas in Spanish, there is no termination of time. For example I used to eat pennies When you hear this phrase, most people interpret it as, ... you don't still eat pennies. Sure, someone might be inclined to ask them, \"Do you still eat pennies?\" But, the speaker used the \"imperfect\" tense for a reason, and that was to indicate that they don't still eat pennies. In Spanish, it would read Yo com\u00eda centavos This has three interpretations. I used to eat pennies I was eating pennies I ate pennies But, the spanish sentence is not complete without context. Without another action or state, no one reading that sentence would know when, where, why, who, etc... In order to have the sentence make sense, you would need to add this missing context Yo com\u00eda centavos cuando era joven I used to eat pennies when I was young A better example of this anomaly being demonstrated is in a quote by Mitch Hedburg. I used to do drugs; I still do, but I used to too. He extends and negates the \"termination\" of doing drugs into the present, simply by saying \"I still do\". What I'm getting at is that, in English, we can get away without adding context, and when that context is absent, it implies termination. Examples: I used to run in the park He used to pick his nose They used to beat me You used to swim naked These all imply that the action is not happening anymore. It's almost as if the English version of the imperfect tense is... ditransitive? I believe this question has been addressed before, but I feel as though I needed to gather more insight to what is going on. Why is our imperfect so... non-existent? English translation of Spanish imperfect tenses","answer":"The technical term for the default aspect expressed by the English \"past tense\" is perfective\u2014it expresses an action seen from the outside, as a whole. As you say, it implies that the action is \"terminated\", complete. That's why we never call this English verbform \"imperfect\". Imperfectivity is expressed in English with the progressive (continuous) construction BE + VERBing. HOWEVER\u2014 Stative verbs\u2014verbs like know, love, which express a state rather an action or event\u2014may be used in the past form with an imperfective sense, because a state is assumed to persist until it is explicitly terminated. John knew English. John loved Anne. And activity verbs\u2014verbs like run, study which express an action which has no endpoint 'built in' to its sense\u2014may be used in the past form with an imperfective sense in narrative sequence; in this case the verb is 'recategorized' as an inchoative, a verb which expresses the beginning of an activity. Jack charged. John fled. Jack followed. And telic verbs\u2014those which do have built in endpoints, like fall, or eat with a Direct Object\u2014may be used in the past form with an imperfective sense in contexts where the action can be understood as repeated or habitual. I ate pennies when I was young. I fell whenever I tried to catch that pig.","output":"The technical term for the default aspect expressed by the English \"past tense\" is perfective\u2014it expresses an action seen from the outside, as a whole. As you say, it implies that the action is \"terminated\", complete. That's why we never call this English verbform \"imperfect\". Imperfectivity is expressed in English with the progressive (continuous) construction BE + VERBing. HOWEVER\u2014 Stative verbs\u2014verbs like know, love, which express a state rather an action or event\u2014may be used in the past form with an imperfective sense, because a state is assumed to persist until it is explicitly terminated. John knew English. John loved Anne. And activity verbs\u2014verbs like run, study which express an action which has no endpoint 'built in' to its sense\u2014may be used in the past form with an imperfective sense in narrative sequence; in this case the verb is 'recategorized' as an inchoative, a verb which expresses the beginning of an activity. Jack charged. John fled. Jack followed. And telic verbs\u2014those which do have built in endpoints, like fall, or eat with a Direct Object\u2014may be used in the past form with an imperfective sense in contexts where the action can be understood as repeated or habitual. I ate pennies when I was young. I fell whenever I tried to catch that pig."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nI can't recall that phrasal verb and I'm upset. It's like a 's**** away' phrasal verb. Also, if I've got it right, it means to work hard, but it's not slave away. Anyone?","question":"I can't recall that phrasal verb and I'm upset. It's like a 's**** away' phrasal verb. Also, if I've got it right, it means to work hard, but it's not slave away. Anyone?","answer":"It might possibly be slog away (at)","output":"It might possibly be slog away (at)"}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn my office everyone uses \"Please find enclosed the attachment\" in emails. I can't digest the \"the\" between \"enclosed\" and \"attachment\". Is the sentence grammatical?","question":"In my office everyone uses \"Please find enclosed the attachment\" in emails. I can't digest the \"the\" between \"enclosed\" and \"attachment\". Is the sentence grammatical?","answer":"As both Greg and Colin point out, there is nothing in this sentence that violates any of the grammatical principles English sentences must adhere to. There is, however, something that make it violate certain semantic requirements for well-formed sentences. The definite article has two basic uses (very roughly generalised): It is used to describe certain things that are uniquely named or specified, or to a class of another class. For example, \u2018the definite article\u2019 is a unique specification, as it refers not just to any article that happens to be definite (\u2018a definite article\u2019 works for that), but to the specific grammatical element the in the English language. When used with words that are not uniquely specified, it is used only when the noun it determines is defined and identifiable to the listener in the discourse that is currently taking place. When something has already been established in the context, a definite article may (and in many cases must) be used; if it is introduced to the discourse for the first time and no prior framework for it exists, a definite article cannot be used. Now in your example, \u201cthe attachment\u201d is not a uniquely specified thing\u2014there is no specific thing \u2018named\u2019 The Attachment, so to speak. Therefore, in order to merit the definite article, the discourse\/context must already have made it clear what attachment we are talking about. If this has been done, your sentence is fine, but it requires a specific kind of scenario; for example: Jane sent me an e-mail with some huge file attached this morning. I don\u2019t know what it was, but something must have been wrong somewhere, \u2019cause the attachment made my entire computer crash when I tried to open it. When writing an e-mail, though, \u2018attachment\u2019 is a very vague word. It tells you that a file of some sort is being sent along, but it does not mention what file it is, nor what is contained in that file. Therefore, a scenario like the above is not very likely\u2014when we receive something as an attachment, we tend to prefer to call the thing we\u2019ve received by its proper name\/description, rather than just calling it \u2018the attachment\u2019. As such, we rarely find ourselves defining \u2018attachment\u2019 in a discourse. As such, saying merely, \u201cPlease find enclosed the attachment\u201d will sound very strange to most people. The immediate reaction is, \u201cWhat attachment?\u201d\u2014not because we don\u2019t know how to look for an attachment to an e-mail, but because the definite article makes us immediately think that this is something that should be familiar to me. If you have not just defined \u2018an attachment\u2019 in the previous text, people won\u2019t know what attachment you are talking about. Of course, changing the wording to using an indefinite article (appropriate when introducing a new thing to the discourse) won\u2019t work either: if you say, \u201cPlease find enclosed an attachment\u201d, people are just going to wonder if you do not even know what attachment you are sending along. The best way to solve this is to tell people what you are sending along. This is, in fact, common practice in English\u2014as Colin\u2019s example amply illustrates. Also, you should note that \u2018enclose\u2019 and \u2018attach\u2019 basically mean the same thing. The only difference between them is that \u2018attach\u2019 is used only for electronic communication, while \u2018enclose\u2019 is used mostly for non-electronic communication (where enclosing something actually means physically enclosing it inside the envelope). Using both together is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. It is therefore more common to write in an e-mail, \u201cPlease find attached [something or other]\u201d, rather than, \u201cPlease find enclosed [something] as attachment\u201d. So if you are sending an agenda for a meeting, for example, simply write: Please find attached the agenda for the meeting.","output":"As both Greg and Colin point out, there is nothing in this sentence that violates any of the grammatical principles English sentences must adhere to. There is, however, something that make it violate certain semantic requirements for well-formed sentences. The definite article has two basic uses (very roughly generalised): It is used to describe certain things that are uniquely named or specified, or to a class of another class. For example, \u2018the definite article\u2019 is a unique specification, as it refers not just to any article that happens to be definite (\u2018a definite article\u2019 works for that), but to the specific grammatical element the in the English language. When used with words that are not uniquely specified, it is used only when the noun it determines is defined and identifiable to the listener in the discourse that is currently taking place. When something has already been established in the context, a definite article may (and in many cases must) be used; if it is introduced to the discourse for the first time and no prior framework for it exists, a definite article cannot be used. Now in your example, \u201cthe attachment\u201d is not a uniquely specified thing\u2014there is no specific thing \u2018named\u2019 The Attachment, so to speak. Therefore, in order to merit the definite article, the discourse\/context must already have made it clear what attachment we are talking about. If this has been done, your sentence is fine, but it requires a specific kind of scenario; for example: Jane sent me an e-mail with some huge file attached this morning. I don\u2019t know what it was, but something must have been wrong somewhere, \u2019cause the attachment made my entire computer crash when I tried to open it. When writing an e-mail, though, \u2018attachment\u2019 is a very vague word. It tells you that a file of some sort is being sent along, but it does not mention what file it is, nor what is contained in that file. Therefore, a scenario like the above is not very likely\u2014when we receive something as an attachment, we tend to prefer to call the thing we\u2019ve received by its proper name\/description, rather than just calling it \u2018the attachment\u2019. As such, we rarely find ourselves defining \u2018attachment\u2019 in a discourse. As such, saying merely, \u201cPlease find enclosed the attachment\u201d will sound very strange to most people. The immediate reaction is, \u201cWhat attachment?\u201d\u2014not because we don\u2019t know how to look for an attachment to an e-mail, but because the definite article makes us immediately think that this is something that should be familiar to me. If you have not just defined \u2018an attachment\u2019 in the previous text, people won\u2019t know what attachment you are talking about. Of course, changing the wording to using an indefinite article (appropriate when introducing a new thing to the discourse) won\u2019t work either: if you say, \u201cPlease find enclosed an attachment\u201d, people are just going to wonder if you do not even know what attachment you are sending along. The best way to solve this is to tell people what you are sending along. This is, in fact, common practice in English\u2014as Colin\u2019s example amply illustrates. Also, you should note that \u2018enclose\u2019 and \u2018attach\u2019 basically mean the same thing. The only difference between them is that \u2018attach\u2019 is used only for electronic communication, while \u2018enclose\u2019 is used mostly for non-electronic communication (where enclosing something actually means physically enclosing it inside the envelope). Using both together is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. It is therefore more common to write in an e-mail, \u201cPlease find attached [something or other]\u201d, rather than, \u201cPlease find enclosed [something] as attachment\u201d. So if you are sending an agenda for a meeting, for example, simply write: Please find attached the agenda for the meeting."}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk negatif:\n\nHe plays football","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"He does not play football"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Ubah kalimat berikut ke bentuk lampau:\n\nShe takes a bus","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"She took a bus"}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIs there any specific term to describe a person who is a follower inherently because of his\/her weak personality and in any discussion, debate or disagreement tries to find a leader or a majority to follow against someone with a different idea? For example, one of my Persian friends via email described his friend using these words: She doesn't follow her own rules and doesn't have any special idea about different matters even her own field study but tries to follow the majority or a leader even if that majority or the leader are wrong according to ideas of just experts who are not in the group and have no benefit to take one side and leave alone the opposite side. She wants to take advantages by this and becomes a popular face of the year in the community because unfortunately no body seems like her even after one year hard attempts in protecting the community! Such a pity! We have sort of appropriate Persian terms equal to this description, but I couldn't find the best term in English for it. Could you please give me your best suggestions?","question":"Is there any specific term to describe a person who is a follower inherently because of his\/her weak personality and in any discussion, debate or disagreement tries to find a leader or a majority to follow against someone with a different idea? For example, one of my Persian friends via email described his friend using these words: She doesn't follow her own rules and doesn't have any special idea about different matters even her own field study but tries to follow the majority or a leader even if that majority or the leader are wrong according to ideas of just experts who are not in the group and have no benefit to take one side and leave alone the opposite side. She wants to take advantages by this and becomes a popular face of the year in the community because unfortunately no body seems like her even after one year hard attempts in protecting the community! Such a pity! We have sort of appropriate Persian terms equal to this description, but I couldn't find the best term in English for it. Could you please give me your best suggestions?","answer":"I would say there are at least three sets of words that would qualify. People are sheep when they follow the herd of majority opinion or taste regardless of their own judgment or interest, being unwilling or unable to take an independent position. A related slang term is sheeple (combining sheep and people). If they follow a single person or cause slavishly, with regard neither to wider opinion nor to their own reason, they are flunkies, minions, lackeys, pawns, or stooges. If behaving sycophantically in order to improve their own social position, they are bootlickers, brown-nosers, apple-polishers, toadies, or butt-kissers as well.","output":"I would say there are at least three sets of words that would qualify. People are sheep when they follow the herd of majority opinion or taste regardless of their own judgment or interest, being unwilling or unable to take an independent position. A related slang term is sheeple (combining sheep and people). If they follow a single person or cause slavishly, with regard neither to wider opinion nor to their own reason, they are flunkies, minions, lackeys, pawns, or stooges. If behaving sycophantically in order to improve their own social position, they are bootlickers, brown-nosers, apple-polishers, toadies, or butt-kissers as well."}
{"instruction":"Apa itu verb?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"Verb adalah kata kerja yang menunjukkan tindakan atau keadaan. Contoh: run, eat, is."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nThere are lots of definitions for MM, but which one is used in the following two sentences? 25MM+ people (+14x Y\/Y) use Duolingo app to learn new language 12MM+ teachers \/ students \/ parents (+15x Y\/Y) use Remind101 to send 500MM+ messages","question":"There are lots of definitions for MM, but which one is used in the following two sentences? 25MM+ people (+14x Y\/Y) use Duolingo app to learn new language 12MM+ teachers \/ students \/ parents (+15x Y\/Y) use Remind101 to send 500MM+ messages","answer":"MM is an abbreviation for \"million\", short for \"mille mille\", or 1000 \u00d7 1000. Encyclopaedia of pure mathematics, by Barlow, Peacock, et al., p. 426: (99.) It has been from a very early period the custom of writers on Arithmetic to separate numbers into periods of three and six, as the numeration in most European languages must proceed by thousands and millions; these periods are called membres by Stevinus, amongst whose definitions we find the following: \u2026. Instead of million, he says, mille mille; for a thousand millions, he uses mille mille mille; and for a billion, mille mille mille mille, and so on for higher numbers.","output":"MM is an abbreviation for \"million\", short for \"mille mille\", or 1000 \u00d7 1000. Encyclopaedia of pure mathematics, by Barlow, Peacock, et al., p. 426: (99.) It has been from a very early period the custom of writers on Arithmetic to separate numbers into periods of three and six, as the numeration in most European languages must proceed by thousands and millions; these periods are called membres by Stevinus, amongst whose definitions we find the following: \u2026. Instead of million, he says, mille mille; for a thousand millions, he uses mille mille mille; and for a billion, mille mille mille mille, and so on for higher numbers."}
{"instruction":"Apa perbedaan antara is, am, dan are?","question":null,"answer":null,"output":"'Is' digunakan untuk he, she, it. 'Am' untuk I. 'Are' untuk you, we, they."}
{"instruction":"Perbaiki kalimat berikut:\n\nIn The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies there is a passage referring to the memories of a character who is, essentially, crazy and I can't tell whether or not the term \"blue mouth\" is literal or if it has some figurative meaning: She hasn't any idea of the past, except for horrible mixed-up memories of being tied up, and Paul disappearing, and Amasa -- she always remembers him with a blue mouth, like a rotten hole in his face-- telling God he forgave her for ruining his life. I'm confident the urban dictionary definition isn't applicable here, but don't know if anything else fits. The story takes place in Canada circa 1920's.","question":"In The Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies there is a passage referring to the memories of a character who is, essentially, crazy and I can't tell whether or not the term \"blue mouth\" is literal or if it has some figurative meaning: She hasn't any idea of the past, except for horrible mixed-up memories of being tied up, and Paul disappearing, and Amasa -- she always remembers him with a blue mouth, like a rotten hole in his face-- telling God he forgave her for ruining his life. I'm confident the urban dictionary definition isn't applicable here, but don't know if anything else fits. The story takes place in Canada circa 1920's.","answer":"THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE OP'S QUESTION. EDIT: Below is the idiomatic meaning of \"blue mouth\". As a user kindly pointed out, in the OP's excerpt of the story, the real meaning is not the one which I had originally thought. A blue mouth is someone who swears and\/or talks \"dirty\" sometimes using words of a strong sexual nature. In fact, the word blue was used in the past to talk about pornographic films; a blue movie. See under Thesaurus Adj. Free Dictionary 4. blue - characterized by profanity or cursing; \"foul-mouthed and blasphemous\"; \"blue language\"; \"profane words\" profane, blasphemous dirty - (of behavior or especially language) characterized by obscenity or indecency; \"dirty words\"; \"has a dirty mouth\" [...] 5. blue - suggestive of sexual impropriety; \"a blue movie\"; \"blue jokes\"; \"naughty words\"; \"a risque story\"; naughty, risque, spicy, racy, juicy sexy - marked by or tending to arouse sexual desire or interest; [...]","output":"THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE OP'S QUESTION. EDIT: Below is the idiomatic meaning of \"blue mouth\". As a user kindly pointed out, in the OP's excerpt of the story, the real meaning is not the one which I had originally thought. A blue mouth is someone who swears and\/or talks \"dirty\" sometimes using words of a strong sexual nature. In fact, the word blue was used in the past to talk about pornographic films; a blue movie. See under Thesaurus Adj. Free Dictionary 4. blue - characterized by profanity or cursing; \"foul-mouthed and blasphemous\"; \"blue language\"; \"profane words\" profane, blasphemous dirty - (of behavior or especially language) characterized by obscenity or indecency; \"dirty words\"; \"has a dirty mouth\" [...] 5. blue - suggestive of sexual impropriety; \"a blue movie\"; \"blue jokes\"; \"naughty words\"; \"a risque story\"; naughty, risque, spicy, racy, juicy sexy - marked by or tending to arouse sexual desire or interest; [...]"}